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
It is kind of stupid. The HC says
It is stupid. And another example of where the HWC says "look out for people ignoring the HWC" - because of course nobody should be overtaking a vehicle that has stopped at a crossing, whether or not they have seen you.
The Highway Code does tend to put pragmatism first - make all efforts to avoid a collision rather than enforcing your traffic priority.
Yes, and on reflection that bit is not stupid exactly, if frustrating. But the crossing rules are a bit circular. To extend brooksby's point, it says:
Rule 19: ...Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. So you either have to step out, or just wait until it's clear - which would rather undermine the point of a designated crossing.
You are forgetting about the mothers responsibility.
I like how in the next scene they say "this is where it happened" - err, no it's not. You're now at the proper pedestrian crossing. I think the Lime bike rider did a pretty good job of mitigating that, to be fair.
However, not great when one cyclist then doesn't stop for the presenter using the crossing with a guide dog, and another shakes their head - I hope at the cyclist who failed to stop, rather than at the presenter for having the termity to cross.
If the kid had run out in front of a driver who'd then braked hard and swerved to give the kid a glancing blow that allowed them to walk away relatively unscathed, the driver would have been lauded as a hero!
...and most likely heavily criticised the parent for not looking after their kid due to the incredibly dangerous road.
Does that Seattle bike lane bottleneck as much as it looks to?
How to deal with the sign being flattened by drivers in Preston.
Sign gets flattened once: reinstall and ask drivers nicely to follow the law.
Sign gets flattered again: bollard time.
Good idea, but better would be putting explosives in the sign.
I believe it is against the law to publish a news story about the Irish city of Limerick and not include an example of its eponymous poetry form, so here's my feeble attempt:
At the opening of a brand new bike lane
A passing motorist made his opinions quite plain
The infrastructure is nice
But the quantity does not suffice
So build more, and without a Seattle chicane.
Presumably that chicane in the cycle lane is Frances Farmer having her revenge on Seattle?
Famously when he was 14 his uncle offered him a choice for his birthday of a bicycle or a guitar and he chose the guitar...he wasn't averse to cycling though, at least as a kid, this picture is him aged about 11 with his sister and step-siblings - he is second from the right.
Naturally., brake levers gave it away...
Are you sure it's him? He's not wearing a cardigan…
This is like the identity parade segment on "Never Mind the Buzzcocks"... "which is the real Cobain? Is it number one - nevermind? Number 2 - in utero? Number 3 - smells like teen spirit? Number 4 - nevermind the cold!"
Pages