Blood on the streets

Why is the LCC site red and not hi-vis yellow?

It's almost like they don't want us to be able to see things.

^ i agree, that "safer cycling" box also needs to be reflective or it's only got itself to blame when some blind cunt can't see it and ploughs into an internet forum full of people, ranting like a loon about how it really wasn't helping itself.

Meanwhile back in the real world, the "current" Commissioner of the Met Police has joined the game

"The Commissioner, who has a chauffeur to drive him across London"

So, he's totally in the real world then..

He's also made it sound like people who ride bikes are all too poor to afford cars. Oh dear.

Well, maybe chauffeur-driven cars.

The lot of the proles really is heartbreaking, isn't it?

Is a prole like a mole or a vole? Surely, not a Pole? Not on the dole? How droll.

Prole is like a pleb

I agree, giving all that prominence to the 'safety' issue tends to reinforce the misconception that cycling is much more dangerous than other activities such as walking. It is difficult as we mourn over yet another lorry death.

Is a prole like a mole or a vole? Surely, not a Pole? Not on the dole? How droll.

Riding a lo-prole, obviously

I am not sure what I detest more... victim blaming or the fact that a significant number of cyclists seem unable to accept that they have to take some responsibility for their own safety.

It is 100% the responsibility of car drivers not to hit cyclists under any circumstances (utterly insane cycling or deliberately suicidal cycling excepted).

That does not mean that it is 0% the responsibility of cyclists to ensure that they are not hit by a car.

Ok I'll bite: who said 0% (other than you)? Cyclist who use lights are responsible. Cyclists who ride with the flow of traffic sensibly are being responsible (not holding it up for longer than necessary to be safe). Cyclists who look before going through junctions are responsible.

You see the point I'm making? Boris and the trolls [ed: good band name!] want to re-direct the conversation away from infrastructure to 'personal responsibility' because that's a fuck of a lot cheaper for TFL and the Mayor's office to discuss and "implement" and takes the heat off of the fact they have under invested hugely in cycling in London. I agree, cycle training is important etc al, but let me set a theoretical scenario for you to prove my point:

I'm heading West to East down Uxbridge Road because I live in Ealing Village or whatever because I am posh. I want to cycle to Holland Park Station to meet my posh cousin for 9:30 on a Tuesday morning because he's just fallen out with his interior designer again. How am I supposed to 'responsibly' cycle down the bus clogged Shepherds Bush Green and then 'responsibly' cycle around Shepherds Bush roundabout and up to the station? There is a cycle bypass somewhere I think but it takes me to the south side of Holland Park Ave and that's confusing mess of one way streets, some with bike lanes, some without, some of which allow cyclists both ways, some which don't. One option is terribly convoluted (and not necessarily safe as I still have to cross Holland Road maybe without the help of a traffic light) and the other is very possibly outright dangerous. So which way do I go?

So do you see how in a very simple scenario there is an absolute limit to 'personal responsibility' when faced with completely unfriendly cycle system? How does anyone 'responsibly' cycle around a four-lane roundabout? You don't do it responsibly; you do it carefully and with serious caution. Don't conflate an irresponsible cyclist (eg riding on the pavement) with a cyclist who is often faced with a bad choice, a worse choice and a life-threatening choice.

Everything Jeez says

Troll scream!! - YouTube

Ok I'll bite:

y u do dis

Johnson's second term in city hall often resembles a sort of laissez-faire zoo, over-stocked with backbiters, cronies and cranks. Expecting a bold "liveable streets" approach from it is like asking a skunk to smell sweet.

Ok I'll bite: who said 0% (other than you)?

Classic strawman/Aunt Sally debating tactic. Create your own counter-argument which resembles the other side's argument except it doesn't make sense, then proceed to demolish it with ease, and then claim victory. It's a tried and trusted technique for persuading idiots you've won an argument.

It's also classic troll behaviour. Trolls feed on reasoned debate, and after digesting it, turn it into drippy-brain cock-waffle. The best bit, for a troll, is that you can start a pseudo-argument over the most inoffensive of statements, e.g.

Non-troll: I like the colour blue.
Troll: What about people who like red? Don't they have the right to an opinion?
Non-troll: Look, all I said was that I like blue.
Troll: I can't believe you can be so arrogant as to simply dismiss the views of people who like the colour red, or yellow.
Non-troll: I don't think I'm being arrogant, I just like the colour blue.
Troll: Oh, so you've not only arrogant, you're either stupid or in denial

etc. etc. etc.

It's a completely futile exercise, of course, since the troll is in reality arguing with him or herself. However, it gives the troll an excuse to get all shouty-shouty on the Internet, so job done.

from Idiot's posting of this article

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/22/london-cyclists-road-safety-boris-johnson

"Johnson may be the "cycling mayor" who's introduced a hire scheme, but the policies of his predecessor Ken Livingstone (who would have introduced one too) helped cyclists and pedestrians in ways Johnson has eschewed. Transport professor David Beggs has described Livingstone as a trailblazer who "believed in a roads hierarchy which prioritised pedestrians, cyclists and buses in that order", and "presided over a modal shift from car to public transport, walking and cycling which was unrivalled worldwide". Road-pricing – the congestion charge – was central to Livingstone's approach, as were "public realm" reforms such as the remodelling of Trafalgar Square.

Under Livingstone the car went down the pecking order, to the benefit of everyone else. Johnson, by contrast, has halved the congestion charge zone, dumped or declined to embrace pedestrianisation, produced no significant plans for expanding the bus service, dismantled the modal hierarchy and made a priority of "smoothing traffic flow" – code for helping cars get around the place faster. Rallying his troops before last year's mayoral election campaign he called his opponents "car-hating". For "good old Boris" motorist umbrage has been a source of votes. His recent "cycling vision" has excited some campaigners, not least for pledging to "go Dutch" with some segregated lanes. But it remains to be seen how much of the vision will live up to the PR."

I always wondered how much Boris Johnson actually had to do with the hire scheme and the superhighways and how much more could have been done with Ken Livingstone sat in the mayoral throne. And it still irks, that it feels like the majority of people who voted for Boris, were really voting against Livingstone, and whether you liked him or not, it felt like there was at least some thought and coherence behind Ken's policies. And the first paragraph above seems to make that evident.

.

I always wondered how much Boris Johnson actually had to do with the hire scheme and the superhighways and how much more could have been done with Ken Livingstone sat in the mayoral throne.

Both were Livingston's plans not Johnson's. And Livingstone had advice and support from the Green party (Jenny Jones)

Both proposals were worked up by the Commissioner's Policy Unit at the time (at TfL). The third proposal was what is now being branded as 'Mini-Hollands', i.e. improving Outer London town centres. Johnson ignored this third proposal for years and it has only just been given a new lease of life. He also dumped one proposal for improving walking, then called 'Streets of Gold' and only kept (some of) the 'Legible London' initiative (a wayfinding system). Finally, he of course cancelled the LCN+ in 2008. This is now (sort of) back with some of the proposals that Andrew Gilligan is working on, under 'quietways'.

In the last few days there has been loads of police/communtiy support folks out at the junctions on my route, mainly aldgate, through clerkenwell and up to euston.

I have only seen them talking to cyclists and have watched in dismay as cars rushed through yellow lights, stopped in yellow boxes and stopped in the blue cycle boxes.

This morning, at aldgate junction a police officer warned a cyclist next to me about being on the pavement to get around a stationary car, fair enough, but me and another cyclist pointed out that the car, right in front of him was sitting in the blue box! He just shrugged and said that the lights had changed on them

a. I feel "having the lights change on you" is not really a valid excuse for driving though red lights, I could say the lights changed on me to justify running every light! Lights change! Thats the point!

b. The traffic was moving so slowly through that junction there is no way he didn't have ample time to stop.

the policeman wouldn't have it and didn't give a shit.

I see a lot of idiots on bikes doing idiot stuff day in day out on my route and some police presence is prob a good thing, but the recent response has been so blinkered and anti cyclist its really worrying

This morning, at aldgate junction a police officer warned a cyclist next to me about being on the pavement to get around a stationary car, fair enough, but me and another cyclist pointed out that the car, right in front of him was sitting in the blue box! He just shrugged and said that the lights had changed on them

a. I feel "having the lights change on you" is not really a valid excuse for driving though red lights, I could say the lights changed on me to justify running every light! Lights change! Thats the point!

b. The traffic was moving so slowly through that junction there is no way he didn't have ample time to stop.

It may be as you suspect, but what the officer was saying was that he observed that no offence was committed. Drivers can't be fined for encroaching on an ASL while the stop line is inactive, i.e. while the lights are green for them. Note that slower-moving traffic actually makes it quite likely that the driver had to stop in the box when the lights changed on the slow-moving queue.

Don't waste too much time worrying about ASL box enforcement. A lot of bike riders try to use it as some kind of incentive for a 'tit for tat' approach to enforcement--i.e., if they start to enforce riders, we have to have something that they enforce in driver behaviour. ASL boxes are virtually trivial and a distraction from the really problematic issues that ought to be enforced, particularly speeding, the fact that a lot of drivers also jump red lights, etc.

Here's an idea that would take a minor legislative change but might be very educational for bad drivers:

Reach 3 points on your licence, get a one week ban
Reach 6 points on your licence, get a two week ban
Reach 9 points on your licence, get a four week ban
Reach 12 points - get a ban as currently - I suggest a minimum of 1 year.

I suggest this so that people who commit traffic offences are reminded a) that driving is a privilege, and b) give them an taste of what a ban will be like if they don't make more effort to drive well.

"Haardship youronor"

:'-(

Both were Livingston's plans not Johnson's.

As was the "bendy bus".

I’m dying to go to London
...
(not my own work but worth a share)

Really like that. Where is it from, and can I nick it?

Really like that. Where is it from, and can I nick it?

(not my own work but worth a share)

Already nicked

The worrying thing is that there appears to be a slowing of cycling growth in London (Gilligan wrote this just before he was appointed Cycling Commissioner). We need to await the Travel in London Report 6, which should come out in the next few weeks, for confirmation or denial of this change in trend.

Gilligan mentioned this at the Hackney Cycling Conference, he's obviously concerned about the numbers. It's difficult. I don't think cycling is inherently dangerous, but if I am asked to agree that speeding up traffic (this is what 'smoothing flows' means) and cutting enforcement of road traffic law is going to have no effect on road casualties, I obviously have to disagree, which means I think cycling has become less safe under Boris, so I am bound to say so.