Minister for cycling says he feels safe riding on London roads - but understands why others don't

Robert Goodwill wants to see more women, less Lycra, among riders - but says fully segregated lanes aren't the answer

by Simon_MacMichael   December 1, 2013  

Barclays Cycle Superhighway (source - Transport for London)

Minister for cycling Robert Goodwill says he does not feel in danger when cycling in London traffic, although he understands why others might. He also wants to see more women and people in suits riding in the city, rather than cyclists in Lycra – but is sceptical that fully segregated cycle lanes and a rush-hour ban on HGVs is the answer to getting more people cycling in the capital.

Mr Goodwill was speaking after taking to the city’s streets on his Brompton on Friday on a route designed by staff at the Department for Transport to highlight the best and worst of the city’s cycling infrastructure.

His trip came at the end of a month in which six cyclists were killed in London, all of them following collisions with large vehicles such as lorries and buses.

His itinerary took Mr Goodwill, who regularly rides his bike in London as well as in the Scarborough & Whitby constituency he represents, from Kings Cross to Westminster by way of Camden, Southwark and Lambeth reports the London Evening Standard.

“I didn't feel in danger at any time,” he reflected afterwards. “I do cycle in London but I think if I was a London cycling virgin I would have been a little bit nervous, possibly.”

The minister said that he wanted to see more infrastructure of the type in place in Royal College Street in Camden, where ‘armadillo bumps’ and flower planters provide a form of segregation, without being the type of fully segregated lane many cyclists and campaigners are calling for.

"When we came out of Kings Cross, we got on to some quite good segregated routes, some quiet routes I didn't even know existed. We went down Royal College Street where they have spent a lot of money... I thought that was fine and I felt safe. Because of the little armadillos, if the cyclist did need to cross over the road to get to a shop they can weave in between, but a car can't get over.

"In a way, because it's much cheaper [than fully segregated lanes] I would rather see a lot of that and less total segregation, which is quite expensive.”

However, he was less impressed with his experience once he ventured onto the south side of the Thames, saying: “There was a bizarre one in Southwark where I went across the road and there was a cycle lane coming the other way, but the cycle lane on our side started three metres later and then it was on a footpath. It was marked on the footpath but there was no ramp or anything."

Mr Goodwill said that cyclists needed to be assertive when taking position on the road, and noted that perception of danger was a common barrier to would-be cyclists, especially women.

"The advice I get from my officials is women are more nervous about going on the roads than men," he said.

"Also, sadly, women are possibly more likely – or inexperienced older people, men as well – to be at the left-hand side of the road, thinking they are safe near the kerb when actually they should be in the box at the front, behind the advance stop line, taking possession of their lane, making it clear to people behind they are turning or going straight on.

"If people around you know what you intend to do, you're much safer."

Mr Goodwill’s remarks reflect the fact a disproportionate number of cycling fatalities in London in recent years have been of female cyclists killed by left-turning lorries at traffic lights.

Transport for London and Mayor Boris Johnson have come under particular criticism for the design of Barclays Cycle Superhighways that take cyclists along the kerb then.

In October, the coroner in the inquiry of the Brian Dorling case noted the design gives riders a false sense of security and puts them in a position of danger at junctions; Mr Goodwill’s comments about riding away from the gutter suggest he may share that view.

He did say that he appreciated why some people might be fearful of sharing road space with large vehicles: "I can understand why people do feel a bit nervous and why you have to have your wits about you in London - for example, don't cycle when you're drunk.

"I sometimes think people on Boris bikes who have not much experience cycling in London are probably putting themselves in danger - but I didn't feel any danger."

However, he reiterated that he did not see a ban on lorries at rush hour in London and other cities as the solution, something that British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman has called on, although he said other measures could be taken.

"There are issues to be looked at in terms of side protection bars on tipper lorries, on skip wagons, on certain other refuse wagons," the minister explained.

"Experience in other countries like Denmark and Holland has shown you can design a network in an urban environment which is safe for cyclists and we do need to do more.

"What we need to do is transplant the best I have seen into some of the areas where I have also seen the worst.

"Some of the worst areas are because of not much investment. But some of them are actually areas where they have spent quite a bit of money but it has not been spent intelligently.

"We need to review some of the road-marking legislation, low-level signals for cyclists so they can see them, there's things like that we can do," he added.

49 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

andyp wrote:
Where's the 'less lycra' quote? Why would anyone want fewer people to wear appropriate clothing?

What he means (I think) is that cycling should be a relaxed and safe means of transport. Dutch people don't need to dress up and get a shower at work because they've meandered at a comfortable pace along lovely segregated infrastructure. Trouble is..he seems to be against such infrastructure because it is "quite expensive" (unlike public transport subsidies, roads, A&E treatment for injured cyclists...).

posted by deblemund [88 posts]
1st December 2013 - 22:08

like this
Like (13)

6 killed in 2 weeks and they reckon it costs the economy £1.5 MILLION per death - how much mor for the seriously injured to boot? Yep that's 9 million quid never mind the incalculable human suffering of someone losing a parent, sibling, offspring. An average of 14-16 a year in London alone and that's already a much larger figure than that promised for cycling infrastructure for the UK at the moment.

posted by IHphoto [95 posts]
1st December 2013 - 22:35

like this
Like (13)

IanW1968 wrote:
Neil -

You keep popping up in these threads defending commercial vehicle operators. Do you have a vested intrest?

Most of the vehicles involved in incidents with vulnerable road users are not delivering life saving goods for little old ladies.

There pay per load construction industry vehicles poorly maintained with stressed drivers. The benefits of their cut cost operation goes into the coffers of property developers and if it cost a bit more to do the job safely so be it.

There may well be economic implications for other operators as well but the costs in the entire chain are insignificant when compared to safety and quality of life for everyone else.

The pollution thing is also a red herring, you've either been reading too many trade papers or as suggested earlier have have no intrest in cycling and pedestrians and actually have stronger allegiances to an industry which is struggling to turn a buck at the moment and doesn't want more costs.

Ian, as you rightly point out, I am interested in this issue, as apparently are you. But that is where the similarities end.

When I post, I state my opinion, and some facts to support my opinion. It's called reasoned debate. But you seem keen to state your opinion, without any supporting argument.

In answer to your question, I have a vested interest in moving towards more sustainable, localised economies, in which the bicycle would play a major role, as we enter an era of increasingly expensive energy. And part of that interest includes looking at cost effective ways to reduce KSIs involving cyclists.

"Hey..... Let's be visible out there."

Neil753's picture

posted by Neil753 [451 posts]
1st December 2013 - 22:53

like this
Like (9)

I live on Royal College Street and have been using this street for commuting on my bike every day in both directions for some years (well over 12 years)

Its funny how the minister seems to highlight this street during his trip, because in my opinion its become more dangerous since the rebuild

The old layout involved a north/south dual-lane cycle path running up the northbound side of R.C.S. which is a 1-way street. This had a solid concrete dividing strip to physically seperate the motor traffic from cyclists; this actually won awards.

Yes, there were a number of RTC and near collisions between cyclists and motorists at the several right-angle junctions which intersected this setup:-

Motorists would be looking to their right for one-way traffic and would not see south-bound cyclists, or would park their vehicle beyond the hard 'stop' line with their bonnet in the northbound cycle lane, or just ignore any cycle traffic in either direction...

When it was announced the cycle lane was being rebuilt with north bound on left side, and south bound on right side, we had hope it would get sorted out properly. We had months of disruption with the closure of the cycle lane, alternative routes and very little evidence of any work being done on the closed cycle lane.

However, we soon saw strange rubber 'armadillo' , intermittent paint strips and 2 metre long metal plant pots being installed along the road.

The problem from actually using this new design is that the northbound lane does not offer cyclists any more protection from motorists driving across the right hand junction in R.C.S., and numerous instances of motorists parking vehicles in the cycle lane where the armadillos (oversized cat eyes) or gaps in paint / plant pots allow easy vehicle parking

its not uncommon to see a courier vehicle parked after the bus stop where the paint lines stops. In the past 2 weeks, I have seen two of the metal plant pots smashed and pushed into the cycle lane from vehicle collisions, presenting an obstruction and hazard to cyclists.

You can see the replacement plant pots because they don't have the reflective tape that had to be applied to the first installation of the pots when it was realised their black paint made them a hazard to cyclists using the northbound lane at night...

On the new southbound cycle lane its not uncommon to have people from cars and couriers with packages from delivery vehicles stepping out in the cycle lane without looking, straight into the path of oncoming cyclists!

I tried raising these issues with LB Camden and also Camden Cycling and LB Camden Cycling officials at cycling events and there is no interest in examining these new problems because the officials responsible for this new scheme are too busy patting each other on the back for the success of their 'Go Dutch" scheme for R.C.S. in Camden

These people need to wake up and realise this is not Holland but London; we have an aggressive motoring culture, a lack of Policing and a number of uneducated or arrogant cyclists which means the motorised community will do whatever they can get away with when the road layout presents that opportunity!

The new scheme in Royal College Street is not a good example of cycle-safe road design as the minister and LB Camden might have you believe, but merely an example of doing the redesign on the 'cheap' whilst still having serious safety implications for cyclists:(

Try using R.C.S. every day and report back!

posted by hampstead_bandit [130 posts]
1st December 2013 - 22:59

like this
Like (10)

Mr. Goodwill says: “I didn't feel in danger at any time,” he reflected afterwards. “I do cycle in London but I think if I was a London cycling virgin I would have been a little bit nervous, possibly.”

Doesn't that say it all? If cycling is too scary for those who aren't already having a go then there there is something badly wrong. Cycling is the sort of activity one should feel confident in letting children do. But no-one in their right mind would allow a child to cycle on most of London's road because it is perceived as too dangerous for adults let alone children. The war for safe cycling infrastructure will not be won until everyone feels safe getting on a bike.

As an aside I am not a London cycling virgin but, after forty years cycling in this city, I am still scared every time I have to fight it out with juggernauts, buses and the rest on my bike. If ever I lose that fear, and cycling infrastructure has not improved, I expect that is the day I die.

Watdabni

posted by Watdabni [7 posts]
1st December 2013 - 23:52

like this
Like (10)

IanW1968 wrote:
Neil -

You keep popping up in these threads defending commercial vehicle operators. Do you have a vested intrest?

Most of the vehicles involved in incidents with vulnerable road users are not delivering life saving goods for little old ladies.

There pay per load construction industry vehicles poorly maintained with stressed drivers. The benefits of their cut cost operation goes into the coffers of property developers and if it cost a bit more to do the job safely so be it.

There may well be economic implications for other operators as well but the costs in the entire chain are insignificant when compared to safety and quality of life for everyone else.

The pollution thing is also a red herring, you've either been reading too many trade papers or as suggested earlier have have no intrest in cycling and pedestrians and actually have stronger allegiances to an industry which is struggling to turn a buck at the moment and doesn't want more costs.

The 'pollution thing' is most certainly not a red herring, London has missed it EU targets for acceptable pollution levels year after year and uses the loophole of the promise of making improvements whilst actually doing naff all. I hope the EU throws the book at us, maybe then things will change.

Quote:
"The Greater London Authority (GLA) estimated that in 2008 there were 4,267 deaths attributable to long-term exposure to small particles. More information about air quality and health can be found in our useful documents." from Air pollution and public health And that's just from the small particles, which aren't the only deadly vehicle emissions.

And:
"In Marylebone Road on 28 July, one of the hottest days of the year, NOx levels rose to 1,912 microgrammes per cubic metre, the equivalent of motorists and pedestrians breathing in four cigarettes a minute.". From London's air 'as bad as smoking'

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Just because you hadn't heard of the deaths happening, doesn't mean they aren't happening.

4,267+ deaths attributable to long-term exposure to small particles.
14 deaths whilst cycling on London's roads, you tell me, which is the red herring?

posted by kie7077 [452 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 0:15

like this
Like (7)

There's a reason people wear Lycra, It helps you move more fluidly on the bike, Suits are normally tight fitting and restrict movement and can get ripped easily while riding.
If you don't have mudguards like my bike, You can get spray all over your back like you've just shit sprayed everywhere.
Who wants to get to work with massive sweaty arse and pits in a suit.

Think it through Son.

RoadbikerAlex's picture

posted by RoadbikerAlex [2 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 1:06

like this
Like (8)

kie7077 wrote:
IanW1968 wrote:
Neil -

You keep popping up in these threads defending commercial vehicle operators. Do you have a vested intrest?

Most of the vehicles involved in incidents with vulnerable road users are not delivering life saving goods for little old ladies.

There pay per load construction industry vehicles poorly maintained with stressed drivers. The benefits of their cut cost operation goes into the coffers of property developers and if it cost a bit more to do the job safely so be it.

There may well be economic implications for other operators as well but the costs in the entire chain are insignificant when compared to safety and quality of life for everyone else.

The pollution thing is also a red herring, you've either been reading too many trade papers or as suggested earlier have have no intrest in cycling and pedestrians and actually have stronger allegiances to an industry which is struggling to turn a buck at the moment and doesn't want more costs.

The 'pollution thing' is most certainly not a red herring, London has missed it EU targets for acceptable pollution levels year after year and uses the loophole of the promise of making improvements whilst actually doing naff all. I hope the EU throws the book at us, maybe then things will change.

Quote:
"The Greater London Authority (GLA) estimated that in 2008 there were 4,267 deaths attributable to long-term exposure to small particles. More information about air quality and health can be found in our useful documents." from Air pollution and public health And that's just from the small particles, which aren't the only deadly vehicle emissions.

And:
"In Marylebone Road on 28 July, one of the hottest days of the year, NOx levels rose to 1,912 microgrammes per cubic metre, the equivalent of motorists and pedestrians breathing in four cigarettes a minute.". From London's air 'as bad as smoking'

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Just because you hadn't heard of the deaths happening, doesn't mean they aren't happening.

4,267+ deaths attributable to long-term exposure to small particles.
14 deaths whilst cycling on London's roads, you tell me, which is the red herring?

I didn't really have time to explain the whole pollution issue to Ian, but your explanation is much better than mine would have been. As you point out, the death rate amongst cyclists, terrible as it is, when compared to deaths attributable to long-term exposure to small particles, is considerably lower.

For your interest; sometimes when I'm heading towards London on the M4 in my artic, when the light is right, I can see a distinct brown layer of visible pollution cloaking the capital.

My solution for London's pollution crisis would be larger (but fewer) trucks with tighter emission limits, a lifting of all hgv time restrictions to avoid "rushing", tougher restrictions on cars at peak times, tax incentives to remove old taxis from London's streets, the encouragement of electrically assisted cargo bike adoption by trademen through generous tax breaks, a widespread reduction in speed limits to 20 mph, a corresponding raising of electric bike speeds, also to 20 mph, and, somewhat controversially, greater focus on the speedy provision of a clearly identifiable network of "quiet ways" and soft segregation for cyclists elsewhere, with the aim of removing 90 percent of all cycle traffic from historically dangerous junctions.

"Hey..... Let's be visible out there."

Neil753's picture

posted by Neil753 [451 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 2:03

like this
Like (11)

RoadbikerAlex wrote:
There's a reason people wear Lycra, It helps you move more fluidly on the bike, Suits are normally tight fitting and restrict movement and can get ripped easily while riding.
If you don't have mudguards like my bike, You can get spray all over your back like you've just shit sprayed everywhere.
Who wants to get to work with massive sweaty arse and pits in a suit.

Think it through Son.


Then invest in a hybrid/utility bike with flat bars, mud guards (full), chain guard. All the stuff bikes used to come with apart from racers. This attitude of needing Lycra and drops is what keeps folk away from cycling.

giff77's picture

posted by giff77 [1048 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 5:23

like this
Like (13)

My suggestion that the pollution argument is a red herring is not because I don't believe there is a problem but because it's not an excuse.

You can save your time copy pasting stuff from the net. Off course any solutions would need to be balanced against secondary effects.

I will however leave those to the experts whom will hopefully avoiding using google facts to develop them.

Now it's about getting commercial vehicle operators to take responsibility for killing and seriously injuring people which they will today, tommorow and the day after.

posted by IanW1968 [154 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 9:03

like this
Like (17)

I want to see less people wearing highly inappropriate trainers with their suits on their way to work, what can be done about that? Style wise it's a disaster, I can't see how the rest of the world can begin to take us seriously when they see how incompetently dressed we are as a nation.

posted by Nick T [798 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 9:18

like this
Like (7)

giff77 wrote:
Then invest in a hybrid/utility bike with flat bars, mud guards (full), chain guard. All the stuff bikes used to come with apart from racers. This attitude of needing Lycra and drops is what keeps folk away from cycling.

It does rather depend, to be fair.

I do 40 miles a day on a drop bar with guards. Generally I wear lycra on the basis that it's pretty much a mini urban rural sportive daily. I am lucky that I get to drop my shirts etc for the week at work on a Sunday evening, thus freeing me up for the wearing of lycra.

But yes, over short distances, there's no benefit to it. But neither is there any disadvantage other than the fact that the less enlightened in society have marked you down as a knob based on stereotyping.

posted by bendertherobot [269 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 9:32

like this
Like (9)

The lycra thing is a non-issue. i wear lycra to commute because it is comfortable, and convenient. If it rains i dont mind, if i have a flat and get dirty hands, i don't mind, if my chain comes off and i get greasy hands, i don't mind. It means that my work clothes arrive clean, dry and looking presentable. I arrive looking however i look, until i shower and get clean fresh clothes on. It doesn't matter what bike (hybrid or roadie) I'm on, i dress for that reason. If i wore a suit to cycle it would be f**ked within a few weeks.

The most telling thing for me is that ''When we came out of Kings Cross, we got on to some quite good segregated routes, some quiet routes I didn't even know existed" That would be the area he cycles routinely and regularly but isn't aware of the infrastructure.

posted by md6 [156 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 9:42

like this
Like (7)

He says:

"What we need to do is transplant the best I have seen into some of the areas where I have also seen the worst."

I think he means the best bits of London, but the best London has to offer is waaay behind the state of the art.

Sad that he has translated what he is confident in doing onto other people, just like Boris did with his "if you keep your wits about you " comments on Aldgate giratory.

We need infrastructure you'd be happy sending your mum or your 8 yr old down.

posted by P3t3 [46 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 10:18

like this
Like (6)

regarding the 20mph speed limit for London its already been adopted by 2 boroughs including LB Camden, which installed a borough wide 20mph speed limit in the Summer.

However, the local Police commander admitted in an interview in the Camden Journal newspaper, that they do not have the resources to effectively Police this speed limit across the Borough

its great making rules but then not enforcing!

it just makes a mockery of all the hard political work done by cycle campaigners and road safety campaigners for this 20mph speed limit (this apparently is critical for survivability of RTC for pedestrians as well as cyclists).

posted by hampstead_bandit [130 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 10:23

like this
Like (14)

In my experience, those wearing lycra tend to know what they're doing on a bike more than those not in lycra!

posted by AyBee [69 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 10:42

like this
Like (7)

Is there a map of his route anywhere?
Was Upper Thames Street or Blackfriars Bridge on it?
How about a trip down the Mall into the mess of the roundabout at the end and then along Fleet Street?

I can think of some really well used, but utterly shit parts of London's cycling infrastructure that thousands of cyclists have to endure every day. It's not all about the junctions, but the general conditions between them as well.

posted by alexb [48 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 11:04

like this
Like (15)

To Fluffy Mike, You missed the word 'disproportionate' then? Its been well-publicised that only a small fraction of London cyclists are female (e.g. 3 times more male than female cyclists http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/may/13/cyc...). yet (as you point out) half the fatalities have been female. We need to understand why this group is so much more likely to be killed. Confused That grauniad article has some discussion of the question.

posted by Guanajuato [14 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 11:40

like this
Like (12)

I disagree with some on here. I think the message was positive. People thinking that they'll get an HGV ban straight off the bat are being a bit optimistic. I agree with a ban on HGVs but under no illusions that this will take a heck of push and long while to implement.

And yes it is all about the money. Everything is. I would rather have a lot of cheap(er) but effective infrastructure implemented quickly and widely than a little bit of more expensive gold plated infrastructure in a few places when they get round to it.

So yes a few more armadillos and flower pots that work and bit less bright blue paint and hoo haa about cycle superhighways that don't.

I once worked on a road safety project at an accident black spot where several people had died and loads of other crashes and injuries. We had some quite expensive suggestions and amendments to roads mooted to improve the sight line. However, the best solution came when they looked at when the accidents happened. During the day and in the summer. The cause was that this was when the vegetation obscured the view. At night people could see lights of oncoming vehicles. In the winter the vegetation wasn't there. The simple answer was cutting the vegetation right back and about 3m of hard standing to prevent its encroachment. Cost was minimal. No more black spot.

Sometimes simple cheap solutions work better and you can have more of them.

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [567 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 11:55

like this
Like (9)

I'm a life long cyclist like many on here and I had the opportunity to ride London roads for the first time in January 2011 whilst attending a bikeability instructors course held at the Liverpool Grove church in the Walworth area.

I found that although many motorists were pretty good the ones who weren't were exceptionally hostile. Courier white vans and general privately owned cars were driven with excessive speed and seemingly engaged in a Santa Pod type exercise of racing away from lights just to stop further down the road in time to do it all again.

An abundant display of mobiles pressed to the 'hidden' side of faces or balanced on the shoulder held by a leaning head also. Did I feel safe?

Not really.

Would I have felt comfortable taking inexperienced children out onto the roads?

I feel it would have been irresponsible to do so other than on the very quietest of roads with good visibility to give you enough time to spot the next speeding BMW coming your way.

Of course this is a common issue on the majority of roads, I didn't personally feel that London roads were any better or any worse than other busy cities or towns I've ridden in...and that is not a positive comment.

In summary...London roads are like the majority of others in that traffic is too fast and many motorists are engaged in anything but focusing on the immediate task at hand. Much more work to be done then.

Hating our selfish and ignorant car culture

posted by ironmancole [124 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 12:39

like this
Like (8)

bikerdavecycling wrote:
Would I let my 8yr old ride in the Netherlands alone to a friends? Probably. In the UK? Not a chance. Even on the few times I've ridden on quiet roads with him, I've been constantly on edge awaiting that next car. Says it all really.

I couldn't agree more. Car drivers probably don't realise (or more likely, don't care) how the sound of their infernal machine rips the peace and quiet of the countryside asunder, everywhere it goes. And this is true even of cars that are not being driven particularly quickly or aggressively.

I have one hope, and that is that the complete demise of the internal combustion engine come about whilst I'm still alive to see it.

'It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning' (Henry Ford)

cyclingDMlondon's picture

posted by cyclingDMlondon [211 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 14:01

like this
Like (7)

AyBee wrote:
In my experience, those wearing lycra tend to know what they're doing on a bike more than those not in lycra!

'Know[ing] what they're doing' is, in general, no guarantee of riding safely. A formula 1 driver can still drive like a tw*t, if he wants to.

Personally, every rider (with the exception of one) who has passed me on the left, or shot across my bows with inches to spare, has been in Lycra (although I recognise that this is by no means scientific).

'It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning' (Henry Ford)

cyclingDMlondon's picture

posted by cyclingDMlondon [211 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 14:43

like this
Like (12)

AyBee wrote:
In my experience, those wearing lycra tend to know what they're doing on a bike more than those not in lycra!

Seriously? I see a lot of Lycra clad cyclists who are total f***wits on the road. What you wear does not determine your competency on the road.

giff77's picture

posted by giff77 [1048 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 15:03

like this
Like (4)

bendertherobot wrote:
giff77 wrote:
Then invest in a hybrid/utility bike with flat bars, mud guards (full), chain guard. All the stuff bikes used to come with apart from racers. This attitude of needing Lycra and drops is what keeps folk away from cycling.

It does rather depend, to be fair.

I do 40 miles a day on a drop bar with guards. Generally I wear lycra on the basis that it's pretty much a mini urban rural sportive daily. I am lucky that I get to drop my shirts etc for the week at work on a Sunday evening, thus freeing me up for the wearing of lycra.

But yes, over short distances, there's no benefit to it. But neither is there any disadvantage other than the fact that the less enlightened in society have marked you down as a knob based on stereotyping.

Agreed. I've a 30 mile round commute so Lycra it is for me. One of my managers who is closer rolls up on his brompton dressed up to the nines. Mind you he literally has put no effort into getting to work as he is barely glowing let alone sweating. Smile

giff77's picture

posted by giff77 [1048 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 15:17

like this
Like (7)

Just near my house is the junction between Royal College Street and Kentish Town Road, London, NW1

This morning I made several back and forth trips on foot through this area, between 8.30am and 9.30am

This junction sees a huge amount of traffic (its the one next to cash converters) and I am sad to say I witnessed way too many cyclists breezing straight through the red lights coming south down Kentish Town Road.

Saw several of these RLJ's forced to brake hard to a stop after motor traffic going north up R.C.S. started moving across this junction after the R.C.S. lights turned green.

Seemed to be an equal mix of lycra clad (road bikes) and casually clothed cyclists (dutch bikes / urban singlespeed) doing this red light jumping

Did not see a single motorist jumping this junction this morning, as its well covered with CCTV and yellow no stop grid in the middle.

posted by hampstead_bandit [130 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 15:27

like this
Like (4)

giff77 wrote:
I've a 30 mile round

You lucky sod. Mine is 21 miles, and I'm looking around for ways to make it longer. The wife's not up for moving further from London, so I'm just going to have to find a more circuitous route! Smile

'It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning' (Henry Ford)

cyclingDMlondon's picture

posted by cyclingDMlondon [211 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 16:12

like this
Like (5)

giff77 wrote:
Seriously? I see a lot of Lycra clad cyclists who are total f***wits on the road. What you wear does not determine your competency on the road.

You're lucky - at least yours are on the road. I see one riding up my street on the pavement in full club strip!

Anyway, this minister, does he have any decent positive suggestions for strengthening the guidance from his department (maybe giving Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure, Manual for Streets and Cyclists and Road Works legal teeth) and changing the intimidating streetscapes, or is it just no-no-no-no-there's no limits to motor traffic and leave it all to the failing local councils while he does a bit of fiddling with rules for white paint and traffic lights?

The bashing of people on hire bikes seems a bit rich: a lot of them are experienced cyclists from further away who no longer their own bikes into central London because public transprot operators make it so difficult.

posted by a.jumper [696 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 17:14

like this
Like (6)

cyclingDMlondon wrote:
giff77 wrote:
I've a 30 mile round

You lucky sod. Mine is 21 miles, and I'm looking around for ways to make it longer. The wife's not up for moving further from London, so I'm just going to have to find a more circuitous route! Smile

You do realise that the "sorry I'm late love I missed the turning" can only be used so many times. Devil

giff77's picture

posted by giff77 [1048 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 18:53

like this
Like (8)

IHphoto wrote:
6 killed in 2 weeks and they reckon it costs the economy £1.5 MILLION per death - how much mor for the seriously injured to boot? Yep that's 9 million quid never mind the incalculable human suffering of someone losing a parent, sibling, offspring. An average of 14-16 a year in London alone and that's already a much larger figure than that promised for cycling infrastructure for the UK at the moment.

Where does the 1.5m per death cost come from?

dullard's picture

posted by dullard [140 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 19:13

like this
Like (3)

dullard wrote:

Where does the 1.5m per death cost come from?

Its probably from the formal cost benefit analysis that the highwaymen use to try to make the decision to build a road appear more rational and objective.
I used to know about this, I think it was called COBAx.

posted by felixcat [209 posts]
2nd December 2013 - 20:31

like this
Like (3)