London Assembly urges next mayor to support cycling

Consultation and engagement is a fine part of the democratic process we are fortunate to have in place in this country. Consultation does not however extended to validating fatuous objections as part of the process. For example, the suggestion that our infrastructure is designed for "tour de france" style cycling betrays both an ignorance of the Tour de France and of utility cycling. It's the sort of hyperbole that the ignorant have deployed to obstruct change throughout time. This sort of stupidity should be politely set aside once and not returned to again pointing the objectors in the direction of addressing their uniformed prejudices before attempting to constructively engage with the consultation process. It really isn't difficult as Tfl themselves have vast amounts of data on the real dangers on our roads and it isn't cyclists.

I think the basic question is whether those who proposed the amendment want to hold cycling infrastructure to a different public consultation standard to other transport projects.

I've experienced a share of the vocal opposition that cycling projects often encounter, and it's rarely reasoned or reasonable.  The current opposition to the proposed Crossrail 2 railway station on the Kings Rd in Chelsea is an interesting parallel.

A very vocal group of locals, with a sprinkling of celebrities is strongly opposing the project, though it looks as though the majority of business and residents strongly support it. As I've found before with cycling, the group has little interest in negotiation, they simply want it to go away. Naturally, the level of hyperbole in describing their reasons for opposing it, has become somewhat dramatic.

So the question is, if they are a minority  should they be able to delay the project or even block it against the wishes of the majority? How is that different to what we want for consultations on cycling infrastructure?

Also, the consultations are just that, consultations, not referendums (referenda ?)

A lot of the "anti" comments on consultation can be from fruitloops who say the cycle scheme will lead to terrorist attacks or is dangerous because of unexploded bombs (actual comments about the Kingston scheme...) or people who simply don't want cycle schemes but offer no constructive alternatives.

The point is that any scheme that actually changes something will inevitably attract criticism from people who simply don't want any change.   You can't bring all of the population along with you for schemes that actually change things and if a scheme doesn't change anything, then it is pointless anyway.

I meant that the implications of the ammendment would be that the cycling programme would be delayed or watered down.  It was probably an incorrect use of the word "filibuster".  

I agree you should be taking people with you.  But the sentiment of the ammendment could be read in many ways, call me cynical but I can very easily read it as a delaying tactic, although I appreciate that you are saying otherwise.  

Filibusters aren't possible on the London Assembly as we have timed speeches.  My job is to hold the Mayor of London to account and raise issues of interest to Londoners. I was doing both of these things in proposing the amendment. 

"Something has got to happen" -  Agreed... but we should bring people with us..not ignore their sensible suggestions because "TfL knows best".

Link below to my brief twitter conversation with Andrew Boff, in which I tried to get to the bottom of what is "genuine support" as an alternative to the existing majority support from a public consultation.  As far as I could pin it down, it's giving greater consideration to any and all alternatives local residents may produce.

https://twitter.com/bicyclebot/status/699202554211790849

I'm ignoring the showboating about Tour de France and lycra.  I find the wording of the amendment far more interesting.

But what is the point of the amendment?

All the types of scheme mentioned need to go to consultation, so seeking support, is part of the process.

And which of the types of schemes mentioned did not have genuine public support?  The EW and NS scheme consultation was 84% in favour.

"while a Conservative motion giving residents veto power over cycle lanes was voted against "

What part of this amendment (in bold) suggests a veto?

"This Assembly welcomes the construction of sections of high quality cycle superhighway in central London. We also welcome the Mayor’s recent comments urging his successor to complete the three Mini Hollands currently in train.
Encouraging more journeys to be made by bicycle could help London’s transport network to cope with the pressures of a growing population. It could also help improve the health and wellbeing of Londoners and go some way to cleaning up our polluted air.

We therefore call on the Mayor to work with the Assembly to ensure his successor  builds seeks genuine public support for Mini Hollands, Cycle Superhighways and Quietways so that he is able to build on the consensus on cycling programmes that has been achieved within the Assembly in recent years"

Quote:

so why do we design Cycle Superhighways with the inspiration of the Tour de France?

Goes to show you how little they understand their brief.