Yesterday’s opinion piece from Simon titled “Why a vote for Susan Hall is a vote against cycling” has drawn a diverse range of reaction from our readers and non-readers alike, many agreeing, and as usual, many disagreeing.
The Tory mayoral candidate has already drawn criticism from the London Cycling Campaign (LCC), after she had made comments against cycling lanes that she thought were “virtue signalling”, even questioned why these “damn ridiculous” cycle lanes had been built, blaming them for causing “gridlocks” and “havoc”.
Her campaign has been focused heavily on opposing the current mayor's Ulez scheme, something she claims she would scrap on her first day in office, if elected. The Conservative Party candidate, looking to become the first Tory figure to hold the role since Boris Johnson and in turn prevent mayor Sadiq Khan achieving a third term, has also previously been outspoken about her desire to remove “unnecessary 20mph zones, reverse low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) and end the “war on motorists”.
> Campaigners urge politicians to stop dragging cyclists into “phoney culture wars” – after Tory mayoral candidate claims “virtue signalling” bike lanes are causing “havoc”
In a response to this, LCC urged the mayoral candidates to stop trying to make Londoners “fearful” of cycling and to avoid dragging people who ride bikes into “phoney culture wars”.
“The blunt fearmongering is a bit like asking Londoners to fear ice cream, a night out or birdsong – and about as likely to work as that,” said the campaign’s chief executive Tom Fyans.
Now with context to all that, Simon, writing in the column, said:
“Under Khan and his active travel commissioner, Will Norman, London’s cycling infrastructure has continued to expand although perhaps not at the pace campaigners would want to see – partly due to the funding crisis at Transport for London brought about by COVID-19, although notable achievements include the completion of Cycleway 4 from Tower Bridge to Greenwich and Cycleway 9 from Olympia to Kew Bridge, and which is currently being expanded to Brentford.
That latter route would of course benefit from a protected stretch running along Kensington High Street to link with Cycleway 9 at Hyde Park, thereby creating a safe cycling route across the capital from east to west – but the Conservative-run Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea has refused to allow such permanent infrastructure on the road, and a temporary cycle lane installed in late 2020 was ripped out after a matter of weeks.
And other policies aside – this piece is after all focused on active travel – that’s a hint of what Londoners will get should Hall win tomorrow’s election.
Cycle lanes torn out. LTNs removed. 20mph speed limits on main roads dispensed with. The ULEZ expansion scrapped.
Some, to be sure, would find cause for celebration in all of that – but for most inhabitants of the city, it would be very much to their detriment.
And here’s all the reaction to that…
Rendel Harris: “A vote for Susan Hall is a vote against sanity. The most mediocre, unsuitable and downright thick person ever to run for a significant position for a major political party in living memory, and that's against some pretty tough competition. The fact that she hates cyclists is just the icing on the compost heap.”
hawkinspeter: “The Tories remind me of a death cult. They're just looking for more and more ways to get people killed.”
alexuk: “Wow, pathetic name calling, basless acusations [sic]. All of your lives benefit from cars being able to move freely. Eliminating ULEZ in the outer london boroughs doesn't make her a villan [sic] or anti-cyclist. Enjoy your knife crime, garbage air, increased prices, terrible traffic and rampant anti-Semitism from your beloved labour party.”
And now, onto Instagram and Twitter:
@petay_ldn: “It’s a Hobsons choice because can’t can’t stay given the outrageous levels of theft and robbery in London on his watch.”
@rmushet: “Don't vote for her because she's a Tory... And from an outsider looking in, Khan's crime figures have risen but not at the levels other cities have. All of that may have a little correlation between the gutting of police forces by a certain ex-Home Secretary that couldn't outlast a piece of veg as PM? Oh yeah, and there's the fact that the Met aren't fit for purpose either - too busy sending crime scene images on WhatsApp, beating up their partners and getting suspended…”
@ViaTowerBridge: “Seems like her policies are only for the good of motorists.”
@KingsleyCGFC: “I would say a vote for any Tory is a vote against cycling.”
@jasonsteven: “Absolute bullshit from road cc lying thieving khant is the worst mayor going and you should not getting involved in politics.. remove post”
@BowTiedTurismo: “What an odd endorsement of Susan Hall”
Now, isn't social media a wonderful place...
Add new comment
48 comments
Giro Division - very good.
Let's hope this giro isn't marred by crashes, don't want to see any riders lose control again.
I hope the police take action against all those drivers using the cycle lane in the video clip with reg numbers clearly visible. I appreciate their frustration at coming across a blockage in the road. But driving on a cycle lane is still a traffic offence.
They should have gotten out and pushed, surely...
> How can you prove who's driving?
OK - we'll notify the registered keeper.
> Cloned plates, mate.
But it's the same car as your car...?
> Lots of white Mercs in London, mate.
* Sergeant comes round and tells the officer to knock it off and get on with investigating "real crime" *
"Can't remember doing that...."
They're not just driving on the cycle lane - I saw school kids having to walk on the closed-off road to get out of the way of the pavement drivers yesterday afternoon.
Re the helmet row again.
It's really as simple as "don't drive like tw4ts"
If nobody did, it wouldn't be as necessary to
Have segregated infrastructure
Wear a helmet
Have 20mph speed limits (clue, 30mph is not a target)
Ride on the pavement as you are too scared to ride on the road
Give up cycling as the next time someone hits you, it may be fatal
Go gravel riding as the roads are too dangerous
There's more, please feel free to add!
This is an excellent idea. Job done.
Oh - just one thing: you need to explain how we persuade everyone to not "drive like tw4ts".
To recap - we've already tried:
Bringing in speed limits. Regulating the design of motor vehicles. Improving handling (better braking, traction etc.). Providing extensive motor infrastructure with standardised markings, signs etc. Started running campaigns telling vulnerable road users to look out for and avoid motorists. Bringing in specific laws tailored towards penalising dangerous driving, then careless or inconsiderate driving (apparently...). Include things like driving while intoxicated - set up case law around being knowingly distracted, severely tired or physically incapable. Revised these several times. Set up dedicated police units for the purpose. Brought in driving tests (and revised / updated these). Reminded everyone to share the road (this occurs several times every decade). Collected the relevant laws and guidance in a handy reference guide. Brought in compulsory insurance (outside Lancs / Scotland). Brought in training for children around avoiding motorists. Provided areas, markings, sometimes special lights for vulnerable road users. Made a default lower speed limit apply to "built up areas". Attempted to cue motorists' speed and behaviour via changing the infrastructure (speed bumps, road narrowing, bends in roads, vegetation). Suggested to vulnerable road users they might like to wear PPE / dress up for maximum visibility. "Encouraged cycling" (also happens every decade). Suggested people might not always need to drive. Brought in automated speed cameras. Added ANPR. More laws. More "share the road". Lower speed limits in urban areas. More painted cycle gutters. More "...could be someone's child / mother / father"...
What we haven't tried - not prioritising motoring, not subsidising some of the costs of driving, spending a sensible amount on active travel - say 10% of the budget for roads, treating driving like most other dangerous activities and bringing in regular re-training / tests, doing more than sporadic road policing, enforcing existing laws, following through on legal threats to revoke people's licence to drive if they don't abide by conditions, applying meaningful penalties if people drive when they're not permitted, disfavouring defences in court which amount to "my client could not have deliberately hit them because they are frankly an incompetent driver and deserve our sympathy"...
Sadly, even you fix it so none of us "drive like tw4ts" we would still need separate infra for different modes (cars and trains don't mix, nor pedestrians and cyclists and A-roads / motorways). And almost certainly speed limits (unless by not "drive like tw4ts" you mean "drive like psychic buddhists under extra monastic strictures"). And helmets would still help reduce the likelihood of injury if you fell off your bike (what the current standard tests them for).
In the real world there are lots of pragmatic reasons for adding cycle infra - the perception of safety being more of a factor in people's behaviour than the actual statistics. (And footways - pedestrian infra). Of course ... much of the reason for these things is "because cars" e.g. we would almost never need traffic lights or roundabouts without them.
However we can fix it so that vulnerable road users encounter few motor vehicles on their journeys - and there shouldn't be many cars to deal with where we might mix. And so they're motivated to drive slowly and carefully.
I mean nothing stops a 1800Kg of SUV like 20mm of expanded polystyrene foam helmet.
A helmet's not actually intended to stop an SUV.
...but in the popular imagination (and apparently sometimes in court) if you're crushed by a large motor vehicle and weren't wearing a helmet this is seen as something like contributory negligence (even if it was "unsurvivable injuries to the neck and chest"). AND it suggests that with such an attitude perhaps you threw yourself under the behemoth.
People have all sorts of strange ideas. Unless a judge actually applies that kind of thinking to someone's disadvantage, I don't think it's worth taking too seriously
"Corten steel. Lovely rusty sharp edges to scratch your lovely bike."
Replaced the sheffield stands
"These new ones need a sign to explain them to people wanting to park their bikes."
https://twitter.com/2wheelsgoodBrum/status/1786016452509667591
Is the clip of drivers illegally using the cycle lane in Shadwell meant to be their (drivers) response to the clip from Ludgate Hall...?
Intersting article in The Spectator advocating drivers who have a dashcam to "snitch" on littering/flytipping by other drivers.
I assume the same writer (and the paper) is happy for drivers (and cyclists) to use video evidence against dangerous driving too...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/long-live-the-litter-lout-snitches/
You are of course poking fun at them, knowing that this piece in the same paper was covered by Road.cc ...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/drivers-beware-the-rise-of-the-vigil...
Let not the best be the enemy of the good. Happy for littering to be curbed even if this doesn't do anything for dangerous driving.
And the Spectator is the enemy of the good.
Forced to drive on cycleway C3 as the road was closed
https://youtu.be/NV7XHFiXhyU
And that is only 2 minutes
Comments turned off !!
The driving instructor should be sacked and have his instructor licence revoked
I hope the video/ plates are clear enough so the police can take action!
I hope the video/ plates are clear enough so the police can take action!
The sad part is that nobody is taking seriously the possibility of police action against this anti-social (actually, it's dangerous but we all know that there's a national police prohibition against use of the word in connection with offences against cyclists) driving
I was really hoping to see a pedal-height gouge down the side of that Merc.
Does that make me a bad person?
Less bad than me, at any rate. I was hoping to see at least one of the cyclists not give way to the oncoming car but either crash into it and sue the driver, or simply plonk his bike in front of it and refuse to move.
I'm too stubborn. I'd be block it and wait for them to reverse back. No way I'd be forced to (illegally) ride on the pavement.
I was waiting for a cyclingMikey character to stop in the middle of the cycle route incanting "You will not pass".
I presume that the Cable Street debacle was an extreme case of someone doing something because they saw other people doing it, so it must be OK…?
You can't be serious?! You'll be saying people continue to drive through red lights because
they're not "established"they're still moving at speed pretty close to the driver in front who just went through one next!Pages