Home

Yesterday we published a guest blog by Carlton Reid on why he thinks the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain is a cycling orgnisation too far. Today Jim Davis one of the founding members of the Cycling Embassy responds…

I was a little surprised when Carlton Reid decided to attack the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain yesterday (and on Valentines Day too). He spoke with a World-weary cynicism of someone who knew all about the history of cycle campaigning in this country. Which is exactly why I want to try something new.

He states that the only Embassy policy that is different to other long-established organizations is ‘segregation first’ but I think this is a large fundamental distinction, if completely oversimplified.

The internet is a wonderful thing. It has allowed people to share cycling and also campaigning experiences. Through such sites as Warrington Cycle Campaign’s ‘Facility of the Month’ examples of dreadful, dangerous cycle infrastructure soon became infamous throughout the campaigning world (it’s certainly a highlight of my month). The internet also allowed people to see what was being accomplished in other countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark. With envious eyes, one could see relaxed, cheerful people in normal clothes on cycle streets and dedicated infrastructure. And then wonder why on Earth this isn’t being done over here, let alone being campaigned for.

The way I see it, cycle campaigners were saying ‘no’ to segregated infrastructure because they didn’t want to see any more appalling examples of what a Highways Department can do on crystal meth. Whilst they had a point (despite cycle organisations helping set the guidelines), I don’t believe that just saying ‘no’ and then pointing the public toward cycle training and the works of John Franklin is enough. This rubbish continues to be built, whether CTC or Cycle Nation or all the local campaign groups that it represents like it or not.

There is a bit of a contradiction in Carlton's argument for us. On the one hand he seems to be saying 'Don’t campaign for segregated infrastructure. It will never succeed. The CTC & Cycle Nation are pragmatists, and they’re steering well clear of it.' and on the other, 'Don’t campaign on the same the things as the CTC & Cycle Nation! You risk division!'. Whilst they make their minds up as to what exactly they represent, we'll try our own way thanks. A way that the public can get behind.

When the Local Transport White Paper was published, it basically threw all cycle funding out to the provinces where local campaign groups would not only have to scrap for scraps, but also fight the creative interpretations that a Council can place on what constitutes ‘Sustainable Transport’. In essence, widening a road can be ‘Sustainable transport’ as it can be seen to improve traffic flow, which in turn reduces emissions. More crucially, I regard this as a massive smoke screen. It allows the Government to say ‘Look over there!’ and while everyone focuses on cycling issues at a local level, they can widen the M25 to the tune of billions along with more motorway extensions and bypasses utterly hostile to anything without an engine.

I would like to see the Embassy focus at national level, to make sure that best practice is adopted as a standard as opposed to just guidelines that are too open to misinterpretation. I would like to see the basis formed from best practice around the World, particularly the Netherlands and Denmark, which currently manages a modal share that we can only dream of over here. I basically want to give local campaign groups a nice meaty stick to wield for a change.

Improving the way in which bicycle users are consulted could be improved dramatically too (for a laugh, try asking your council for a Safety Audit on a piece of cycle infrastructure local to you that you find dangerous). Above all, I want to see cycling placed firmly back on the transport agenda getting a deserving share of the transport spend. I simply don’t see current cycle organisations pushing in the same direction we are, and certainly not looking across the North Sea for inspiration where the benefits go way beyond riding a bike in comfort and safety. If you don’t ask, you don’t get.

Carlton pointed out that we couldn’t find a cycling ‘Sugar Daddy’ for funding. Quite frankly, the cycling world is the last place I would look to attract funding. We have ideas on where to go and there have been plenty of offers of donations once we get our governance established so the future is very exciting indeed. We are appealing to those that want to cycle as opposed to those that do.

The start up meeting held on the 29th January was very well attended with people coming down to London from such places as Dumfries, Newcastle, Bristol and a handsome chap from Worthing. A saucer was passed around and £80.56 raised to start up a not-for profit company. We came away focused and united and willing to try something new, with slightly lighter pockets.

The Embassy has attracted a lot of support from people that have become angry and disillusioned with current campaigns. We aren't novices at this. I think that the main problem is that Cycling Organisations are fantastic at communicating to the already converted but spectacularly awful at projecting themselves to a general public that couldn’t give a hoot. It’s nice for people like Carlton to attend self congratulatory campaign conferences and trade shows, because it’s easier to ignore the fact that approximately 97% of the population isn’t listening but might like to. CTC were given a large sum of money a while ago to promote cycling through a cinema advert. The ‘Cyclehero’ campaign to me demonstrates how current organisations fail to grasp the public perception of cycling with the ‘Hero’ as a woman looking like a Marvel comic extra. People just want to get to the shops or the library – they don’t care that cycling saves the environment or improves the nations health or can make you look like Catwoman. They would want a transport mode that is easy and direct without the need for safety equipment.

In conclusion, I certainly don’t want to see the Cycling Embassy being in conflict but rather enhancing older more established cycling organizations as we look at the situation with fresh eyes and specific aims. If we’re wrong, then fine. We shall scuttle back to our campaign groups and blogs from whence we came. But if we’re right, and I know we are, the implications for society as well as the older cycling organizations are as numerous as they are fantastic. I believe you have to kick start a cycling culture by representing the 97% that want to cycle as opposed to the 3% that already do.

Jim Davis is founder of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain as well as Worthing Revolutions Cycle Campaign Group and the Worthing Cycle Forum. He was Information Officer at CTC over 2002-2003 and still reminisces about his Raleigh Grifter.

66 comments

Avatar
Carlton Reid [132 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Thank you for responding, Jim.

I've spent 25 years reaching out to non-cyclists, from On Your Bike magazine (aimed specifically at newbies and wanna be cyclists) through to the Bike to Work Book (a 100-page book aimed at newcomers to cycle commuting, available for free). I also edit a trade-funded website for would be cyclists and, for the same website, commissioned the Bike Hub iPhone/Android satnav app to show hesitant cyclists their local cycle paths and quiet roads.

Over those 25 years, pleasingly, I've seen more and more people try out cycling for the first time. The market for cycles is growing. Sales of city bikes, cargo bikes, child-carrying bikes are booming.

I don't live in London but, when I visit, I am constantly amazed at the growth in cycle traffic, despite the less than ideal conditions that cyclists and would-be cyclists have to put up with. I've also noticed a key change in the type of riders out there (noticeable in other cities, too). The hardcore commuters have been joined by folks clearly brand new to cycling. Stand at a busy junction in London during morning rush hour and see the stream of cyclists at the head of the queue, very effectively blocking the passing of (sometimes impatient) motorists. Many of these cyclists are no longer the typical hard-core bike commuter but ordinary folks in civvies.

Even without fantastic infrastructure, more and more people are taking up cycling. When the weather gets warmer, even more will join them.

Yes, we need to encourage even more people to cycle but how are you going to do this by creating an organisation based on disparagement of cycling campaigners?

The "old" campaigns, as you put it, have not "failed", over 120 years they have helped protect our rights to remain on the British road network. Not all roads are suitable for cycle use, and the CTC acknowledges this. In places, segregated infrastructure would be advisable and should be pushed for. CTC is in favour of such infrastructure, when it's done to standard. Sadly, it's often not done to standard, and CTC is vocal in its condemnation of poor quality infrastructure.

CTC, like myself, is worried that local councils will instal sub-standard infrastructure and then force cyclists to use it, banning them from roads. This happens in the Netherlands, where use of many cycle paths is obligatory. This works in the Netherlands because standards are adhered to.

The Cycling Embassy of Great Britain may have laudable aims but if so many of them overlap with the aims of the "old" campaign groups why create a new one? And why attempt to weaken the organisations which have spent years and years fighting for our rights?

Creating a new organisation that is based on disparagement of the existing, long-standing ones is not terribly helpful.

Lines like this (from your draft manifesto) do you no favours:

"We believe that existing cycling campaigns, with their emphasis on training, exhortation, minimal infrastructure and bike share schemes, have largely run their course."

Largely run their course? That is rude, bad PR, demoralising to hard working cycle campaigners and, of course, wrong.

Perhaps a name change is in order? How about just Embassy of Great Britain?

From your manifesto: "Concern expressed that by being a Cycling Embassy, we instantly ‘shoot ourselves in the foot’ for being a cycling campaign."

You're meant to be an organisation pushing for segregated cycle routes yet in your manifesto somebody suggests "We could have a tagline suggesting that it’s not just for cycling."

You want to be a repository of Dutch-style cycle infrastructure standards? Well, watch out on BikeBiz.com for news of a magazine, website, iPad/iPhone app from a German publisher which will do that, with knobs on.

The reason I'm taking the time and trouble to take you to task on the foundation of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain is because I know the damage that can be done by the dilution of messages: splintering off from the "old" and what you misleadingly call "failed" campaign groups weakens us all. If you truly have cycling's interest at heart, push for your agenda *within* the existing structures, don't create new ones. Use your energy and good ideas to liven up the existing campaign organisations. Donate the £80.56 to Sustrans.

On Twitter last night, Bike Portland said this: "While bike advocates argue about helmets, cycle tracks and budget dust, the highway lobby just grins and rubs their hands together."

We need to stand together, not pull apart in ultimately fruitless schisms.

Avatar
OldRidgeback [2620 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Wield has an i in it.

Avatar
Paul M [360 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Good Lord, Carlton - if I didn't know what I was reading I would think I had accidentally picked up a copy of Pravda!

Avatar
timlennon [210 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Carlton,

I was thinking, on my journey in this morning: does cancer have one single body that manages and controls everything?

Do car groups have one over-arching body? Does one organisation represent gardeners in all their many forms?

No, basically. And why should cycling be any different? We can stand together without all standing like sheep behind what many feel is less than effective leadership from CTC, and so many others.

Avatar
stabiliser [7 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

We need to stand together, not pull apart in ultimately fruitless schisms.

The CTC are not really interested in applying lessons from the Netherlands here. Try searching for "the Netherlands" on their site, for instance. Naff all comes up.

They are a campaigning organization centred on the interests of their existing members - that is, people who are happy to use the road network as is. Fine. I have no problem with that.

But frankly I think it's going to be far more "fruitless" for the Embassy to try and swing around the CTC oil tanker, than it is to convince the general public.

There doesn't need to be an overlap here.

Avatar
TheJollyJimLad [12 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Well done for spotting the deliberate mistake OldRidgeback  1

Avatar
Carlton Reid [132 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

The cancer one is a really good example, Tim.

There are waaaay too many cancer charities, diluting cash across many organisations, all of which have their own expensive CEOs and staff members.

If there were less cancer charities, the fight against charity would be more focussed, less costly of duplicated admin.

Avatar
Carlton Reid [132 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

CTC's 60,000 members are a varied and mixed bunch, very few of whom are hardened campaigners for 'vehicular cyclists'. Most members are just ordinary, family cyclists.

CTC sticks up for the rights of all sorts of cyclists.

CTC fights for segregated bike lanes when necessary:

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/ctc-fights-removal-of-brighton-bike-lane

Avatar
mr_colostomy [29 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Whilst I cannot speak for the CEoGB, I do not see how it could possibly be called "an organisation based on disparagement of cycling campaigners." If your views are not represented (in whole or in part) by any other cycling organisation, why not start your own. If the idea is popular enough, there is nothing to stop larger organisations such as the CTC from adapting it as their policy.

I think your argument for unity at all costs is deeply flawed. Why should all those who support the CEoGB instead devote their energies to another campaign whose aims are not the same? After all, I do not hear you criticising Sustrans or Roadpeace for being splitters because the CTC is older; they have their own aims and goals, with some of them overlapping and some not. In those cases where their interests overlap, organisations can work together and present a stronger message by their increased number. Where there is no overlap, or a disparity, having organisations which represent people of differing views are inherently necessary. This is only a good thing for cycling as a whole.

I also find it deeply ironic that at the same time you are decrying the CEoGB for its perceived "Splitting" of cycle campaign efforts, you are suggesting that "An overarching governing body for world cycle sport is necessary but it doesn't have to be the UCI." Seeing your arguments about the CEoGB, I would expect you to feel it is more important for cycle sport to be "Unified," even if you don't feel the UCI is doing things exactly as you would like.

Avatar
stabiliser [7 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

CTC fights for segregated bike lanes when necessary:

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/ctc-fights-removal-of-brighton-bike-lane

Carlton, that story is truly appalling. I've done some digging, and found the document that proposes the removal here

http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgConvert2Pdf.aspx?ID=9707&T=9

p.210-11.

It's good that the CTC are fighting this proposal. But I cannot find any reference to the story on the CTC site. Perhaps they should make their opposition a bit more public?

I would also note, in passing, that the "Hierarchy Of Provision" would not have resulted in the creation of that cycle lane in the first place.

Avatar
OldRidgeback [2620 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Weald - isn't that somewhere in Yorkshire? My CTC membership lapsed years ago but I am a member of a British Cycling affiliated club. I doubt I'll join another wheeled organisation, however good its intentions as I don't have enough hours in the day.

Avatar
philiploy [4 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Dear Jim

Thank you for some clarification regarding the possible working relationship of CEoGB and other campaign orgs. Maybe I missed something, but I couldn't really find anything about this on material previously put out before today. Indeed, I got the impression that you would be ignoring the likes of CTC, LCC, and Sustrans, which worried me a little.

I haven't seen anything yet about how CEoGB will do things differently, rather than just stating aspirations. Maybe you've yet to decide this, which is fine. And if, in time, you do successfully achieve that, all well and good.

I propose that although CEoGB is, to use your own rhetoric, an 'anti-cycle campaigning cycling campaign', existing campaign groups can affiliate with CEoGB, formally or informally, and subscribe to your aims. The role of CEoGB with respect to other cycle campaign orgs might yet have to be determined, but whatever it is, it should of course be complementary.

Personally, I think it's encouraging and positive to see enthusiasm and activism especially in my favourite sphere, cycle campaigning. Given the reasons for founding the CEoGB, I don't think another organisation is necessarily the issue. The issue is how it works with fellow organisations.

So in the spirit of cooperation and goodwill I am happy to try and get the LCC groups I have direct involvement with to work with CEoGB, as after all, united we stand... etc.

And I thought there was something funny about 'weald'.

best regards
Philip

Avatar
dave atkinson [6223 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

*my* Grifter was a piece of crap.

Avatar
TheJollyJimLad [12 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

We have a Weald and Downland Museum here in West Sussex so I think it's the flat bit between the North and South Downs. There are probably others though. And I could be wrong about the flat bit. Other than that we're clear!

Jim

Avatar
Tony Farrelly [2868 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

@oldridgeback weald/wield not sure that's really the nub of the argument here - it should have read 'wield' and it did in the version posted, but our server went down at the same time that Jim's piece went up - and it took the final version with it… sorry about that Jim, it's restored now though.

Dave did you think your Grifter was crap at the time? With hindsight I now realise that neither my Raleigh Hustler nor my mate's Raleigh Chopper were not cycling technology at its Seventies peak… but they seemed more than capable at the time, even with the permanantly slipping second gear on the Chopper's Sturmey 3-speed.

Avatar
Doctor Fegg [143 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

"I've spent 25 years reaching out to non-cyclists"

Good for you (honestly, I mean that  1 ). But over those 25 years, not many more people have been converted to cycling - copious stats are available to back that point up - and I suspect of those that have, it's more been down to those arch-segregationists at Sustrans. Doesn't that tell you something?

"Most [CTC] members are just ordinary, family cyclists."

Wow. That's bonkers. You can't possibly believe that, can you?

Carlton, whether or not you personally think the CEoGB is a good idea, the number of people posting here saying "I don't feel represented by CTC et al" shows there is a demand for it. Please stop trying to slap us down. It's really patronising.

Avatar
Carlton Reid [132 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

If the CE of GB had been founded as a fresh, new organisation willing to boost - and perhaps influence - the 120+ year campaigning efforts of CTC, I wouldn't have had so many bones to pick.

But the draft manifesto, and comments on supporting blogs, are very disparaging about what's gone on before, as though CTC and LCC etc are the ones responsible for not building Dutch-style bike lanes when, in fact, it's successive British Governments bolstered by a car-centric society.

Use of words like "failed" and "old" - and on the twitter accounts and blogs loved by CE of GB members, words like "collaborationists" - are disparagement of the highest order.

Modify the language, reject the hate coming from Freewheeler and others, and maybe you can say the CE of GB isn't based on disparagement.

Avatar
TheJollyJimLad [12 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

That's quite alright! For the record, my Grifter was bright blue with the holographic decals. But then I am an only child.  1

Avatar
Tony Farrelly [2868 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

@Doctor Fegg hmm… I started cycle commuting in London getting on for 20 years ago now. Back then I was on nodding terms with the handful of cyclists that I met on my daily commute – when I go back there now I would get a very sore neck indeed if I nodded to all the cyclists I met on the much shorter ride from Paddington Station.
What got me on my bike was low funds and the high cost of getting the tube to work - my guess is that's the reason most other London commuters get on their bikes too and the fact that the more people you see doing it the more doable you realise it is.

According to the DfT's own stats cycling has grown - there was a long term decline to stop first (and by the way there's been controversy about under-counting cyclists on those stats for years too) but it seems to me that cycling's growth has been patchy it is an urban phenomenon and even here it is concentrated more in the very biggst cities - rural cycling has probably declined, not helped by the fact that according to a DfT funded study of it's own casualty stats rural roads are by far and away the most dangerous places to cycle.

Avatar
OldRidgeback [2620 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Tony - couldn't resist a dig about weald/wield/wheeled. If you were on nodding acquiantance with London's handful of other cycling commuters 20 years ago that would've included me. I've still got the same bike, tho my commute's shorter than it was then.

Going by the casualty rates from the DfT, country roads have the highest statistical crash risk for all road users and that includes cars, trucks and motorcycles.

Avatar
Doctor Fegg [143 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

But do you not see you're falling into the same trap?

Do you not see the irony in a disparaging post saying "stop the disparagement"?

Do you not see that you're so close to the argument that your judgement is not entirely impartial? (I mean, I do a whole bunch of cycle campaigning but I had to look up who Freewheeler was. Bringing some random guy into the conversation for no readily discernible reason says "this is all about tribal argument, not about the merits of particular approaches".)

Take a deep breath. Step away from the keyboard. Let CEoGB get on with doing what they do. You get on with doing what you do. At the moment you are turning the whole debate into XKCD 386.

(For what it's worth: my personal take on CEoGB is that I'd be surprised if it achieved much as a body in itself (but I'd love to be pleasantly surprised). But what it is already doing is giving those of us who believe in appropriate infrastructure, and doubt the Franklin/HoP gospel, the confidence to say so. Over the last two weeks I've noticed there are dozens of campaigners like me who are finally getting the courage to speak up. It's marvellous.)

Avatar
Carlton Reid [132 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Many Road.cc habitues are telling me on Twitter that this particular segregated route now makes riding in the area more dangerous.

Sure, some of them are shaved-leg roadies in non-approved by CE of GB garb, but the episode brings into sharp focus the phrase: "be careful what you wish for".

Done well, segregation can be excellent. Done badly and it can be a crime against humanity. My point is, and has always been, there are many ways to bring new people to cycling. Segregation is one way but it's by no means the only way, perhaps not even the best way.

When a local council is told repeatedly their protected bike lane is shite (Bricycles did this) but the local council goes ahead and produces a rubbish lane, how is the CE of GB going to prevent this? How is the CE of GB going to assure cyclists that the segregation being pushed for won't, in fact, make the situation worse?

It's all fine and dandy to point councils to David Hembrow's "excuses" page but the UK is not the Netherlands of the 1970s.

The fact we haven't got perfect segregation isn't the CTC's fault. Even if they asked for it, would they get it?

The CTC hasn't "failed". It does an enormous amount of good work. To call it a "failed" organisation and one that has "run its course" is wrong in fact and wrong in sentiment.

Avatar
cat1commuter [1421 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

I, for one, would welcome a campaigning organisation which is a little less beardy, sandaly and fluorescent, and a bit more ambitious.

Avatar
Carlton Reid [132 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

You're confusing the professional CTC bods seen at conferences with the rank and file membership.

Ordinary members of the CTC are, well, ordinary.

Yes, there are some rather odd characters that pull out their CTC memberships cards in bike shops and ask for discounts but these are but a minority.

I'd hazard a guess that most of the ordinary members of the CTC are there for the insurance and other benefits. Only a tiny amount will be interested in the heated debate surrounding helmets, hi-viz, and 'vehicular cycling'.

I'd also hazard a guess that many rank and file family members of the CTC would love to see mile after mile of high-quality Dutch-style segregated bike routes, as would I.

Disparaging an organisation with 60,000 members will get you where exactly?

Avatar
Barry Fry-up [187 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

 1

Avatar
Doctor Fegg [143 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

@Tony: Indeed. London is really encouraging. Yet in the large Midlands town where I work, pretty much everyone used to cycle to the town-centre factory (still there and employing people, amazingly). Nowadays, on my daily commute of 1.5 miles each way, I'm lucky to see one other cyclist.

A few reasons seem to have come together at the right time in London: the cost of the tube; the Congestion Charge; judicious investment by TfL under Ken; and I hate to say it, but 7/7 played a huge part. (Ask British Waterways when the tipping point was for cycling use of the Regents Canal.)

We don't have those in the rest of Britain. Cambridge, York and perhaps (but probably not) Oxford aside, cycling is a trace activity. Getting cycling from 0.1% of local journeys to even just 10% is going to require massive, reconstructive surgery. So let's not knock the people who are saying "it's time to try something different" - because it is.

@Carlton: +1 on "there are many ways to bring new people to cycling", but I think the key point you're missing is "...and we need to do all of them". It isn't "either/or", and that's where HoP gets it wrong. If reduced traffic gets us a 10% modal shift, that's great. If segregation gets us another 10%, that's also great.

People's perceptions of danger vary enormously. The CTC/Cyclenation stance has always been to even this out - i.e. "make the roads safe, make people aware that they're safe". Great in theory but, as per above, practically impossible in the majority of Britain where utility cycling is non-existent. Segregation says "give the people what they want".

Yes, bad segregation can make the roads more dangerous for roadies. Similarly, no segregation can make the roads more dangerous for non-roadies. We need to fix that, not to use either as an excuse for doing nothing.

Avatar
townmouse [14 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Carlton - regarding the manifesto, are you looking at the current draft (combined with the mission statement)? It's here http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/sites/cycling-embassy.org.uk/files/doc... I'm trying to get it finalised and we've modified it quite extensively since the first draft (which was just me throwing some ideas around over Christmas and may have been more strongly worded than it ought to have been - what can I say, I was staying with my in-laws...). I've read the latest version through again and there's nothing that I can see that's disparaging of previous campaigns, but if you can let me know which bit you don't like I'll see if it can be reworded. Once it's finalised, and it still needs some work, that will be going in a much more prominent place and hopefully some of the misunderstandings that have cropped up can be cleared up.

Please remember that the CEoGB is a very freshly hatched organisation - and among other things the website is very much in its infancy. Please bear with us while we prepare for the official launch...

Avatar
emilyobyrne [4 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Many are quick to note that segregated cycle lanes done badly are a nightmare. I agree - they are.

On the other hand, traffic calming measures done badly are also a nightmare.

Road narrowing to slow down traffic that means the cars have no room to overtake cyclists, resulting in frustrated and impatient drivers. Artificial pinch points that mean I have to dive out into the traffic flow to get round them. Or wobble through a narrow gully to the left - which I find nerve-wracking on account of the narrowness and the high kerbs. A line of parked cars on the other side of aforementioned gully so I have to throw myself in front of the cars now accelerating away from the obstacle.

These traffic calming measures are presumably designed to deliver traffic reduction and lower speeds, those preferred options from the oft-cited Hierarchy of Provision. I also presume they weren't what the CTC and others had in mind when they published the HoP, any more than when the CEofGB proposes dedicated cycling infrastructure it is aiming for the tiny, cratered, and randomly terminating cycle lanes that we are currently stuck with.

Can we at least keep the discussion focused on the relative merits of cycling infrastructure when implemented properly?

Avatar
timlennon [210 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

"Sure, some of them are shaved-leg roadies in non-approved by CE of GB garb"

Carlton, do you think you could drop the mud-slinging? It's not really enhancing your message, especially when you seem to view the practice with opprobrium, and then get stuck in.

Avatar
philiploy [4 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Is the CEoGB able to confirm that UK cycle campaign organisations are in it's tentative list of partners? E.g. the London Cycling Campaign and/ or branches thereof? I hope so - it's a glaring omission in the minutes of 29th January.

Pages