Autoglass repair, Autoglass disgrace: why cyclists don’t use cycle lanes; Max Stedman goes Everesting; Walmart sponsors CX worlds; Slippery cyclists; Wicker baskets beat bar bags; Jeremy Vine talks LTNs; Pog transfer rumour + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Why cyclists don't use cycle lanes: Autoglass and scaffolding special
“why don’t cyclists use the cycle lane?” pic.twitter.com/kNKf7GXaeW
— Sarah (@eatsruns) October 21, 2021
Why cyclists don’t use cycle lanes is an old favourite of the live blog, there’s sadly just too much top-tier content for it not to be. I guess, being really generous, you could make an argument for giving this lot a pass…I wouldn’t want to lug scaffolding further than I needed to either. BUT, on the other hand, showing just a little bit of consideration would probably tell you not to put vulnerable road users at risk for your own gain. Also, lobbing your ladder in the bike lane as some kind of makeshift barrier is a strange decision too.
The photo inspired others to send in their own ‘why cyclists don’t use cycle lanes’ classics, including this double belter from Autoglass…you get the cycle lane, I’ll block the pavement.
Why don’t parents push prams on the pavement? Why do wheelchair users go on the road? @Autoglass pic.twitter.com/723SETAjmD
— John 😷✊ (@JohnWildy71) October 21, 2021
Someone from the windscreen repair group quickly got back to John, asking him to DM them the time and location. But back to our scaffolding stoppage…while some wondered if there was a pile of wrecked wands under the truck, Mary Caulfield and Jo Kitching loved the nice touch of chucking a ladder on the floor…
I’m not sure whether it’s just me or perhaps my disability but I always have difficulties negotiating ladders on my bicycle 🤷♀️😏
— Mary Caulfield (@SusanTheSilent) October 21, 2021
That sounds like one for Danny MacAskill…
Love the fact they had a barrier up after the ladder lying down.
— Jo Kitching (@joannekitching) October 21, 2021
Watch out for slippery cyclists this autumn
Definitely some slippery cyclists around #yyj pic.twitter.com/1popHV8lND
— Mariah McCooey (@MariahMcCooey) October 22, 2021
Those pesky, slippery cyclists not riding over ladders in bike lanes…
Walmart becomes title sponsor of 2022 UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships
Next year’s UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships in Fayetteville, Arkansas will have a big-name sponsor after the UCI announced US retail giants Walmart will be the title sponsors. It’s only the second time the event has been hosted in the US in its 72-year history.
“We are delighted and proud that the 2022 edition of the UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships, the discipline’s annual flagship event, can count on the support of Walmart, the largest retailer in the world,” UCI president David Lappartient said. “The arrival of an economic player of this stature is testimony not only to the discipline’s appeal but also, more broadly, to that of cycling, whose societal benefits are increasingly being recognised.”
Kim Tunick, a senior director at Walmart, gave the brand’s perspective on the deal: “We are proud to be the Title Partner of the 2022 UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships that will be held in Northwest Arkansas, where our company was founded nearly 60 years ago. This sponsorship demonstrates our commitment to the community and promoting healthy and active lifestyles for our customers and associates. We are excited to be a partner for this world-class event.”
Max Stedman has unfinished business with Everesting record — targeting outright record in Somerset today
Almost had to cancel due to road conditions but we go!
📅 Friday, 22nd October, Mex does Everesting Rd 2.
⌚9:00AM
📍 Crowcombe Hill, Quantocks.Any support is greatly appreciated just please please avoid parking and driving up and down the hill. Let’s see what I can do! 💥
— Max Stedman (@MaxStedman_) October 21, 2021
Max Stedman broke the British Everesting record last September, but fell short of the world record having been just 8 minutes off pace at the halfway mark. He’s back on Crowcombe Hill today for another shot. Support is welcome (particularly from anyone with a broom to sweep away those nasty autumn leaves), although the fewest cars on the route as possible will obviously help his progress.
Stedman will need to first and foremost beat his time of 7hrs 32mins set last September, and then think about Ronan Mc Laughlin’s 6hrs 40mins.The Canyon dhb SunGod rider admitted he got his gearing wrong on the last attempt and needed to switch out his 36×32 lowest gear for a 34T chainring on the front.
If anyone knows what it takes to shoot up Crowcombe, it’s Stedman. He completed 58 repeats of the climb last time. With an average gradient of 14.4 per cent, maxing out at 19.2 per cent, he’s in for a long day in the saddle. All the best, Max. Let’s hope for some positive news later on today…
Keep your handlebar bags...get your bike ready for winter with this must-have storage solution
Had to share this top-tier sub-editing by Take A Break magazine: “Wicker boxy GLORY”.
This month’s top tip: Beryl from Cheshire needed a bike basket but they were all too expensive, so she found an older wicker basket in the bathroom and attached it with cable ties. pic.twitter.com/UtKQ9sciSX
— Adam Tranter (@adamtranter) October 22, 2021
Winter is a time for taking it easy. Get some winter tyres, some thick clothing and perhaps even a nice pair of mudguards and you’ll stay warm and dry through the nasty dark months. Handlebar bags, however, will seem vastly overrated once you see this unique storage solution. After all, you could keep all your extra layers, food and spares safely tucked away in a stylish wicker basket. No need for fiddling around with velcro in the cold. All you’ll need here are some cable ties. Genius.
Jeremy Vine talks LTNs
This scheme is to be made permanent. No cars can go through #FishersLane in #LondonW4 any more. And that is fantastic news if you care about the safety of kids on bikes, general pollution levels, pedestrian safety, congestion. No traffic jams in this street ever again. https://t.co/7zriaQ13vl
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) October 22, 2021
After a couple of days of negative LTN news, Jeremy Vine brought us this update that this scheme in West London is to be made permanent.
For a quick rundown of the past 48 hours on the live blog…first, check out Ealing Council’s Wednesday blunder…encouraging cycling two weeks after seven of the borough’s LTNs had been ripped out. Then, move on to Thursday’s reaction…gridlock at, you guessed it, one of said former LTN sites.
Police officer fined for calling police to report stolen bike after losing key...only because he knew they'd cut it off for free
A police officer in Singapore found himself slapped with a S$3,000 yesterday after a bizarre series of events left him reporting his own bike stolen…just so his colleagues would come and unlock it for free. Ong Chee Seng lost the keys to his locked bike, and after searching two shopping centres for a tool to cut it he came up with a not-so ingenious plan…
He reported the bike stolen, knowing full well about the force’s free service of coming to unlock unclaimed bicycles. After which he’d presumably have broken rank and thanked his colleagues for their time…
The false police report led to three officers being deployed to the scene. The 50-year-old man, who was an officer at the time of the offences, plead guilty to one charge of knowingly giving false information to a public servant, with a second similar charge taken into consideration. Channel News Asia reports he was fined S$3,000 (£1,613)…
Tadej Pogačar offered 18m per year to join Ineos, according to Italian journalist
Beppe Conti reported in Radiocorsa tonight that INEOS offered Pogacar 3 times his actual UAE wage (6M per year, so 18M per year) but seems that Pogacar refused the deal. https://t.co/6EEcmSiSWc
— La Flamme Rouge (@laflammerouge16) October 21, 2021
Anyone believe this? Getting into the realms of football transfers with these numbers being chucked around…
EDIT: That went well…
I asked @TamauPogi‘s agent @aej_carera about this and they said it’s not true. Pure invention. https://t.co/Hvzi76R27m
— Stephen Farrand (@stephenfarrand) October 22, 2021
'Fury' over cycle path...(plus some gold standard angry people in local newspapers content)
Yawn. A few people probably recycled their consultation leaflets before reading them and are now up in arms at “not being consulted”. The intro should point out 71% of respondents liked the proposal for a new bike lane. https://t.co/D4PiDC66vD
— Helen Pidd (@helenpidd) October 22, 2021
An impeccable addition to the angry people in local newspapers pantheon. Could have done with crossing those arms for extra effect but a strong effort nonetheless…
UCI Track World Championships round-up: "the ultimate showdown" Ganna vs Lambie, Britain's bronze, Katie Archibald doing what Katie Archibald does best
Today’s schedule in Roubaix 📄#Roubaix2021
— UCI Track Cycling (@UCI_Track) October 22, 2021
Another busy day in Roubaix today. We’ve got Katie Archibald one race down in pursuit of her second omnium world title. The Scot won the scratch race and will be taking on the tempo race in about an hour’s time. The day’s action will finish with the fourth and final race of the event— the points race…will Archibald win a fourth rainbow jersey?
Last night, Britain’s men and women team pursuit squads both won bronze, the men renewing their rivalry with the Danes en route to bronze. Arguably the main event of today’s proceedings is the men’s individual pursuit where Italian powerhouse Filippo Ganna faces American world record holder, and first person to complete a sub-four minute 4km individual pursuit, Ashton Lambie…now that’s a clash of the titans…
Will we see a repeat of the 2020 final? 🥇
The Men’s Individual Pursuit Qualifications are underway at #Roubaix2021 pic.twitter.com/IIvLLAIaUv
— UCI Track Cycling (@UCI_Track) October 22, 2021
Ansel Adams does bikes
The University of California at Davis, ca. 1960
Photographer: Ansel Adams pic.twitter.com/Lmr7hDzKes— Cool Bike Art 🚴 (@CoolBikeArt1) October 22, 2021
Ashton Lambie beats Ganna's time in clash of the titans...Archibald's unbeaten run continues
For 🥇 Lambie 🇺🇸 vs Milan 🇮🇹
For 🥉 Ganna 🇮🇹 vs Imhof 🇨🇭Your Men’s Ind Pursuit Finalists!#Roubaix2021 pic.twitter.com/vu3IRRIlAE
— UCI Track Cycling (@UCI_Track) October 22, 2021
The American got the better of Ganna, who will fight for bronze having set the third fastest time in qualifying. I guess he’ll just have to settle for an Olympic gold, World Championship gold on the track, World Championship gold on the road, European Championship gold and two stages of the Giro. A pretty average year if you ask me…
Elsewhere, Katie Archibald is on a roll. That’s two from two…
Katie’s leading the way 🇬🇧
After a perfect Omnium at the Euros winning 4/4 races, @_katiearchibald
is now 2/2 at Worlds after winning the Tempo race 🤩🔥6 Omnium race wins in a row, can she make it 7? 🍿#Roubaix2021 pic.twitter.com/NSWfGpyTJ6
— British Cycling (@BritishCycling) October 22, 2021
Crikey, Chris
Feeling a foot taller today 🤣 #pravilo #stretching pic.twitter.com/itX1Qbh8qc
— Chris Froome (@chrisfroome) October 22, 2021
Autoglass responds to photo of company van blocking cycle lane (and another on the pavement)
Why don’t parents push prams on the pavement? Why do wheelchair users go on the road? @Autoglass pic.twitter.com/723SETAjmD
— John 😷✊ (@JohnWildy71) October 21, 2021
An Autoglass spokesperson got back to us this afternoon to address the photo of two of their vans blocking active travel routes — one on the pavement, one in a cycle lane. The company said it’ll be investigating and speaking to drivers to prevent future incidents. The brief statement said:
Thank you for bringing this to our attention we will be investigating this and will be speaking to the drivers so this can be prevented in the future.
No word, however, on if they enjoyed editor Jack’s headline…
22 October 2021, 07:27
22 October 2021, 07:27
22 October 2021, 07:27
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
90 Comments
Read more...
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Likely due to the right wing oligarchs that almost all our media. Even the BBC is right wing and will even frame questions using a far right wing world view when interviewing Greens or Lib Dems (are they even still around?).
Alas, the immediate UK response to increased petrol prices after decades of "we have to drive" is more likely to be cycle lanes blocked by drivers! Those would be a) protesting about paying fuel taxes when fuel prices go up and b) parking in the cycle infra to avoid driving around looking for a legal parking spot. We collectively missed an opportunity in the 1970s with the oil crisis. That was one of the factors that propelled the course correction by the Dutch. (The outlines of that story told here. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2021/11/17/how-did-the-dutch-get-their-cycle-paths/ They were primed by them being a bit behind the UK in the adoption of the car ahead of all other modes. And indeed the bulldozing of cities to make room for it, and the spike in road deaths resulting from it. Plus they still had mass cycling and reasonable public transport. Indeed they already had some "cycle infra" albeit the primary purpose may have been for the safety of moped riders.)
Give them the sugar sandwich treatment: 1) they have to cycle around London - as likely many / most have simply no idea of the cycling perspective, and the few that do are perhaps "cyclist myself" occasional roadies. 2) then send them for a few days in somewhere cycling is normal so they understand how or could be. So NL - or perhaps better Copenhagen, Seville etc. so they don't simply say "that could never work in the UK". 3) ... and finally they have to do some rides back in London to see just what all the blockers to safer, more pleasant urban areas are.
Straits of Hormuz closed. Petrol predicted to rise to £2.00 a litre. Let's see how underused cycle lanes are now!
exactly - cyclists generally don't need saving from themselves hopefully, this will mean more resources put into general roads policing
If a spell cycling around london were to be a prerequisite for traffic officer and video reviewer posts I suspect we would see a huge improvement in the police response to poor driving around vulnerable road users.
“ In 2026, I can get from almost anywhere in the capital to the various centres of London using separated bike paths” Sorry, but that’s not true. If you cycle in central London there are lots of separated paths. But they are far from contiguous. For example, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea don’t offer much, if any. In some outer boroughs there are also CS lanes (but only in a minority of boroughs) and they are not ‘separated’. They are often ‘quiet ways’ or paint. But it is loads better, I agree. I started cycling to primary school in London about half a century ago, so I have experienced a lot of change, indifference, neglect and improvement.
Something nobody seems to have remarked upon is that the Cycle Safety Unit was primarily concerned with cyclist behaviour rather than taking action to keep cyclists safe. They didn't go around ticketing cars parked in the cycle lanes or reporting on how junctions could be improved to make cyclists safer; they generally gathered in groups stopping cyclists and telling them off for not having lights, riding through reds et cetera. I well remember seeing them in action a few years ago as I was riding through Elephant and Castle on the top deck of a bus: it was the day after a cyclist had been tragically killed through no fault of her own by a left-turning lorry driver. The cyclist safety unit was out in force, but rather than stopping lorries and checking their paperwork and advising them on how to drive safely around cyclists, as one might expect/hope, I saw three of them surrounding and haranguing a cyclist who had stopped at a red light with his front wheel over the stop line. The closure of the unit will make little or no difference to cyclist safety in London.
Key word is "combination". To be clear: their wheel with one specific tyre is tested as safe. When your first set of tyres wear out you'll very likely stick on a set of tyres that they haven't tested as safe.
I have just sent off for a helmet mounted mirror, partly because an average week’s riding includes town centre roads (food shopping) and the A603, a single carriageway road with 50mph traffic including eighteen ton lorries. If anyone is seriously interested I will post a description of how useful it is. I wrote the above in answer to to two people's comments, but re-post it here in case it is not accessible for everyone else.
90 thoughts on “Autoglass repair, Autoglass disgrace: why cyclists don’t use cycle lanes; Max Stedman goes Everesting; Walmart sponsors CX worlds; Slippery cyclists; Wicker baskets beat bar bags; Jeremy Vine talks LTNs; Pog transfer rumour + more on the live blog”
Apart from the ladder, the
Apart from the ladder, the scaffolders are fine in my opinion, and they have at least made an effort with the orange barrier. They’re on double yellows too, but traffic can clearly get around it OK. Not sure what the alternative would be — park in the car lane leaving the cycle lane free but then carry a load of poles across it? Negotiate a complete road closure?
Societal life isn’t always ideal, it’s about reasonable compromise in exceptional cases like this (and, to some extent, the Autoglass van). If we as a cycling community start demonising every little thing like this, it won’t help improve public opinion of “us”, and dilutes the voices highlighting real problems of casual parking of public cars.
Troon wrote:
I agree – though it would be good if they also had a “narrow lanes – do not overtake cyclists” sign. (But at least they haven’t put up a “cyclists dismount” one.)
Steve K wrote:
Because that’s helpful at every pinch point ever, agreed nobody.
I guess I’m just not as well equipped as you in the optimism department…
Not really. The orange
Not really. The orange barrier is for their safety so that a driver who isn’t paying attention hits the barrier before hitting one of them. Nothing to do with cycle safety. The ladder in the lane simply serves as notice to a cyclist that the lane is blocked ahead too.
As for societal life not always being ideal, this isn’t a case of having a go at the scaffolders parked there, it’s more to do with highlighting the fact that this is often what happens with cycle lanes yet drivers always mean that cyclists aren’t using them. That’s the whole point of this tweet, to remind drivers that they need to be aware of the fact that cycle lanes are not always the safest place to be.
sapperadam wrote:
Don’t forget when various warning signs (roadworks, etc) are put up either blocking the footway or blocking the cycle lane because we can’t put it in the main traffic lane FFS…
The biggest danger looks
The biggest danger looks like the raised dividing line between the cycle lane and main traffic lane. Perhaps it’s the remnants of “orcas”, “armadillos” or was originally the base for bollards? Whatever it is or was, it looks to be raised enough to cause a danger to any cyclist crossing it and has only small gaps. It would be better if it were either a normal flat paint line or something obviously vertical, such as bollards/wands, or even a kerb.
there is no change in level –
there is no change in level – just the painted line, some armadillos and two wands. You can’t see the wands because one is behind the camera and one is under the truck.
Precisely. It’s the
Precisely. It’s the armadillos that are the danger. Though it looks to me as if the long painted line beyond the armadillo is also raised – maybe that’s just how it appears on the photo.
Troon wrote:
— TroonAs ever, it would be interesting to see what the Dutch do in similar circumstances.
eburtthebike wrote:
Transport scaffolding on cargo bikes, of course
Have fully segregated cycle
Have fully segregated cycle routes so that cyclists don’t have to mix with cars at all?
But such cycle lanes still
But such cycle lanes still pass through areas where they need to carry scaffolding from their truck on the road to its destination, so what do they do ? Barrier the cycle lane and road ? Create a temporary diversion?
eburtthebike wrote:
This is specifically on roadworks but we can see that: [1] [2 with video] [3 with video] [4 lots of videos]
For an analysis of what we do in the UK instead: [5 from Cycling UK] [6 diversions in the country] [govt. guidance 2015]
chrisonatrike wrote:
Many thanks for such a comprehensive response. None of them quite show what happens when a scaffolder needs to unload his truck on the highway in Holland though.
eburtthebike wrote:
Is this some kind of joke? “I don’t know, what does a scaffolder do when he needs to unload his truck on the highway in Holland?”
I’ve no idea either but in the interest of answering “ah but you can’t do x!” I’ve also found a solution to moving house there. People will no doubt accuse me of cherry-picking examples though.
chrisonatrike wrote:
No, not any kind of joke, and I can’t work out why you might think it was. As I said, thank you for the fulsome response, but the question remains; what happens in Holland when a scaffolder needs to load/unload?
Excellent video of moving in Amsterdam, at least the first five minutes that I watched anyway, but again, nothing to do with the case in point, and I’ve never seen a case where moving required scaffolding.
eburtthebike wrote:
Er, I don’t think chrisonatrike was genuinely asking if you were making a joke. Rather, the comment was a joke in itself, as in “This sounds like the set-up for a joke…”.
As mdavidford said – I still
As mdavidford said – I still forget that writing doesn’t do “tone” sometimes.
And no-one liked the cherry-picker pun.
And that’s 10 minutes of my
And that’s 10 minutes of my life I’ll never get back.
They got me too! By the end
They got me too! By the end the suspense was killing me.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I feel your pain – there’s no love for my slippers and crocs joke either.
Please look up the meaning of
Please look up the meaning of ‘fulsome’.
“The correct meaning today is
“The correct meaning today is held to be ‘excessively complimentary or flattering’. However, the word is still often used in its original sense of ‘abundant’” https://www.lexico.com/definition/fulsome?locale=en
I think there might be a bit
I think there might be a bit of ‘divided by a common language’ here. Looking at various different sources, it seems like in the US it has now transitioned to solely meaning ‘excessive’, while in the UK it’s used in both that sense and that of ‘complete’.
My issue with that though is
My issue with that though is I doubt they,like 99.9% of motorists who stop/park in cycle lanes, remotely considered the cycle lane in what they were doing,its just abit of road.
I had to have a rant at an Audi driver (shocked I was) yesterday who had deliberately driven into the cycle lane nearly up to the kerb in a queue of traffic to block it, waste of my time maybe, he looked about ready to explode in high blood pressure, clearly a driver who spends alot of their time in rage mode, and I dont care if that made public opinion of ‘us’ as some unhinged ranty cyclists complaining about a totally minor thing, I was making a point, stop deliberately blocking the cycle lanes.
Troon wrote:
But is this an “exceptional case”? It is currently the default for the following to put stuff in the bike lane / on the pavement:
In addition the following more “temporary” obstructions are there too:
I agree that you’ve got to pick your battles. Cycling is – very marginally – on the radar now which is a development. Unfortunately not always for positive reasons. Provision other than for vehicles is currently both insufficient in quantity and substandard in quality. If you don’t at least point out the latter the authorities won’t ever know. But raise either too frequently and the reaction quickly becomes “entitled”, “unrealistic” or “you can’t be a special case – we’ve all got to share the space”. But “sharing” ends up being “mostly for motor vehicles” and everyone else share what’s left. Footways and cycle tracks are motor vehicle infrastructure – if the vehicles weren’t there they wouldn’t be needed!
it’s not exceptional in this
it’s not exceptional in this spot sadly. There are vans parked there at least once a week – and that’s only when I’m passing which is max 2-3 times a week as I still mostly work from home!
Sadly this is just the latest
Sadly this is just the latest in a long line of vehicles parked in the same spot on Green Lanes, North London. There are a grand total of two wands “protecting” the cycle lane. You can’t see the second of these because the truck is parked on it, and the first is well behind where I took the photo. I would say that most of the time, this isn’t a cycle lane at all.
I think scaffolders and
I think scaffolders and builders where they have to move a lot of heavy equipment should be allowed some latitude with blocking cycle lanes as they don’t particularly have a choice as to which location they pick and it’s often generally safer for them to be as close to the site as possible as otherwise they create a hazard with scaffolding poles, ladders etc. if they had to carry them any distance.
What is far more annoying is general traffic just choosing to park on a cycle lane rather than walking a bit further.
Quote:
My council / government keep sounding like a Network rail announcement – “the next footpath / crossing / cycle path has been cancelled due to the wrong kinds of cyclists on the road”.
A major Cyclocross sponsor
A major Cyclocross sponsor that isn’t Belgian/Flandrien – about time too…..
There isn’t a lot to like
There isn’t a lot to like about Team INEOS is there?
Holty me lad, it appears you
Holty me lad, it appears you didn’t read the ‘nothing to see here’ news article and just jumped at the chance to bash the only world tour team registered as British.
Greenwashing the reputation
Greenwashing the reputation of an appalling company that is actively helping to destroy the climate…when the sponsorship started, I assumed the greenwash wouldn’t work, but I now see I was wrong.
Which is worse – slippery
Which is worse – slippery cyclists, or ones in crocs?
Speaking as someone who has
Speaking as someone who has been waiting months to find a Nitto rando rack to cable tie a Wald basket to, I think Beryl from Cheshire might be onto something. Off to the bathroom to see if I have any spare wickerware
New video on the BBC showing
New video on the BBC showing machete attacks on cyclists in lawless London: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-59000605.
Here’s a picture of a troll
Here’s a picture of a troll on a fishing trip. Next!
Not at all, if I’d wanted to
Not at all, if I’d wanted to be inflammatory I’d have mentioned that cyclists can stay safe with plenty of security, provided they cycle round whichever park Mr Khan has decided to walk his dog in today.
Or the fact that rather than tackle the issue, Sadiq’s pet project this week is to allocate £25,000 grants to “decolonise London road names”. That’ll teach the blighters!
You get what you voted for, just try to keep them inside the A406 (or at least the M25), there’s a good chap.
Quite extraordinary that even
Quite extraordinary that even after the tragic events of last week you’re still bitching about the fact that London’s mayor requires 24/7 security and sometimes, on police advice, has to go further afield to take exercise than he would like. You’re not being inflammatory so much as very stupid.
Nigel Garage wrote:
You don’t think it’s possible that those are simply two completely separate issues and action on one does not signify lack of action on the other?
No?
Ok, let’s take your advice and only ever allow any level of government to work on one single issue at a time, only moving on to the next when it’s completely solved. That sounds like a very clever idea, I’m sure it’ll work wonderfully.
Wingguy wrote:
You don’t think it’s possible that those are simply two completely separate issues and action on one does not signify lack of action on the other?
No?
Ok, let’s take your advice and only ever allow any level of government to work on one single issue at a time, only moving on to the next when it’s completely solved. That sounds like a very clever idea, I’m sure it’ll work wonderfully.— Nigel Garage
I’m afraid when he dismisses stabbings and lawlessness as “the human cost of austerity” while simultaneously doling out cash to change the names of street signs, I can comment on the hypocrisy and lack of priorities.
A month after the death of Dr Marta Krawiec at Holborn Gyratory, the man responsible for not upgrading the junction announced that London’s cycle lanes are “the envy of the world”, and that “I know Paris is jealous of our safe cycling“.
Ask him about the spate of bike-jackings and no doubt it will either be “Tory cuts” or “part and parcel of living in a major city”. But if you want an EU-themed fireworks display, approval to fly a Trump Blimp, a blue plaque or street sign changing or a rainbow-coloured zebra crossing, then Khan is your man with a budget.
“Stone cold loser”, as the greatest president in the history of the world once stated.
TfL, under Khan, gave Camden
TfL, under Khan, gave Camden Council (who are responsible for the Holborn Gyratory, not TfL) £2.9M to improve the gyratory over two years ago. They have yet to do so, citing the pandemic. Earlier plans to improve the junction were spiked under Boris Johnson’s mayoralty, odd that you’re not blaming him for the four out of seven deaths that have occurred there since 2008 that happened under his tenure. Khan and TfL have done their duty, the blame for the lack of improvement lies squarely at the door of Camden Council.
Rendel Harris wrote:
In 2018, after the earlier death of another cyclist, Caroline Pigeon MBE asked Mayor Khan specifically when Holborn gyratory would be made safe. He responded (empthasis mine):
“We are working with Camden Council… Camden Council is working close with TfL on measure to reduce danger at key locations including Holborn. I understand the safety concerns extend to the whole operation of the gyrator and I have made it clear we see it as a key priority for TfL to work with Camden to improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists“.
In 2021, after the death for Dr Marta Krawiec at the same junction which had seen no improvements made despite the above promise, Khan stated “unfortunately, due to the pandemic, the Liveable Neighbourhoods programme was paused in early 2020 when teams and funding were diverted to delivering temporary walking and cycling infrastructure… I am truly sorry for your loss”
In September he stood on the shoulders of his predecessor and ignored these and other deaths by boasting that “Paris is jealous of our safe cycling”.
Now I know that you simultaneously consider Khan to be an extremely powerful leader, yet apparently responsible for nothing, so I ask you: do you think that London’s cycle lanes are the envy of the world?
Nigel Garage wrote:
Im not sure what I was expecting but the ignorance is quite staggering. Since Khan is opposed to austerity, when he say something is the cost of it, that is the opposite of a dismissal. The majority of Met police funding comes from the government. When the Tory powers that be drastically cut funding, London council tax payers can’t make up that entire shortfall, despite the fact that Khan has significantly increased the funding that London itself supplies. How many policemen for how long does £25k pay for these days do you think?
To be clear the £25k funding
To be clear the £25k funding is per street and is part of a £1million “untold stories” campaign. That would pay for several more policemen, or alternatively a few more security guards in Khan’s dog walking cavalcade, take your pick.
Do you guarantee that none of
Do you guarantee that none of the last three Tory governments have spent a million pounds on anything that wasn’t as important as violent crime?
Maybe they weren’t spending it on anything that challenged the supremacy of White Britain, so you didn’t care.
£1M on an arts project, how
£1M on an arts project, how dare he! Why, you could give eight fraudulent £125,000 grants to the woman with whom you’re having an affair for that money, or buy 1/53rd of a non-existent garden bridge!
That’s a very nice example of
That’s a very nice example of whataboutery.
Whenever a politician insinuates that an issue they have responsibility for is suffering poor results due to a lack of funds the first question we should ask is “What else are you spending money on?”
In the case of Boris the garden bridge was a prime example of money being spent on something that most Londoners would not have prioritised.
In the case of Khan does his spending align with the priorities of the average Londoner?
Could the money spent on ‘art projects’ etc not have been spent on policing for example?
Rich_cb wrote:
So do you believe that the GLA should ignore its arts remit? If not then what’s your problem, if you do believe that one of the world’s largest and most famous cities shouldn’t have an arts programme then that’s your problem. We could find all sorts of “unnecessary” things that could be cut to fund the police: sports programmes, parks and leisure facilities, libraries…would that be desirable?
Central government has imposed £720M in cuts to the Met’s budget since 2010 and is demanding around £400M extra “savings” by 2024. That’s the problem with London’s policing, not a £1M arts project.
You seem to have avoided my
You seem to have avoided my question Rendel.
Does Khan’s spending align with the priorities of the average Londoner?
My personal opinion is that politicians should spend money on necessities first (Health/Policing/Infrastructure etc) and only once all those are at a satisfactory level should peripheral needs be publicly funded.
If Khan has the choice to either spend £1m on art or the police and he chooses to spend it on art then it seems a bit rich to complain about inadequate police funding.
So you genuinely believe that
So you genuinely believe that we should have no publicly-funded arts or leisure until health, policing, housing etc provision is perfect? That sounds like a super world to live in.
Please answer the question
Please answer the question Rendel.
Does Khan’s spending align with the priorities of the average Londoner?
We live in a democracy.
If the average Londoner wishes to prioritise art above policing then they are perfectly entitled to vote accordingly.
If their priorities align more closely with mine then we have to ask why Khan is not taking heed of this.
As an aside I did not say ‘perfect’, I said satisfactory.
Other than that you are correct.
You are questioning from an
You are questioning from an entirely false premise that assumes that the budgets of large administrative organisations are dealt with on a top-down basis, moving from the highest priority to the lowest and not moving down the list until the higher area has been completely resolved. It doesn’t work like that, any regional or national government has a budget for policing, a budget for the arts, a budget for education, etc, in order to fulfil its remit to provide a multiplicity of services. You know this, of course, you’re not stupid, you’re just being silly – if not why aren’t you complaining about national government spending on the arts, leisure etc when clearly the police and health service need more funding?
“The average Londoner” re-elected Khan with an overwhelming majority not six months ago, so I think we can assume that voters are satisfied with his management of our town, thanks.
You still haven’t answered
You still haven’t answered the question Rendel.
Does Khan’s spending align with the priorities of the average Londoner?
You are correct in that we have separate budgets for arts, health etc.
We do not have to have a budget for art though.
Politicians could, if they chose to, remove all funding for peripheral concerns and divert it all to core areas such as health, policing etc.
It is therefore a political decision to prioritise specific funding to art rather than policing.
Khan could easily have chosen to divert money from the arts to policing, he has chosen not to.
Rich_cb wrote:
The answer is (and like it or not this is the last response you’ll get as you just keep repeating the same thing over and over), as stated above, that as they voted him in by a landslide not six months ago, and part of his platform was to spend money on the arts, then yes, presumably they do. Good day to you.
If you actually answered the
If you actually answered the question the first time I asked it I wouldn’t have had to repeat myself.
If the average Londoner is happy to see larger cuts to the policing budget in order to protect arts funding then that’s their prerogative but it does mean they have to temper criticism of police cuts in the knowledge that they are at least partially complicit.
The question doesn’t make any
The question doesn’t make any sense. There’s no such thing as ‘the average Londoner’. The remit of the Mayor is not to fulfil the priorities of some fictitious average constituent – it’s to balance the competing priorities of multiple constituencies, including giving due consideration to minority and niche interests. Arts funding may not be a key priority for many, but it is important to some, and therefore warrants some funding, albeit a minor part of the budget.
I’d disagree.
I’d disagree, the concept of the average voter is well established and commonly used.
The job of any politician is, essentially, to keep the electorate happy.
If spending £1m on an arts project whilst cutting the policing budget does that then good luck to him.
You seem to be under the
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Khan is cutting the policing budget. This is not true. The savage cuts to the Met’s budget have come from central Goverment, who are chiefly responsible for its funding. Khan has actually increased the part of the budget he is responsible for – and he’s paying a greater percentage of the policing budget than any previous London mayor.
Despite being completely incorrect about where the cuts are coming from and yet again backing up someone who takes pride in knowing nothing about London apart from his dislike of the Pakistani Muslim mayor, there is a part of your logic that could be argued to be correct.
You could argue that you were right that the ‘average Londoner’ is not happy to see the policing budget cut, because the ‘average Londoner’ did not vote for the Tory government who are slashing the Met’s budget; and you could argue that the ‘average Londoner’ voted for a mayor who increased his share of the policing budget too.
Far from being complicit in cuts and having to temper their criticism of them, they voted for the opposite. Following your logic, they have every right to be furious.
Could Khan increase the
Could Khan increase the police budget further?
If he can then he is, effectively, choosing to fund the arts instead of allocating more money to the police.
That’s my point.
He has made a choice.
Rich_cb wrote:
Very commonly used (well, by successful politicians anyway). Target the median (or swing) voter.
Hence the saying “Mondeo man”, and the way many public surveys take place in Reading, which is considered by marketing companies to be representative of pretty average urban centre.
I suppose it would depend if
I suppose it would depend if the Police budget was cut to divert money for an art project though wouldn’t it?
No.
No.
The size of each budget is a political choice.
By allocating money to art you are choosing not to allocate it elsewhere.
You could choose to eliminate the art budget entirely in order to minimise the cuts to the policing budget.
By not doing so you have essentially chosen to fund the arts with money saved from policing cuts.
So just or? One or the other.
So just or? One or the other. Why only “Arts”? So funding safe infra for cycling is taking from Police? How about the Fire Service in London? Do you state to the Average Londoner you can either have more money to the fire service or to the Police. And by the way, that will take away from other services so whichever one you pick, public transport will be cut. After school activities will be closed, but don’t worry as this will be spent on the Police Budget which will be needed to combat the rise if crimes caused by bored teenagers.
I know you want to make a point, but there is no binary in budgets for services when there is more then two services needed for lots of society.
I was using arts as an
I was using arts as an example.
The size of the police budget is within Khan’s control, by choosing to pass on the central government cuts he is effectively saying that everything else that he is continuing to fund is a greater priority than reducing the cuts to policing.
That’s his prerogative, he is elected to make exactly those decisions.
If you support more funding for the arts (for example) you have to do so in the knowledge that the money is being taken from somewhere else. Every £ for the arts is a £ less to spend on policing (for example).
Rich_cb wrote:
No, it isn’t. 70% of the Metropolitan Police budget is set by central government. This is a fact, stop lying.
And Khan can top it up can he
And Khan can top it up can he not?
So if he chooses how much to top it up by then he controls the ultimate size of the budget…
And he did top it up as per
And he did top it up as per Feb 2021. But of course only kept the rest of his budget for Arts and no other services.
You seem to be deliberately
You seem to be deliberately misconstruing what I’ve written.
I couldn’t have made it clearer that I was using the arts as an example.
I could have used any other area that Khan funds from his overall budget.
The point would have been exactly the same.
Everything discretionary that is funded is deemed a higher priority than further funding for policing.
No, I just see you
No, I just see you specifically asking Rendal whether he wants Arts or Police. A binary choice and stating the Average Londoner would deem the Police more important then art. I don’t know why specifically you are having this discussion for but I suspect it has something to do with Boo’s argument that he is spending money elsewhere. Of course the people supporting Boo’s side put their point across with some more colourful language like the below from the RT’s take on it.
Still, if that is the side he wants to be on I suppose it tells more of him then me.
So you didn’t see the fact
So you didn’t see the fact that I explicitly stated that I was using the arts as an example and then repeated that phrase throughout my post?
That was in a post replying to you?
You didn’t happen to notice that?
I even made it clear it was an example in my posts to Rendel.
So, yes, you’re deliberately misconstruing.
Rich_cb wrote:
My issue with your posts is your choice of the arts funding, which I suspect was deliberate and inflammatory. You could have chosen from a huge range of other things – refuse collection, street lighting, congestion charge, bus fares to make the point.
The discussion had already
The discussion had already covered arts funding so I used it as my example while being explicitly clear it was just an example.
Why don’t you address the actual points made rather than try to distract with inconsequential details?
But as with vile like the DM
But as with vile like the DM that is how they lead it with, have the Police or some artsy-fartsy project. You can claim it as whataboutism but the same questions could have been asked with have several water cannons we can’t use or have an extra 3 long ladder fire engines to fight high rise fires.
Tell you what, (for example) put the question out there to fund a rape crisis centre or fund a potential rapist parading as a Policeman.(for example).
Interesting. So it follows
Interesting. So it follows that the Tory cuts to the Met straight after terror attacks, while we have an increased alert status, was a spending choice in favour of terrorism. A £ taken away from those protecting us from terrorism is a £ in support of terrorism.
If you follow that logic then
If you follow that logic then Khan, who has essentially made the exact same choice, is doing the same.
Personally I think that’s hyperbolic nonsense but each to their own.
It’s the exact argument you
It’s the exact argument you are using on this thread.
No it isn’t.
No it isn’t.
Unless you’re arguing that Khan/Central Government has diverted money from funding policing to directly funding terrorism?
Which would be an interesting development.
Rich_cb wrote:
Many concepts, particularly ones based around ‘the average x’, are well-established and commonly used, while being entirely misleading and often harmful in use.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem
I think it makes a lot of sense.
It may make sense, but it’s
It may make sense, but it’s not really relevant. It deals with electoral dynamics and strategy – not with good governance.
If you’re the incumbent then
If you’re the incumbent then your electoral strategy is largely based on your track record.
If your track record does not appeal to the average voter then you’re going to struggle.
But the ‘average voter’ is
But the ‘average voter’ is not referring to an actual person you can identify – it’s essentially a cipher for ‘the widest possible coalition’. You try to put together a platform and/or a record of governance that appeals enough to the largest possible spread of voters (and alienates the fewest possible). That doesn’t mean that anyone who votes for you agrees with everything you do (or say you will do). It doesn’t even necessarily mean that the majority of them agrees with any individual policy. It just means that they all agree with enough of it to prefer your platform on balance.
And in any case, once you’ve got elected, good governance requires you not just to keep those who voted for you happy, but to try to keep all of those to whom you’re responsible as happy as possible, whether they voted for you or not.
Which is why policies that
Which is why policies that appeal to the average voter are a good idea.
You don’t appear to be keen
You don’t appear to be keen to answer my question, so I’ll ask it again.
Do you agree with Sadiq Khan that London’s cycling lanes are the “envy of the world”, and that London has “safe cycling” everyone else is jealous of?
Khan didn’t state that the
Khan didn’t state that the cycle lanes were the envy of the world, he was talking about the whole package of green measures introduced by the GLA including tree planting, ULEZ etc. Whether they are the envy of the world is a matter of opinion, and I couldn’t really care less one way or the other. What I do know, as someone covering 50km-odd in London most days, is that cycling provision is hugely improved and continuing to get better and better – usually as a result of schemes that you, as a worshipper of the motor car as “humanity’s greatest achievement”, would wish to destroy.
Still waiting for you to acknowledge the matter of fact, not opinion, that four people died at Holborn gyratory under Johnson’s mayoralty and that his administration quashed plans to improve it and that Khan’s administration paid Camden Council £2.9M for improvements over two years ago, so your assertion that Khan is responsible for the lack of improvement to the junction is a flat out lie.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Really, you don’t care if it’s safe to cycle in London? A rare tacit admission of Khan’s disastrous tenure by Rendel.
Rendel Harris wrote:
To be fair, his fishing trip has caught a few.
Exactly. Ignore it
Exactly. Ignore it