Viral tweet sums up bizarre anti-cycling whataboutery; More "As a cyclist..." fun; Feel good Friday; Peloton share price plummets; Bike thief sentenced; Quick-Step build Remco's Grand Tour dream team; EF partners with women's team + more on the live blog

wycombewheeler wrote:

But we keep hearing that the all powerful cycling lobby are all rich white men. Is everyone else caught in the crossfire between these two opposing groups of rich white men?

Isn't a lot of the world's history a story of two opposing groups of rich white men?

Cycling is one of the rare instances when rich white men can find themselves at the recieving end of discrimination. Very valuable.

I don't know.

Thinking about JV vs bus yesterday, the "cycle lane" was defined by an intermittent line of wands which just stopped whenever spearation became inconvenient (like at a bus stop). If those wands weren't present would that give a cyclist more agency by allowing them to adopt primary position? Instead the cyclist is trapped in seocndary until the wands run out, but in a motorist's mind the cyclists arenot in the road so they don't need to consider them?

SimoninSpalding wrote:

I don't know.

Thinking about JV vs bus yesterday, the "cycle lane" was defined by an intermittent line of wands which just stopped whenever spearation became inconvenient (like at a bus stop). If those wands weren't present would that give a cyclist more agency by allowing them to adopt primary position? Instead the cyclist is trapped in seocndary until the wands run out, but in a motorist's mind the cyclists arenot in the road so they don't need to consider them?

I'd agree that sometimes it's better to ignore a bike lane and take primary, but I think it's better to at least have the option to use a bike lane. In heavy traffic you're less likely to get that kind of overtake/left-hook so you'd prefer to use the clear bike lane.

Awavey wrote:

To an extent, if you cut through the rhetoric & waffle, he might just have a point. The temporary lanes were brought in well over a year ago, theyve been trialled for all that time in various traffic levels by now, so either trigger the make them permanent part, so that m'lord can contribute to the consultation or just get rid of them, what purpose is keeping them temporary serving ? Yes the guy is raising his point because he's clearly not a fan,but its valid to say to TfL or the government stop kicking this decision down the road so you dont have to deal with it & make that decision now, so that people can be formally consulted & choose. I dont believe it's a tenable position to maintain "temporary" infrastructure permanently in this way.

I think you are making a fair point, but I don't think it was the point he was making (given that he said makign them permanent would be even worse).

He's obviously not a fan I agree, but the kick to make it permanent then forces a formal consultation to take place,where he can then formally register his disapproving views,and encourage others to do the same against those temporary schemes.

As things stand whilst they remain in this temporary status, he cant.

Awavey wrote:

He's obviously not a fan I agree, but the kick to make it permanent then forces a formal consultation to take place,where he can then formally register his disapproving views,and encourage others to do the same against those temporary schemes. As things stand whilst they remain in this temporary status, he cant.

But he didn't ask for any such thing.  He asked for their abolition.

No he asked what discussions the government have had with TfL regarding abolishing the temporary lanes. Baroness Vere just confirms cycle lanes are a matter for TfL & London boroughs though the government has regular meetings with TfL about them. To which Lord Cruddas follows up highlighting the government provided emergency funding to TfL to build these temporary lanes and is there opportunity to contribute to any debate about their continued existence and has that been discussed at these regular meetings.

Now you have to recall current government policy at this stage, states the emergency temporary schemes last only for 18months, and the transport secretary has repeatedly said over the past year the emergency schemes now needed to go through consultation with local residents, so at some point very soon all these temporary schemes will have to go through formal consultation, where the likes of Lord Cruddas will be able to contribute to the discussion about their continued existence.

So if you cut through the waffle and rhetoric politicians use to get answers or raise certain points with ministers & departments, Lord Cruddas is gently reminding the government,whilst not being seen to criticise it,of it's own stated policy to get councils, or in this case TfL,to start a consultation process.

I've no doubt Lord Cruddas is very much on the rip them out side,but he already knows he isnt in a position to achieve that by asking these types of q's,but he does know the government policy says he should be engaged in a consultation on whether to keep them,and if its government policy,maybe the government would like to follow it up for a change.

Awavey wrote:

No he asked what discussions the government have had with TfL regarding abolishing the temporary lanes. Baroness Vere just confirms cycle lanes are a matter for TfL & London boroughs though the government has regular meetings with TfL about them. To which Lord Cruddas follows up highlighting the government provided emergency funding to TfL to build these temporary lanes and is there opportunity to contribute to any debate about their continued existence and has that been discussed at these regular meetings.

Now you have to recall current government policy at this stage, states the emergency temporary schemes last only for 18months, and the transport secretary has repeatedly said over the past year the emergency schemes now needed to go through consultation with local residents, so at some point very soon all these temporary schemes will have to go through formal consultation, where the likes of Lord Cruddas will be able to contribute to the discussion about their continued existence.

So if you cut through the waffle and rhetoric politicians use to get answers or raise certain points with ministers & departments, Lord Cruddas is gently reminding the government,whilst not being seen to criticise it,of it's own stated policy to get councils, or in this case TfL,to start a consultation process.

I've no doubt Lord Cruddas is very much on the rip them out side,but he already knows he isnt in a position to achieve that by asking these types of q's,but he does know the government policy says he should be engaged in a consultation on whether to keep them,and if its government policy,maybe the government would like to follow it up for a change.

Sorry, he doesn't mention a public consultation process once. He says when are you going to talk to them about getting rid of the lanes, and the follow up question is also about the government talking to TfL. His point about the funding is that whilst the lanes may be TfL's responsibility, the government provided the funding, so TfL should listen to the government. You are reading things into the debate which simply aren't there.

Awavey wrote:

To an extent, if you cut through the rhetoric & waffle, he might just have a point. The temporary lanes were brought in well over a year ago, theyve been trialled for all that time in various traffic levels by now, so either trigger the make them permanent part, so that m'lord can contribute to the consultation or just get rid of them, what purpose is keeping them temporary serving ? Yes the guy is raising his point because he's clearly not a fan,but its valid to say to TfL or the government stop kicking this decision down the road so you dont have to deal with it & make that decision now, so that people can be formally consulted & choose. I dont believe it's a tenable position to maintain "temporary" infrastructure permanently in this way.

As you say yourself your rationale and his couldn't be more different. I lean more towards your position but it's a little complicated because:

• Where I am (Edinburgh) a relatively huge amount of this was rolled out.
• It is "self-contradictory infrastructure" (e.g. if is actually needed - it is - then it's crap because it's intermittent and stops just before the points where most needed e.g. junctions, where it's "difficult to fit in").
• ...but a few bits are genuinely useful.
• It serves notice on the majority that things won't got on as before. It seems that most people are entirely unaware of most of the issues - it's just not on their radar / doesn't relate to their daily lives at all. This is clearly a discussion that needs to begin!
• Much to my surprise there is apparently not just sizeable opposition but majority opposition to much of it. It's always tricky to tease apart but this is judging by council surveys. I believe they did at least try to distinguish "local residents" from "bussed in protestors" or "rent-a-motorists" although there's evidence that certain councillors - Conservatives as it happens - were very actively lobbying against this. I'm not sure if its still a case of the "silent majority" being OK with this.
• We desperately need to do this properly and adequately e.g. not more waste-of-money "facilities", not "routes in isolation", not "a nice trail round the park" but...
• ...the council's *best ever* speed per kilometer of putting in "real" segregated infra is measured in substantial fractions of a decade or more. The temporary stuff was 39km in about a year.

Awavey wrote:

what purpose is keeping them temporary serving?

Not having to spend any more money on them?

In seriousness, though, a year might seem like a long time, but in terms of people getting over the 'change is bad' knee-jerk it's probably not.

Ideally, it would be good if councils were using a reasonable length of time to experiment with different layouts, so that consultation eventually becomes more of a conversation about which works best, rather than a yes/no referendum, but it doesn't seem like the funding mechanism is set up to encourage this.

mdavidford wrote:

Ideally, it would be good if councils were using a reasonable length of time to experiment with different layouts, so that consultation eventually becomes more of a conversation about which works best

In Kent the council doesn't care if the lanes work. They have spent the government grant so that is job done.

The odd Councilor will espouse a local project but there is no strategy for Active Travel and how to make that real.

Compliance with the Highways Design Guidance is the most you can expect, with the hopeless get outs for the junctions that need doing.Parking cars on pavements is rife with the maximum hazards of door-ing and unsafe passes.The motor car is king despite 5% moving time 95% stopped.

True.  It hasn't occurred to all those motorists who complain about the cycle lanes that if the cycle lanes weren't there then the cyclists would be in the main traffic lane instead.

Jetmans Dad wrote:

Let's be honest, it is simply a fact that a lot of drivers view cyclists as a "nuisance", regardless of any specific context, and believe that we shouldn't be inconveniencing them by being on the roads and definitely not by having some road space taken away to provide us with dedicated infrastructure. 

"Get bikes out of the road" is an idea with a fascinating - if somewhat confused history. If you don't already know Carlton Reid has done a lot of digging (including literally) on this in the last four years. http://www.bikeboom.info/cycletracks1930s/

Those same people also complain about cyclists racing like they are in the TdF! They now complain we're cycling too fast...

And they apparently have no sense of shame and/or have memories like goldfish.  Watching Rees-Mogg argue against the very point he was arguing for only the day before... <shakes head sadly>

brooksby wrote:

And they apparently have no sense of shame and/or have memories like goldfish.  Watching Rees-Mogg argue against the very point he was arguing for only the day before... <shakes head sadly>

No, that's just "professionalism". He's amply proved his worth to the government. Not only prepared to say that black is white on demand but happy to get up the next day and defend black being black since the other way "generated a certain amount of controversy"!

brooksby wrote:

And they apparently have no sense of shame and/or have memories like goldfish.  Watching Rees-Mogg argue against the very point he was arguing for only the day before... <shakes head sadly>

Listening to a tory MP, Micheal Fabricant, being interviewed on R4 yesterday, and was interested to hear that they're already rewriting history.  According to him, it was labour's fault for conflating the wish to revise the policing of MPs with the case of the individual crooked MP, Owen Paterson, not the government's, even though it was the government that forced MPs to vote on a motion conflating the two.

His interview starts at 14:50  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00114n9

And their complaints that Mr Paterson never got right of appeal (even though he already had right of appeal, had appealed, and the committee had rejected his appeal).

This whole thing took two years of the committee's time, its not like they ran their report off overnight.

Standard estate agency tactics. Say the exact opposite of the truth with as much confidence as possible. "Tiny grim one bed without a window" = "Cozy spacious flat". So "I fought tooth and nail, lobbied my pals, appealed, and still lost even before a toothless committee of my peers because the evidence was so obvious" = "Totally unjustified persecution which I couldn't appeal, affront to natural justice. I have done nothing wrong".

At least Rees-Mogg can remember how many children he has and who is responsible for looking after them. I believe the answers are 6, and Veronica Crook, the nanny that brought him up too. Apparently her role even stretched to acting as a bodyguard when campaigning in Labour constituencies in his Bentley! https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/brexit/looking-back-when-young-ja...

Sigh 

In the interests of political balance, and to avoid this website getting a reputation of being frequented by a bunch of lefty lycrists (I will get that word in the dictionary) I would like to say something in support of our current government policies.

Nope, sorry, can't think of anything.

Of course I'm a keen cyclist... why, I even bought a bike once, during lockdown.

Sorted out the NHS, too - every Thursday evening I sent one of the footmen out to clap in the courtyard.

Not long ago a Wyre Council vehicle performed a close pass at speed on the Garstang Blackpool road. All on indisputable video. The response actually included 'the driver is a keen cyclist himself'! If they're telling the truth, the response and plan of action was much better than anything from Lancashire Constabulary: almost invariably nothing at all

wtjs wrote:

'the driver is a keen cyclist himself'!

If they're telling the truth, so that the driver knows a close pass to be unacceptable intimidation at best, doesn't that evidence a low standard of driving competence not consistent with holding a license?