Live blog: Wish it was here… stunning bike infra pics from around the world, RBKC hit back at Sadiq Khan’s in Holland Park cycleway row, Phew! Thomas “all ok” for Tour de France, It’s #Nationalrefillday, How to prep for a Top to Bottom ride +more

22 thoughts on “Live blog: Wish it was here… stunning bike infra pics from around the world, RBKC hit back at Sadiq Khan’s in Holland Park cycleway row, Phew! Thomas “all ok” for Tour de France, It’s #Nationalrefillday, How to prep for a Top to Bottom ride +more”

1. Does the council not have a

   Does the council not have a duty to prevent collisions in its area?

   Answer; Yes. 

   The Road Traffic Act 1988(Section 39) requires local authorities in Great Britain to

   take steps both to reduce and prevent accidents
   prepare and carry out a programme of measures designed to promote road safety
   carry out studies into accidents arising out of the use of vehicles on roads or part of roads, other than trunk roads, within their area
   take such measures as appear to the authority to be appropriate to prevent such accidents

   The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(Section 122) requires local authorities in Great Britain to

   to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic(including pedestrians)

   So the council are in breach of their statutory duty.  Time for a court case, and if someone would like to start a crowd funder, I’m in for £20.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • burtthebike wrote:

     Does the council not have a duty to prevent collisions in its area?

     Answer; Yes. 

     The Road Traffic Act 1988(Section 39) requires local authorities in Great Britain to

     take steps both to reduce and prevent accidents
     prepare and carry out a programme of measures designed to promote road safety
     carry out studies into accidents arising out of the use of vehicles on roads or part of roads, other than trunk roads, within their area
     take such measures as appear to the authority to be appropriate to prevent such accidents

     The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(Section 122) requires local authorities in Great Britain to

     to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic(including pedestrians)

     So the council are in breach of their statutory duty.  Time for a court case, and if someone would like to start a crowd funder, I’m in for £20.

     — burtthebike

      

     This is all correct and I fully agree, but if they let their own citizens burn in a tower block which was not refurbished correctly and they ignored warnings from residents on that very same matter, what chance is there of them actually doing anything about the safety of pedestrians and cyclists? 

     In short, if you’re not someone who can earn them money you might as well not exist, or die and be forgotten on the roadside or in a burning building…

      

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • paradyzer wrote:

       This is all correct and I fully agree, but if they let their own citizens burn in a tower block which was not refurbished correctly and they ignored warnings from residents on that very same matter, what chance is there of them actually doing anything about the safety of pedestrians and cyclists?

       — paradyzer

       They only let them burn because they were so busy dealing with some very important matters

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • zanf wrote:

         This is all correct and I fully agree, but if they let their own citizens burn in a tower block which was not refurbished correctly and they ignored warnings from residents on that very same matter, what chance is there of them actually doing anything about the safety of pedestrians and cyclists?

         — zanf

         They only let them burn because they were so busy dealing with some very important matters— paradyzer

         Revolution brothers.  These scum should be first against the wall.

         I might be joking, but on the other hand, anyone reading that report might like to chip in for a few bullets.  I wasn’t joking about the scum bit.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • zanf wrote:

         This is all correct and I fully agree, but if they let their own citizens burn in a tower block which was not refurbished correctly and they ignored warnings from residents on that very same matter, what chance is there of them actually doing anything about the safety of pedestrians and cyclists?

         — zanf

         They only let them burn because they were so busy dealing with some very important matters— paradyzer

          

         Why does this not surprise me? 

          

         Also, this:

          

          

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

2. Gee i’m sure a letter like
   Gee i’m sure a letter like that will have RKBC quaking in their Chelsea tractors…not, cheap political stunt you say…hmm

   I’m curious though how the numbers keep changing ,Pete Walkers piece in the guardian quoted 275collisions in three years,now its 293, or is it 128?, this is the kind of detail former mayors would have been criticised for not being consistent on. And even then one commenter in the Guardian piece says Crashmap,which its claimed uses the same figures TfL have for their numbers cites 18 cycle collisions,only 6 of which were severe.

   Similar with the tree numbers was it 19 or 12 or 22 ?

   Why is there disparity in the numbers at all ?

   Build a solid proper case & design for these plans,using verifiable facts & figures and councils will no option but to approve them,do it badly so that it seems like you arent really bothered,because hey if it doesnt get through blame your political opponents, and you end up with this mess

   Log In or Register to post comments

3. Khan now pipes up, after the

   Khan now pipes up, after the decision has been made.  What a huge surprise!

   No way he was actually going to get involved and campaign for it to be installed.  Far better to pretend he’s not actually the current London Mayor; the difinitive person who holds the most power in the capital and blame other people for absolutely everything in London and moan that it hasn’t got anything to do with him. 

    

   Anyone who cares about cycling in London can’t possibly justify voting for him to be re-elected.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Zjtm231 wrote:

     Khan now pipes up, after the decision has been made.  What a huge surprise!

     No way he was actually going to get involved and campaign for it to be installed.  Far better to pretend he’s not actually the current London Mayor; the difinitive person who holds the most power in the capital and blame other people for absolutely everything in London and moan that it hasn’t got anything to do with him. 

      

     Anyone who cares about cycling in London can’t possibly justify voting for him to be re-elected.

     — Zjtm231

      

     Unfortunately it depends who the other candidates are.  Last time it was Zac ‘I’ll rip up cycle lanes and get rid of bus lanes’ Goldsmith.  The most faux faux-environmentalist ever.

     Khan’s not impressive and I’d have preferred Christian Wolmar to be the Labour candidate last time, but he was clearly a long-shot.

      

     Seems to me though that the biggest problem is the London mayor (and assembly) hasn’t got much power.  Central government doesn’t want a new GLC to challenge its authority.  That’s why they scrapped it last time.

      

     As with the shifting of the responsibility for benefits-for-the elderly to the BBC, governments since Thatcher have loved centralising power while outsourcing blame.

     Log In or Register to post comments

4. Our door is actually open for

   Our door is actually open for conversations on alternative schemes…

   — RBKC

   You know, ones that don’t actually involve bicycles…

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. This is about entrenched

   This is about entrenched politicians scoring political points over each other. While we go on suffering. Khan doesn’t really care about cycling, and nor does RBKC.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • darrenleroy wrote:

     This is about entrenched politicians scoring political points over each other. While we go on suffering. Khan doesn’t really care about cycling, and nor does RBKC.

     — darrenleroy

     Khan cares about reducing pollution in London as it’s a public health crisis. You might want to read up on what Khan has said about air pollution and the impact it is having on Londoners, children in particular. He has placed pollution reduciton as one of his key priorities. And he cares about curbing car use in London. He sees cycling as one of the measures to achieve a reduction in pollution and a reduction in motor vehicle traffic.

     He’s brought forward the introduction of the ULEZ, which Boris Johnson had delayed. He’s also planning to expand the ULEZ zone in 2021, which is a move way beyond what Johnson had ever envisaged.

     By contrast, Johnson’s response to the worrying readings showing from pollution monitors placed around the city was to install water spraying equipment to damp down the air around the monitors and make it appear as if the readings were lower than they actually were. He didn’t give a toss that air pollution levels were at frighteningly high levels at many of London’s schools. Johnson took credit for London’s cycle hire scheme and for the cycle lanes, but they were actually planned by his predecessor, Ken Livingstone. However Johnson did fail to negotiate the terms for the cycle hire scheme properly, so it cost London millions to implement. Of course he did waste far more on other things of far less value, like the useless bridge nobody wanted or needed (£52 million), the illegal water cannon and the cable car over the Thames that’s hardly used. Bear in mind Johnson only started cycling in London after being banned from driving for a DUI offence.

     Oh and London will have its first car-free day in September of this year, plus there’s a new Cycleway opening in London as part of Khan’s plans.

     I do read a lot of anti-Khan comments online. Usually they’re far from the truth.

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • OldRidgeback wrote:

       By contrast, Johnson’s response to the worrying readings showing from pollution monitors placed around the city was to install water spraying equipment to damp down the air around the monitors and make it appear as if the readings were lower than they actually were. He didn’t give a toss that air pollution levels were at frighteningly high levels at many of London’s schools. Johnson took credit for London’s cycle hire scheme and for the cycle lanes, but they were actually planned by his predecessor, Ken Livingstone. However Johnson did fail to negotiate the terms for the cycle hire scheme properly, so it cost London millions to implement. Of course he did waste far more on other things of far less value, like the useless bridge nobody wanted or needed (£52 million), the illegal water cannon and the cable car over the Thames that’s hardly used. Bear in mind Johnson only started cycling in London after being banned from driving for a DUI offence.

       — OldRidgeback

       Absolute shoe-in for leader of the tory party and PM then.  To be fair to Boris, he does lie a little less than Trump, but he’s definitely podium material.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • OldRidgeback wrote:

       This is about entrenched politicians scoring political points over each other. While we go on suffering. Khan doesn’t really care about cycling, and nor does RBKC.

       — OldRidgeback

       Khan cares about reducing pollution in London as it’s a public health crisis. You might want to read up on what Khan has said about air pollution and the impact it is having on Londoners, children in particular. He has placed pollution reduciton as one of his key priorities. And he cares about curbing car use in London. He sees cycling as one of the measures to achieve a reduction in pollution and a reduction in motor vehicle traffic.

       He’s brought forward the introduction of the ULEZ, which Boris Johnson had delayed. He’s also planning to expand the ULEZ zone in 2021, which is a move way beyond what Johnson had ever envisaged.

       By contrast, Johnson’s response to the worrying readings showing from pollution monitors placed around the city was to install water spraying equipment to damp down the air around the monitors and make it appear as if the readings were lower than they actually were. He didn’t give a toss that air pollution levels were at frighteningly high levels at many of London’s schools. Johnson took credit for London’s cycle hire scheme and for the cycle lanes, but they were actually planned by his predecessor, Ken Livingstone. However Johnson did fail to negotiate the terms for the cycle hire scheme properly, so it cost London millions to implement. Of course he did waste far more on other things of far less value, like the useless bridge nobody wanted or needed (£52 million), the illegal water cannon and the cable car over the Thames that’s hardly used. Bear in mind Johnson only started cycling in London after being banned from driving for a DUI offence.

       Oh and London will have its first car-free day in September of this year, plus there’s a new Cycleway opening in London as part of Khan’s plans.

       I do read a lot of anti-Khan comments online. Usually they’re far from the truth.

        

       — darrenleroy

        

       I do not understand how Johnson has gotten away with that bridge fiasco.  Even the website somehow cost £161,000.  The guy has a long, long history of incompetence.  All image and little substance.  He’s the most grotesquely-overpaid entertainer in the country.  The only positive thing he’s ever done was a bit of cycle infrastructure (oh, and annoying the black cab drivers, I suppose).

        

       But all the Tory candidates are as bad as each other.  I also don’t get why the BBC and the rest of the media are giving this internal Tory party contest (between essentially interchangeable right-wing careerists, and where hardly any viewers even have a vote) so much publicity – it’s like a never-ending party-political broadcast for the Tories.   Now the Tory papers are whinging that the BBC wasn’t sycophantic enough in the broadcast debate.  I don’t see why it was broadcast at all, all the participants are basically the same, just in different packaging. Can they please just get on with it?

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

         But all the Tory candidates are as bad as each other.  I also don’t get why the BBC and the rest of the media are giving this internal Tory party contest (between essentially interchangeable right-wing careerists, and where hardly any viewers even have a vote) so much publicity – it’s like a never-ending party-political broadcast for the Tories.   Now the Tory papers are whinging that the BBC wasn’t sycophantic enough in the broadcast debate.  I don’t see why it was broadcast at all, all the participants are basically the same, just in different packaging. Can they please just get on with it?

         — FluffyKittenofTindalos

         Exactly.

         The members of the Conservative Party (so, not even all the people who vote for them, just the card-carrying Party members) might get to choose who their new leader is (if the candidates all stick it out to the bitter end and don’t walk away whistling, as happened when May became leader).

         That’s maybe at most 120,000 people, which makes the 52/48 split of ‘the voters who could be bothered to turn out’ look like True Democracy.

         Don’t give them the oxygen – its not like with fixed term elections they really have to even pretend to give a monkey’s what the non-members want  …  they only do so that they can pretend like its a real national political event.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

         This is about entrenched politicians scoring political points over each other. While we go on suffering. Khan doesn’t really care about cycling, and nor does RBKC.

         — FluffyKittenofTindalos

         Khan cares about reducing pollution in London as it’s a public health crisis. You might want to read up on what Khan has said about air pollution and the impact it is having on Londoners, children in particular. He has placed pollution reduciton as one of his key priorities. And he cares about curbing car use in London. He sees cycling as one of the measures to achieve a reduction in pollution and a reduction in motor vehicle traffic.

         He’s brought forward the introduction of the ULEZ, which Boris Johnson had delayed. He’s also planning to expand the ULEZ zone in 2021, which is a move way beyond what Johnson had ever envisaged.

         By contrast, Johnson’s response to the worrying readings showing from pollution monitors placed around the city was to install water spraying equipment to damp down the air around the monitors and make it appear as if the readings were lower than they actually were. He didn’t give a toss that air pollution levels were at frighteningly high levels at many of London’s schools. Johnson took credit for London’s cycle hire scheme and for the cycle lanes, but they were actually planned by his predecessor, Ken Livingstone. However Johnson did fail to negotiate the terms for the cycle hire scheme properly, so it cost London millions to implement. Of course he did waste far more on other things of far less value, like the useless bridge nobody wanted or needed (£52 million), the illegal water cannon and the cable car over the Thames that’s hardly used. Bear in mind Johnson only started cycling in London after being banned from driving for a DUI offence.

         Oh and London will have its first car-free day in September of this year, plus there’s a new Cycleway opening in London as part of Khan’s plans.

         I do read a lot of anti-Khan comments online. Usually they’re far from the truth.

          

         — OldRidgeback

          

         I do not understand how Johnson has gotten away with that bridge fiasco.  Even the website somehow cost £161,000.  The guy has a long, long history of incompetence.  All image and little substance.  He’s the most grotesquely-overpaid entertainer in the country.  The only positive thing he’s ever done was a bit of cycle infrastructure (oh, and annoying the black cab drivers, I suppose).

          

         But all the Tory candidates are as bad as each other.  I also don’t get why the BBC and the rest of the media are giving this internal Tory party contest (between essentially interchangeable right-wing careerists, and where hardly any viewers even have a vote) so much publicity – it’s like a never-ending party-political broadcast for the Tories.   Now the Tory papers are whinging that the BBC wasn’t sycophantic enough in the broadcast debate.  I don’t see why it was broadcast at all, all the participants are basically the same, just in different packaging. Can they please just get on with it?

         — darrenleroy

          

         Remember though that what Johnson did for cycle infrastructure in London was not cancel the plans put in place by Ken Livingstone. I can’t understand why there hasn’t been a criminal investigation into the Garden Bridge fiasco. That’s £52 million, gone. Where did it go? Ok, so his tennis club chum who won the design contract without a proper tender process probably swallowed £2-3 million of that and there would’ve been another £2-3 million for legal jiggery pokery and bureaucracy. But where is the rest of it? 

         I do find it interesting that Boris Johnson had been complaining about his child support bills (having been forced to pay for one of the offspring hed had out of his marriages), but seems to have gone quiet on the topic of late.

         He’s a liar. Even his old boss, Max Hastings, at The Telegraph said so, and he’s a mate. Hastings also said Johnson was totally unfit for public office, something also repeated by another mate of his, Matthew Paris.

         Log In or Register to post comments

6. ‘….how many more of your

   ‘….how many more of your residents need to be maimed or killed by motor vehicles…‘

   Just one.  

   But that one needs to be the blonde, teenage daughter of an MP, or of a councillor.   Extra points if she’s pretty.  Bonus points through the roof if as well as being pretty, she gets killed the week before her A’ level results come out, when she’d have learned that she had been accepted at Oxford to study medicine. 

   In other words: that one needs to be someone who actually matters.   The game would change so fucking fast, and then they’d claim that it had nothing to do with Tamara’s untimely death.  

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. Glad to see that Sadik Khan

   Glad to see that Sadik Khan has pulled his finger out, yes it’s a bit late but it has refocused attention on safety rather than handwringing on the loss of two mature trees.

   Log In or Register to post comments

8. So it only matters if RBKC

   So it only matters if RBKC residents die on their roads?!

   Log In or Register to post comments

9. A cyclist was hit by two

   A cyclist was hit by two vehicles yesterday, yards from where Eiliedh Cairns was killed.

   Log In or Register to post comments

10. Thanks for that information

    Thanks for that information Beatnik, I cannot “like” such sad news.

    Log In or Register to post comments

11. Unfortunately the young
    Unfortunately the young female A level taking daughter of a RBKC Councillor is likely to have been gifted a Mini Cabriolet on her 17th birthday and unlikely to be braving the horrors of their roads bestrode a bicycle.

    Log In or Register to post comments

12. I see that the Grauniad has

    I see that the Grauniad has picked up on the Fake Aunt story on the RBKC “consultation”:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/24/woman-poses-dead-cyclist-eilidh-cairns-aunt-oppose-london-bike-lane

     

    Log In or Register to post comments