The headline news from yesterday, in case you missed it, was Sadiq Khan’s announcement that Oxford Street, the central London high street, will be pedestrianised. When road.cc reached out to the Mayor of London’s office, it confirmed to us that cyclists will not be allowed on to ride on the street during the day, with potential for access at night and alternative routes and enhanced provisions being worked on to be provided.
The pedestrianisation plan, part of the London mayor’s 2016 election manifesto, had been in the making for a while, having been blocked a couple of times by the Conservative-led Westminster City Council. Now, with the UK Government backing the decision, it looks like the mayor’s dream of turning Oxford Street, that’s been overrun by vape and American candy shops, into a world class shopping area and public space seems to be finally taking shape.
However, with cyclists now allowed to access the major east-west road, there are concerns about how is the cycling ban going to be implemented, and what real alternative routes will be offered to cyclists — which will have to be shared with the rest of the diverted motor traffic as well.
> Cyclists to be banned from Oxford Street as part of Sadiq Khan’s pedestrianisation plans, but could be allowed to cycle at night
Khan, speaking to an Evening Standard reporter yesterday evening, said: “I’m quite clear — that part of the street is going to be pedestrianised. I want it to be for people to walk around in. There will be placed of course to lock up your bike, there will be alternative routes for you to go around in relation to getting from one side of the street to the other.
“I don’t want buses in this part of the Oxford Street, cars, mini cabs, taxis or racing cyclists, but what I do want is pedestrians, walking around, going to the shops. This would be a world class public space in which we can curate leisure events, cultural events to encourage people to come here.”
Andrew Gilligan, London’s former cycling commissioner under Boris Johnson, had claimed in 2017 that banning cyclists from Oxford Street represented “an unqualified disaster for cycling in London.”
He had warned that the lack of suitable parallel routes for safe infrastructure for bike riders means an Oxford Street cycling ban would be ignored by many, and that the road will become “London’s biggest unofficial example of the notorious failure that is shared space.”
The same concern seems to be reiterated and shared by many on social media, with some even questioning what about those who use cycling as a mobility aid. On Twitter, the account going by the name of Beyond the Bicycle wrote: “Will people using cycling as mobility aids be permitted? It isn’t world class if it excludes people.”
However, a lot of cyclists seemed to be completely fine with the announcement as well, describing it as “perfectly reasonable and fair” and a “great update to Oxford Street”.
One person commented on road.cc’s Facebook post, saying: “Oxford Street isn't exactly a good cycling route as it is, and would potentially be even less suitable if full of tourists window-shopping all across the street. Any sensible cyclist is going to prefer an alternative parallel.”
Some more reaction from comments under our news story:
brooksby: “This would only be 'fair' if some sort of safe alternative routes for cyclists are put in place.*
*Except they won't be - after Oxford Street is closed to all traffic, the motor traffic which is diverted along parallel routes will take up so much of the road space that there Just Won't Be Room to put cycle routes in place…”
Rome73: “I completely agree with this. Oxford Street should be completely pedestrianised and free of motor vehicles and cycles. It will hugely improve the area. There are alternatives, if one wants to cycle between TCR and Marble Arch. Some of them are a bit 'round the houses' so they must be improved and made more direct. Improvements have already been made in reducing traffic on Tottenham Court Rd and Charing X road so making Oxford Street pedestrian only will be a huge bonus for London. It should also mean that Regents Street and Great Portland Street will become traffic free or at least less. At the moment they are gnarled up with belching traffic queues.
Paul J: “As a recent tourist to Oxford st, and as someone who spent a month or so working in London before and had that street on his cycle commute - good idea. As it is, it sucks for cycling along, cause of all the tourists - better to take some other parallel roads; and it sucks for the tourists with the vehicle traffic.
A major shopping street should be for pedestrians.”
Groadie: “It'll take a lot more than pedestrianisation to turn Oxford Street back into some kind of elite shopping street. That ship sailed a long time ago. It would have been an opportunity to create a traffic free cycling route across the centre and it's a pity that's been ruled out, particularly in view of the fact that more motorised traffic is going to be forced onto the already busy alternative parallel roads alongside the cyclists who will also have to use them. I can imagine Piccadilly becoming more choked up than it already is. Waste of public money to make things worse for all road users, imo.”
Add new comment
38 comments
One for hp, this is later on the line for the train part on my bike-train-bike commute.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/squirrels-gatwick-airpor...
Squirrels - some say they don't like public transport, I think they're just trying to bring humans back in line with the rest of nature and return us to sustainability.
(Squirrels also struck in North Yorkshire last Saturday).
And so the animal revolt begins, not with a bang, but with a fluffy tail.
I did spot the report on the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly32plprg5o
Once again, killed by a motorist, gets away with it.
Yes, she's old and has handed in her licence, but this wasn't careless driving....
https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/loving-cyclist-kille...
No detterent for anyone who drives dangerously in old age.
This sentence just says "Don't worry, you won't go to prison if you're old and kill someone. Just keep driving untill you do then hand in your licence."
I wonder if the police had checked the driver's recent history (ie CCTV) to show if this level of dangerous driving was her norm.
A neighbour parks his BMW Wankpanzer outside my front gate most of the time, I find that "unattractive", "giant, ugly" and indeed "a monstrosity": on the same basis as the complaints of the good burghers of Brighton about the bike hangars, would it be okay for me to nip out with my brushes and paint and decorate it to resemble something more closely attuned to my tastes?
Some mistake surely? 'The smart, serene voice on ITV’s coverage of Tour de France,' is Matt Rendell.
After reacquainting myself with Kirby, Kelly et al for La Vuelta, I am not picking favourites, I just want the ITV team for every race!
Itv only lost their highlights of the vuelta fairly recently.
I'm reading Ned's 1923 at the moment.
I actually did a video of what it's like cycling on Oxford St earlier this year. I was coming back from a work meeting on a sunny early evening. Many taxis, many buses, many pedestrians and yes, many cyclists.
This my viewpoint, no commentary, just ambient audio, see for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNqoeMqM49s
A few red lights ignored there
They said no commentary!
No idea which bit is Oxford Street though.
[I live out in the sticks (I.e North of Watford Gap, in fact North of Hadrians Wall) and am not familiar with the geography now]
All of the busy street in the video is Oxford Street.
"A 12-year-old girl was hit by a car. It had $19,770 in unpaid tickets."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/09/17/dc-child-struck-drive...
(Having red the article all I have to say is "holy crap, if we think we have it bad here (UK), the US is infinitely worse".
Yes, I knew the road safety/enforcement situation in the US is bad, but I didn't realise it is as bad as the article shows.)
The situation in the US is so bad, that when people are presented a choice between Kamala Harris and convicted felon, sexual abuser, con-man and racist Trump, some of them are undecided!
Unbelievably a lot seems because they think that they need to take the moral higher ground and disagree with Kamala Harris's stance on abortion (Thankfully I don't follow US politicts closely enough to know what that actual stance is!)
I looked it up and she appears to be pro-abortion rights.
I don't understand how a voter can think that voting for Trump has any moral ground whatsoever - I mean he's not known for treating his marriage with any kind of monogamy. Also, if someone is against abortions (likely to follow religious dogma), then they can simply not have any abortions, unless of course their opinion is more about trying to control other people rather than actually following all of their religion's rules. (e.g. Christians hoarding money)
Apparently the Pope is unwilling to come down on one side or the other on the relative morals of the two candidates.
It bugs me whenever religion is invoked with politics. The pope should keep as quiet as god did during the holocaust.
Ah... but generally God / gods / "destiny" is on someone's side, apparently. It seems the supreme power is the original troll.
Alternatively - humans (but it is generally "men") make gods in their own image * so you're simply out of step with reality. It is the natural condition for religion to be highly involved with politics - whether backing a lugal or fighting one for its own independence, right down to the basics of keeping in with the ancestors and warding off witchcraft.
* Xenophanes said it first IIRC.
So, how do you explain the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then?
Well they're plain old Trinitarians.
You're right though, they're are some pretty rum characters in pantheons...
(OK the picture is from Tumbler-Snapper apparently, not Trinity - but like the aliens in "The Kraken Wakes" I imagine they'd be in favour of a limited nuclear war to keep the extremely low-pressure neighbours in check - though obviously they'd not be "thinking" that in the usually understood sense, lacking brain...).
God and the US are just wringing their hands instead of stopping the genocide in Palestine. The US could stop the indiscriminate killing of thousands of children and babies in Palestine today. But, perhaps like 'God', it decides not to.
Palestine needs to find a some large oil fields to get the U.S. to directly intervene
Someone should just start stuffing the ballot for the US visa lottery. 50,000 people per year could get a green card. Like most countries the US might be more concerned about those with (some) rights in the US? Even without rigging - depending on where current residents of e.g. Gaza / the West Bank were born - that might count towards the totals of 3 different eligable countries so extra chances.
in late news: The Italian Eurovision bid "I can't get no Contraception" has been cancelled after the Pope advised them to pull it out at the last minute."
As the great David Sedaris said at the last election (from memory so forgive errors): if you're still undecided that's like being asked on your flight if you want the chicken or the human excrement with shards of glass in it for your meal and saying, "Well, can you tell me how the chicken is cooked?"
If you could guide them, what would you advise? You post seems to be sitting on the fence a little.
Not to forget, congenital liar.
Pages