Another day, another blatant anti-cyclist piece in the Telegraph. And you thought the whole ‘culture wars’ anti-cycling crusade in the national press was over, didn’t you?
Yesterday, we reported that Iain Duncan Smith’s campaign for updated legislation to punish instances of ‘dangerous cycling’ continued at the weekend, with the Conservative MP penning a column in the Telegraph titled: “Dangerous cyclists should be driven off our roads”.
Unsurprisingly, the headline “horrified” some cyclists (and even those usually found on the anti-cycling side of the fence) online, many urging IDS to look beyond just those who ride bicycles if he wishes to improve safety on UK roads.
One cyclist accused the politician of playing into a “culture war” narrative around cycling, while others suggested the “driven off our roads” headline could encourage violence against cyclists.
> Cyclists "horrified" by Iain Duncan Smith's Telegraph column suggesting "dangerous cyclists should be driven off our roads", as Conservative MP accused of ignoring main road safety issues in latest call for stricter legislation
And now, another Telegraph article – this time concerning a plan to install a new cycle lane in the London borough of Haringey – has attracted the attention of cycling campaigners, who argue that the article’s claim that the infrastructure will increase congestion on what is already the UK’s fourth most congested road, turning it into an “open air gas chamber”, is merely part of an attempt to “drum up hate for people just trying to get to A to B on a bike safely”.
According to the Telegraph, “the London Borough of Haringey wants to halve a stretch of the road’s existing capacity by installing a two-way cycle lane on an A-road that passes by Hornsey railway station” – a short 500-yard stretch where, a quick search of Google Street View will reveal, is lined with parked cars on either side, already limiting the road’s width considerably.
A public consultation document published in August by the local authority outlining the scheme on the A103 said: “The Council’s approved Walking and Cycling Action Plan indicates an ambition to provide a number of key strategic cycle routes through the borough providing safe cycling in both the East-West and North-South directions.
“This will help connect to local amenities and link routes to adjacent boroughs allowing cyclists to travel longer distances beyond the borough boundary.”
However, longer, safer, and faster routes for cyclists isn’t something the Telegraph is interested in, apparently.
“The road in question, the A103 in Haringey, is the fourth slowest council-managed highway in the whole of the UK,” the article stated, complete with a drawing of the road (below) under the title ‘Haringey’s A103 is grinding to a halt’.
“Average speeds along the part of the A103 that runs through Haringey last year were just 5.9mph, making it the fastest-growing road for congestion in the country – and now council planners want to halve the road’s traffic capacity along a 500yd stretch serving a key public transport link.”
Hmmm… So, the road’s been horribly congested and “grinding to a halt” for ages, despite not having a single cycle lane on it. Explain to me again how that’s the fault of cyclists?
Oh don’t worry, they’ll tell us alright.
Tasmine Akunjee, a local solicitor, told the newspaper the cycle lane would “worsen pollution by concentrating harmful traffic emissions into the one lane”.
“It’s just a open air gas chamber, isn’t it, really, for anyone who’s on that road?” he said.
“Because you have buildings on either side, you get an inversion effect where the atmosphere at road level is pretty much kept in place because there isn’t a lot of air movement there, comparative to the amount of fumes being generated.”
A103, Haringey, London (Google Street View)
Meanwhile, Keith Prince, the Conservatives’ transport spokesman at London’s City Hall, added: “This proposed cycle lane, on a notoriously slow part of road, will have significant knock-on effects for residents and commuters with far-reaching repercussions.
“Something has clearly gone very wrong on the A103 and finding a solution should mean listening to residents, not ignoring them.”
“It’s one lane there, already!”
However, at least Simon Munk, the London Cycling Campaign’s head of campaigns and community development, was on hand to explain why congestion may have more to do with people in cars than a new, very short bike lane.
“The A103 even just in Haringey is a road with several markedly different sections. Given where the short section of cycle track is proposed, it seems unlikely it would have further impact on congestion on the A103 overall,” Munk said.
“But that’s for TfL and Haringey Council to consider – and they’ve almost certainly either already looked at it or will look at if/when this scheme goes into construction.
“It’s often claimed cycle tracks are a significant cause of congestion in London – but this rarely turns out to be the case, and far more often such tracks add capacity to the road in terms of overall journeys made.”
> Conservative government “pursued poisonous culture wars” between cyclists and drivers, says new transport secretary – as Labour vows to “take back streets” for all road users
Since the article’s publication, the angle taken by the Telegraph and some of the quotes used have been condemned as yet another example of “nasty” culture wars “nonsense” against cycling.
Criticising Tasmine Akunjee’s claim that the A103 is an “open air gas chamber” and that the cycle lane will “worsen pollution by concentrating harmful emissions into the one lane”, the London Cycling Campaign tweeted: “First, comparing main roads to ‘gas chambers’ is really not OK, people. Second, It’s one lane there already!”
A103, Haringey, London (Google Street View)
“Indeed, culture war nasty nonsense,” agreed the Healthy Streets Stroud Green account.
“Intending to drum up hate for people just trying to get to A to B on a bike safely. Trying to make folk angry about safety measures. Do those trying to block change prefer to keep the KSI stats high – is that it? Is that what they want?”
Meanwhile, Robert Davis, the chair of the Road Danger Reduction Forum, added: “The fact is that there is indeed a ‘culture war’ perpetuating negative – and above all, dangerous – views of people riding bicycles and it needs to be countered. However tedious it is to tell the truth to bigots.”
> Is cycling ‘woke’? Cycling and culture wars discussed with a Conservative aide
And in another Twitter post, the LCC’s Munk argued that “this kind of rhetoric tends, frankly, to come from folk who don’t ‘understand’ what cyclists are doing to stay safe/alive or why much, nor understand Highway Code, rules of road etc. It’s an ‘outgroup’ accusation that’s all about deflecting ‘blame’ elsewhere.
“We’re talking about 500 metres of road here. The level of accusation and anger for a short stretch of cycle track really seems out of proportion with reality. What next, ‘cyclists are eating the dogs? They’re eating the cats’?!
Oh dear Lord, don’t get Trump involved…
Anyway, the brilliantly named ‘Cycleway, my arse!’ brought us all back to the question at hand – the cycleway.
“What better way is there to relieve a congested road than by installing infra for transport which more space efficient and free flowing?” they asked.
“Good quality cycle lanes on busy main roads are like stents in arteries which are clogged with cholesterol.”
Now, that would make for a great Telegraph headline!
Add new comment
47 comments
The Fr Russell Rd one looks horribly narrow, with a pedal-strike kerb against the cycle track on one side.
'This proposed cycle lane, on a notoriously slow part of road, will have significant knock-on effects for residents and commuters with far-reaching repercussions.'
Isn't that the point?
"Oh no! These changes will lead to things changing"
Yup - the ubiquitous "We'd love to see change; the kind that offers us benefits / extra choices without having any other effect on the existing situation".
I'm pretty sure the term "open-air gas chamber" is an oxymoron.
Or possibly a NOxymoron.
Or just a moron.
That's not fair to people of low intelligence that are not intentionally malicious.
It certainly is and it is also staggeringly tasteless (I hope against hope unintentionally so) given the association that virtually any person will make with the words "gas chamber". Whilst living, walking, driving or cycling along a heavily polluted street is highly unpleasant, it's hardly equivalent to what has happened in gas chambers within living memory.
Meanwhile, Keith Prince, the Conservatives’ transport spokesman at London’s City Hall, added: “Something has clearly gone very wrong on the A103 and finding a solution should mean listening to residents, not ignoring them.”
"Me, listen to me, me, ME, I speak for the silent majority*. I don't really care about the local residents, most of whom don't drive cars, but use public transport, walking and cycling, I only care about the tory voters in their massive, totally inappropriate 4x4s."
I used to think that most politicians got into politics to make things better for people, but it's been clear to me for the past fifty years that the tories are only there for power, money and ego: and they're getting worse.
* "I don't and I know I don't but try and prove me wrong."
If the Haringey cycle lane genuinely was 'halving capacity'*, surely that would mean half as many cars on it at any one time, and therefore half as much pollution?
[*Obviously it's not, so this is moot anyway.]
The A103: the choice is, parked cars that are rarely used or cycle lanes.
"Tasmine Akunjee, a local solicitor, told the newspaper the cycle lane would “worsen pollution by concentrating harmful traffic emissions into the one lane”."
Thank you Tasmine the Solicitor for that fluid dynamics summary. Now over to Roger the Weatherman for a summary of today's geo-political risks in the futures market -->
Pedantry corner: 'march' or 'marches' is the word for borderlands; 'marcher' is the adjectival form denoting things (almost always Lords or castles) pertaining to those borderlands.
Just read about this, this morning:
Direct Vision Standard and HGV Safety Permit Scheme - https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/deliveries-in-london/delivering-safely/direc...
I had put this on yesterday's live blog, first thing this morning.
Be interested to see if this ever rolls out to the rest of the country…
Sadly hasn't stopped the construction vehicle company near me updating its fleet with much larger high cab vehicles that appear to incorporate none of the direct vision design features. I assume they've just added cameras.
Surprising as I understood the permit scheme would be used to eliminate low rated vehicles over time, perhaps they were gambling on Susan Hall being elected.
“We would ask that motorists follow the rules of the highway in order to keep themselves and other road users safe,”
Good luck with that.
Seattle’s new narrow cycling chicane looks like it will be fun during the morning commute
Inspired by Edinburgh?
That's old news! Sadly although the "tram" folks were particularly hopeless with other modes we keep "innovating"...
Here's a new wiggly cycle path on Marine Drive (view from here, Streetview hasn't caught up). I guess at least it's separate from pedestrians. But despite all the space in the world here there are lots of wiggles in the path. It's unclear whether "looks good on the visualisation" or it's more to "slow those dangerous scorchers down"?
All part of a bigger plan for the area (thinking bigger is good) but given the number of new houses planned in the North West this needs a complete cycle network creating, not to say connections to the existing city-wide cycling network (such as it is). And some of the existing details of implementation are already worryingly poor...
If they're doing it to slow cyclists down, can we tell them it doesn't work?!
https://youtu.be/5Umgv_xrj_s
Louis Brunelle is probably exactly what all those "concerned residents" and "speaking for the silent minority" councillors and "I'm not against cycling but" politicians were trying to warn us about.
They're worried about far more than the (rather unique) antics of Lucas Brunelle!
Here we have BBC Breakfast news this morning, concerned about the dangers of floating bus stops. They chose to highlight this with a collision that appears to have little to do with floating bus stops. A child runs out in front of a Lime bike rider without looking, causing a collision. So dangerous was this, that the child walked away seemingly fine afterwards, but was 'on the verge of tears' (so didn't actually cry). No mention of how the cyclist faired 🙄.
No comparison with what might have occurred had the child run out into a busy road without looking. Nope, it was all the cycle lanes fault!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0023z3t/breakfast-16102024
(1 hour 36 mins in)
It's almost like the BBC is institutionally anti-cyclist!
It's beginning to feel like that! The article was introduced with a statement that some charities are asking for them to be scrapped, but when they talked to the charity spokesperson they were only asking for a pause in the roll out for a review.
I think a strand of this may have come from the rather startling success of a campaign by the previously very minor organisation the National Federation of the Blind of the UK. They apparently sought out evidence of problems (with their own videos) and then managed to get a bunch of other organisations on board (including RNIB - although they may have independently been on this track? They now officially say they're concerned) before hitting the politicians.
Unfortunately whatever the merits * there are lots of people who weren't previously noted to be remotely concerned who are delighted to seize upon this kind of thing as a reason not to make changes...
* I'm sure there will be "problems" - especially in the years of transition (people always take time to get used to changes, and the more "step-wise" the change probably the longer it takes for people to adjust). However there just don't seem to be tales of problems in NL where this kind of infra is universal (or even Copenhagen although one of their designs is definitely inferior). Then again not heaing stories doesn't mean they don't exist. I did read one person saying the centre of Amsterdam was unfriendly for a blind person (which I bet the centre of most cities is, but it's a data point).
Interesting report, thanks for drawing attention. In the incident you show above the reporter describes it in that special "isn't something terrible happening" voice as "shocking and brutal" and dwells on how the child was "almost" in tears and limped away - no mention whatsoever of how the bike rider was feeling (he is still on the ground at the end of the clip) even though the collision was 100% the child's fault! In the other clips they showed as far as I could see there wasn't a single one of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian using the zebra crossing at a floating bus stop, every single one was of pedestrians stepping into the cycle lane either before or after the crossing.
Yep! Although, there was one point where a cyclist fails to give way as the chap with the guide dog is trying to cross at the zebra crossing.
But that is a behaviour issue, rather than an infrastructure issue - and not something that is limited to cycle lanes. I often find drivers fail to stop when I approach a zebra crossing.
Missed that first time round, went back to look: basically set up by the reporter who said to his colleague filming "don't worry about any cyclists, we'll deal with it" then said "forward" to his dog and just walked straight out onto the crossing into the path of the cyclist. It's difficult to see how close the cyclist was or the speed they were going when he stepped out and whether they had time to stop or not but it's hard not to see that as a deliberately set up incident. Guide dogs are trained to watch for a break in traffic but they are also obedient, so if he gives the "forward" order it will proceed without looking for traffic. If the reporter had followed the standard procedure, which is to walk to the edge of the crossing and then rely on the dog to wait for a gap and take the lead in crossing it wouldn't have happened. Of course, the cyclist should have spotted that there was a visually impaired person with a guide dog waiting to cross and it was rude and stupid of them not to slow down and stop long before they stepped onto the crossing, but as far as I'm aware the same law applies to visually impaired persons as to everyone else, which is that there is no legal obligation to slow down for or give way to a person waiting at or approaching a zebra crossing.
In some parts of Canada (maybe all parts, it's a while since I edited a book which mentioned this rule) it's compulsory to stop anywhere – not just on designated crossing points – for a blind person indicating with their cane that they wish to cross. I don't know how well the law works over there or whether it would work over here, but I've always thought it would definitely be worth a try.
This seems a bit unfair to me. I'll defer to you on the mechanics of using a guide dog, but even if he commanded it to march ahead regardless, any cyclist should be approaching that crossing point at a sensible speed and aware that someone may want to cross. When you see a guide dog approaching the edge that's amplified. No, you can't stop immediately when someone steps out (as seen in the Lime bike example), but it looked to me like that particular cyclist should have been expecting and actually able to stop.
EDIT: sorry, edited to acknowledge that you did say the cyclist should have spotted it - I'm just making a difference of emphasis.
Obviously we broadly agree and clearly you or I would have stopped and quite right too. However, rude and stupid as the cyclist was, there is no legal obligation to slow or stop for someone approaching a zebra crossing; any pedestrian, visually impaired or not, should wait until an oncoming driver/rider stops for them, you can't just step out without stopping and force someone to stop, it's just not how it works in the law. In my opinion that law is long overdue a change, it should be compulsory to stop for anyone waiting at or approaching a zebra crossing, but at the moment it isn't.
I don't have a great knowledge of guide dogs, all I know is what I've seen from seeing people training them and chatting to them. The ones I've seen are definitely trained to walk up to the crossing and stop, and check for traffic and lead the owner on to the crossing when it's safe, but possibly there are different levels of training for different needs.
Pages