Councillor resigns over anti-cyclist ‘w*nking off the Dutch’ tweet; Jeremy Vine tours Kensington High Street congestion; Coroner records air pollution cause of death; Sir Chris Hoy: Cyclists and drivers should be ‘less tribal’ + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Jeremy Vine takes you on a tour of Kensington High Street now the bike lane has been replaced with...congestion
If you were the gentleman I followed down Kensington High Street today, apologies. I just wanted to see what the experience was like on two wheels since the cycle lane was ripped out. Here’s your answer — pic.twitter.com/XfD4YENPMH
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) December 15, 2020
One of the key reasons for the Kensington High Street cycle lane being removed was that it was causing congestion…This video, shared by Jeremy Vine, shows what it is like to cycle down the High Street now the wands have been removed for a few weeks.
The broadcaster followed up the video by saying: “Someone will die on that street. But many will simply not brave it on a bicycle. They’ll use cars, and the congestion will get worse. The irony is that the council acted after being attacked in the Daily Mail by Nigel Havers, who said the cycle lane had ruined his Sunday walk.”
However, the message that some took from this is not how little change removing the bike lane has made to congestion but rather that the cyclist in the video is riding dangerously…
Totally irresponsible riding with no regard for his, pedestrians or other road users safety?!
He (and yourself) took so many risks that I was waiting for a foreseeable accident to happen! Cyclists aren’t “King’s of the Road” so queue and “make progress” when it’s safe to do so!— gary logan (@garylogan1) December 15, 2020
What the hell were they doing?! Thats seriously dangerous cycling! Vehicle’s will have no idea that a bike is come and from what angle. They are all over the place! If you want to ride like that then you accept the danger that comes with it.
— Neil Bramley (@njbramley) December 15, 2020
Sir Chris Hoy: Cyclists and drivers should be 'less tribal'
.jpg)
Speaking to The Herald, six-time Olympic gold medallist called on cyclists and drivers to be “less tribal.” Hoy was speaking about how the UK can follow countries like The Netherlands and Germany in achieving a culture of active travel. He said: “My dream is, that in 20 years time we can look back and see the same thing that happened in Holland or Denmark or Germany where you aren’t a cyclist, you are just someone getting around.
“People need to be less tribal about it. People see themselves as cyclists or drivers when in my opinion we are just people trying to get around. I think because the boom in cycling has come off sport, like the Tour de France, people buy all the gear but in other countries they don’t cycle in lycra, a lot of people don’t wear helmets.”
Hoy believes the biggest barrier to people wanting to cycle to work or school is safety and that normalising cycling is crucial in encouraging more people to travel by bike.
“Holland wasn’t always a cycling country, the big push came in the 1970s,” he explained. “I do think it is the answer and it is achievable but it won’t happen overnight and it won’t be an easy process. Any change comes up against resistance.
“If you are absolutely determined never to ride a bike and all you want to do is drive a car then fair enough but if there are more people on bikes then there are less cars and drivers are going to benefit too. The biggest barrier to people cycling to work or school is safety. If there is a collision between a cyclist and a car, it’s the cyclist who is going to come off worst.
“We are all someone’s husband, wife, son or daughter, we should be looking out for one another. You don’t see the cyclist stopping at the red light, you only remember the ones that jump the lights in the same way that you only remember the white van that was aggressive.”
Pork 'N Pine: Cycling Santa delivers Christmas trees and pork sandwiches
In Baltimore there’s a business called Pork n’Pine where Santa comes to your house on a bicycle with a fresh 9-foot-tall Christmas tree strapped to the front, and a sack of pulled pork sandwiches. This is undoubtably the most brilliant business concept in human history. pic.twitter.com/rA9B2jSSSB
— Allison Robicelli (@robicellis) December 13, 2020
This is a unique business idea I can can get behind. Pork ‘N Pine in Baltimore delivers Christmas trees and pork sandwiches via bike couriers dressed as Santa Claus… A tree delivered on a bike would be impressive enough but to get a pulled pork sandwich too… Someone in the UK needs to take notes. The service is so popular it has completely sold out for 2020.
Hill & Ellis release new limited edition saddle and handlebar bag
This stylish Hill & Ellis bag is designed to be ‘perfect for the day ride, or a short commute’ and can be attached to your saddle or handlebars. Handcrafted from leather in the UK, the bag is made from materials sourced as close to Hill & Ellis’s London workshop as possible. It is available in seven colourways and costs £80.
Brought By Bike: a new directory of companies and tradespeople who deliver by bike
Now live! We are a directory to help you find companies delivering goods or services by #bike and #cargobike across the UK. Choose to shop with them for greener, quieter and safer streets.https://t.co/x1ldsuzFF7
— Brought By Bike (@BroughtByBike) December 15, 2020
Brought By Bike is a searchable directory of companies and tradespeople who deliver by bike. It was created to make it simple for anyone across the UK to find plumbers, bakers, electricians and anything else you can think of that will travel or can be delivered by more sustainable means. So far they have 180 listings (and the list appears to be growing as we type), including 19 bakeries, 11 gardeners, 10 breweries and 10 plumbers.
A flooded bike lane isn't going to stop them
The high tide had to be explored on the #cyclebus today. Checking in with a tidal river every day really is a joy. pic.twitter.com/bO85Kqx8n3
— Limerick School Cycle Bus (@CyclingBusLmk) December 16, 2020
Egan Bernal's younger brother already attracting interest from Gianni Savio
Egan Bernal’s 15-year-old brother, Ronald, is on the radar of Androni Giocattoli-Sidermec manager Gianni Savio, who is interested in signing him once he turns 18. Savio confirmed to Cyclingnews that he would be happy to help Ronald develop — similar to how he aided Egan’s trajectory up until 2018 when the 2019 Tour de France winner moved to Team Sky.
Savio said: “I spoke to Vladimir Chiuminatto, who runs the Bernal fan club in Colombia and we spoke about Ronald. They say he has some of the talent of his brother and I’d be happy to help him just as I did with Egan but not until he’s 18.
“Everyone knows how I helped Egan develop and I’d be happy to do the same with Ronald but it’s far too early to think he’d automatically follow in Egan’s footsteps. Egan rightly wants to protect his younger brother and so do I, so let’s give him time to develop.”
Egan is currently facing months of rehabilitation to recover from the spinal problem that hindered him in 2020.
Belgian group buys majority stake in Canyon
Groupe Bruxelles Lambert (GBL) has acquired a majority stake in Canyon Bicycles. Founder Roman Arnold will retain a 40% stake in the company and reinvest a substantial amount of the proceeds from the sale. He will also stay on as the chairperson.
The investment comes after Arnold’s decison to step down as CEO following a record year which saw €400 million of sales. GBL already controls a majority stake in Adidas and their investment signals the end of TSG Consumer Partners relationship with Canyon.
Landmark case as coroner says air pollution contributed to death of nine-year-old girl
This is a landmark moment and thanks to years of campaigning by Ella’s mother Rosamund, who has shown an extraordinary amount of courage. I’m pleased to have supported the family in their efforts to secure justice. Today must now be a turning point. 1/2 https://t.co/QH8bnvx0SB
— Sadiq Khan (@SadiqKhan) December 16, 2020
In a landmark case, exposure to air pollution has been recorded as the medical cause of death of nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah. It is the first time exposure to air pollution has been recorded as the medical cause of death in the UK. A coroner ruled that dangerous levels of air pollution “made a material contribution” to the child’s death in 2013.
At the end of the two-week inquest at Southwark Coroner’s Court, assistant coroner Philip Barlow stated: “I will conclude that Ella died of asthma, contributed to by exposure to excessive air pollution.” The recorded medical cause of death was acute respiratory failure, severe asthma and air pollution exposure.
Ella and her family lived 25 metres from the South Circular Road in Lewisham, south east London. Professor Sir Stephen Holgate told the inquest that Ella’s condition, combined with the air pollution she experienced on a daily basis had put her at “exquisite” risk. He added that he was “almost certain” her asthma would have been “substantially less severe” if the level of pollution in the area had been within lawful EU limits.
Tadej Pogačar explains mixed emotions about beating Primož Roglič in Tour de France
Tadej Pogačar spoke to L’Équipe this week and explained his mixed emotions about beating Primož Roglič in such a brutal fashion on the final TT stage of the Tour de France. Pogačar claimed the Yellow Jersey from his compatriot on Stage 20 with a devastating performance in the individual time trial stage to La Planche des Belles Filles. “At the time, I didn’t really know what to feel. Everything was tangled up in my chest, I had conflicting emotions,” he said.
“I had been a Roglič fan since his first results. Between the ages of 15 and 20, I was shouting in front of my television for him to win, and now I was the one who had beaten him, who had denied him from achieving what he had been dreaming of for years… It was really strange. I kept telling myself: ‘That’s racing, that’s sport, it’s normal that I want to win.’
“A few minutes after he finished, I was in the television tent and he came to find me and give me a hug. I’ll never forget that moment. It’s as though he was giving me permission to enjoy it and telling me it wasn’t my fault.”
Councillor resigns over anti-cyclist 'w*nking off the Dutch' tweet
👷♂️ Some personal news. I’m sadly having to hang up my hi-vis jacket at the end of this month. It’s genuinely been a pleasure working with such a dedicated team in a role I have enjoyed immensely 🤜🤛 #OCCHighways pic.twitter.com/xeHi2cZR8Z
— Cllr Liam Walker (@_Liam_Walker_) December 16, 2020
Councillor Liam Walker found himself in hot water after replying to a tweet which suggested cyclists should “f*ck off over” to the Netherlands and that cyclists are “constantly w*nking off the Dutch.” The councillor apologised after criticism from cycling groups and politicians, however a panel concluded he breached Oxfordshire County Council’s code of conduct. He announced his resignation this afternoon on Twitter.
In a statement he said: “I have apologised to those who were genuinely offended by the tweet. It is regrettable that the process has taken up valuable staff time and that taxpayers’ money has been used to investigate; at times, aspects of the response have felt disproportionate.”
16 December 2020, 09:06
16 December 2020, 09:06
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.
107 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
"~15% of the riding time that I’m forced to use the road(because the infrastructure for cycling is insufficient or nonexistent) " Amsterdam?
Same here. I have a helmet with built in front and rear lights and have a red light clipped onto my bag plus lights attached to my bike front and rear but still have drivers putting me in danger. My commute is about two miles and I normally have around four incidents a week where I have to brake hard or take other evasive action to avoid being hit by distracted drivers. A big percentage of these are drivers coming on to roundabouts when I am already on them.
Glasgow's South City Way sounds great, does it not? As a user from before and after I wholeheartedly welcome the construction of the segregated route, but so much of the detailed construction is poor, if not unsafe. I provide a link to a presentation I made when construction was half complete (a personal view) and the construction errors remain outstanding to this day: crossed by high speed flared road junctions, poor colour differentiation, car door zone risks and so on. And yet cyclists come because they feel safe. It's a complex subject but IMHO the feeling of safety (or lack of) is a critical component. https://drive.proton.me/urls/B67AK44G90#CFueBGjscoWr
I can only conclude that you haven't been into a city in the last few years. Food delivery riders in particular are riding overpowered "eBikes" that are basically mopeds ... powered only via the throttle without pedalling at significantly more than 15mph. Problem is they look like normal bikes/ebikes and not like mopeds so that is what people describe them as. My reading of the article is that it is those vehicles that are being talked about here.
I have the Trace and Tracer, which have essentially the same design, albeit smaller and less powerful. The controls are a little complicated but only because there are loads of options. In reality, once you've chosen your level of brightness, you'll only cycle through 1 or 2 options and it's dead simple. The lights are rock solid, bright, with good runtimes. The only thing I find annoying is charging them - if your fingers are slightly wet or greasy, getting the rubber out of the way of the charging port is a pain in the arse.
Dance and padel is all very well, but when is Strava going to let me record my gardening?
You can use it to check whether it's raining.
If it's dusk, i.e. post-sunset, then the cyclists should have lights on and thus the colour of their top is irrelevant. If you want to complain about cyclists not having lights when it's mandatory then by all means do but their top has nothing to do with it.
All of my Exposure lights with a button allow cycling through the modes with a short press. I have five of those; it would be odd if Exposure didn’t allow this functionality with the Boost 3. I also have two Exposure Burners if I remember correctly: they are rear lights for joysticks that clip on and are powered through the joystick charging port. They don’t have a button. None of my Exposure lights have failed. I looked at the Boost 3 review photos but none showed the button, so far as I could tell. I also have Moon lights. Good experience generally. One did fail, possibly because it was so thin it used to fall through the holes in my helmet onto the ground. Also, the UI and charge indicators vary for my Moon lights. Perhaps the latest ones are more consistent. My worst lights ever were from See.Sense.
Steve really doesnt like exposure products does he? Boost and Strada marked down for being too complicated. While the Zenith and Six Pack reviewed by his colleagues give them rave reviews (as most exposure products have on road.cc), the Zenith even touted as 'even more intuitive to use' with the same controls.
107 thoughts on “Councillor resigns over anti-cyclist ‘w*nking off the Dutch’ tweet; Jeremy Vine tours Kensington High Street congestion; Coroner records air pollution cause of death; Sir Chris Hoy: Cyclists and drivers should be ‘less tribal’ + more on the live blog”
I’m sorry, and anyone who’s
I’m sorry, and anyone who’s been bored by my comments on here will know I am massively pro-cyclist, pro-cycle lanes and anti-motor vehicles, but in my opinion both Vine and his pilot cyclist are riding like absolute spanners there. Reacting to idiots making a road more dangerous by riding more dangerously is not a solution, and the absence of a cycle lane does not confer carte blanche to ride at speed down the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic. Imagine what we’d say if we saw a video of a car driver refusing to wait but accelerating down the wrong side of the road directly head-on with cyclists? Yes Jeremy, someone will definitely get killed there if idiots continue to ride like that.
Rendel Harris wrote:
They rode no different to 100% of motorbikes and mopeds out there – perfectly legal and I believe, taught by motorbike instructors.
The only difference is instead of riding like that for miles on end, it was more like 30 feet, and bicycles are half the width.
Not saying this is you btw, more of a general comment but I often find leisure (sunday lanes) cyclists to be out of touch with how to ride in town, they are drivers who ride a bike occasionally…and seem to think you are meant to sit in traffic like a car for hours on end.
EddyBerckx wrote:
I ride a 16 mile round trip Peckham-Fulham most days, sometimes twice a day, on some of London’s busiest roads and in my misspent youth I once spent a year as a motorcycle courier in London, so I am familiar with the need to overtake on the outside to make decent progress in London traffic. However, overtaking into a stream of oncoming traffic is definitely not sensible nor is it legal, the Highway Code states that you should not overtake unless “the road is sufficiently clear ahead.” If there’s a line of traffic coming towards you that has to divert towards the side of the road (where we would do well to remember there may be other cyclists riding) to let you through it’s certainly not “sufficiently clear ahead.”
If I’d ridden like that during motorcycle training I would have got a proper earful!
Rendel Harris wrote:
Maybe I need to look at the video again but from memory there was a clear stretch of road, they used it then pulled in a few seconds later when the oncoming traffic came near? That’s pretty normal in traffic for me at least (I don’t like riding like that tbh, but cars and vans take up so much room these days there is no room to filter between lines of traffic on many London roads anymore and that’s not mentioning the ones who deliberately block you)
EddyBerckx wrote:
If you look from 1:03 onwards they ride in the oncoming lane whilst eight oncoming cars pass – rather absurdly Vine even captions it “Serious Hazard: Oncoming Traffic”. If you know it’s a serious hazard why one earth are you riding into it, for heaven’s sake?
Rendel Harris wrote:
As long as you’re not endangering others, then cycling through traffic is a compromise between safety margins and speed. Different people will obviously choose a different compromise which can be affected by confidence, experience etc. To my mind, ‘serious hazard’ means that you have to be aware of the risks and make your decisions accordingly.
Personally, I’d cycle pretty much like that cyclist through traffic and if there’s what I consider a reasonable gap, then I’d overtake despite oncoming traffic. It’s a common dilemma as to whether to overtake on the inside and risk vehicles pinning you to the curb or overtake on the outside and risk hitting oncoming vehicles – which depends very much on the specifics of the situation. Conversely, choosing to not take those risks is also perfectly reasonable and understandable.
To be clear, if you’re choosing to overtake into oncoming traffic then you should consider yourself responsible if there is any collision, so you have to be confident of your risk assessment and bike handling (e.g. knowing that there aren’t potholes in that section of road) and also whether the oncoming traffic is going to need to change course for any reason.
I disagree. That kind of
I disagree. That kind of cycling may look dangerous, but it’s the only way to make sensible progress when there’s so many slow/stationary vehicles blocking the road. There’s a big difference between a cyclist overtaking stationary vehicles and possibly putting themselves at risk and a car driver accelerating down the wrong side of the road and putting others at risk.
As to the tweet about vehicle drivers not knowing where a bike is coming from – just make sure when you are moving straight ahead that it is clear to do so and if you are making a maneouvre, make sure that it is safe to do so (mirror, signal, mirror, maneouvre).
Rendel Harris wrote:
Only if an idiot car driver hits them at speed. As a driver, I have no issue with folk filtering, and in traffic that heavy, particularly in a busy urban area with tons of pedestrians, I would not be driving at speed and manner to be a risk to the vulnerable.
The riders are simply not posing any risk in this example.
Captain Badger wrote:
Filtering is riding between lines of stationary or slow-moving traffic, not riding in the opposite lane that has fast-moving traffic coming down it.
Sorry all, clearly from the responses so far it’s outrageous that I should disagree with St.Jeremy of Vine, but nothing’s going to persuade me that riding fast down the oncoming traffic lane with cars coming towards you at speed is anything but a stupid thing to do.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Disagree all you like, fill your boots. It’s not outrageous, it’s a difference of opinion (although you do seem a bit butt-hurt that I disagree with you).
My take is simply that the risk is brought by drivers driving inappropriately for the environment and conditions, and that risk is not just for riders, but for peds also. If I drive safely for peds in that environment, de facto I drive safely for riders too.
Captain Badger]
Is the part in parentheses really necessary? Really?
In numerous circumstances that is true. In circumstances where any road user, car, m/bike, cyclist, whatever chooses to cross the line into the opposing oncoming lane that has relatively fast-moving traffic already in it, they are creating the risk. All the comments thus far seem to be variations of “I ride like that because it would be slower if I didn’t” – that is not an acceptable reason to ride carelessly and dangerously in my opinion.
Rendel Harris wrote:
About as necessary as this
“Sorry all, clearly from the responses so far it’s outrageous that I should disagree with St.Jeremy of Vine“
I agree with that sentiment, only it didn’t reflect what we saw. The actions of the riders would unlikely result in their or others’ deaths without the involvement of careless & dangerous drivers.
Captain Badger wrote:
What I said about JV was hardly as personal or as vulgar and puerile as what you said to me, was it?
If you look at the video again, Vine himself captions the part where they ride in the opposite lane with “Serious Hazard: Oncoming Taffic.” Clearly he thinks it’s dangerous, the question is if he thinks it’s dangerous why the hell’s he doing it?
Rendel Harris wrote:
You’d have to ask JV what he thought. You do still seem a little sore though. Sorry about that old boy…..
If you look at the video again, Vine himself captions the part where they ride in the opposite lane with “Serious Hazard: Oncoming Taffic.” Clearly he thinks it’s dangerous, the question is if he thinks it’s dangerous why the hell’s he doing it?— Rendel Harris
Again, maybe ask JV. My take is that he is correct, the oncoming is a hazard – JV and the rider in front assessed the risk and proceeded. As a driver, I’m confident that I could negotiate that situation safely – only careless dangerous drivers would cause a problem there.
Captain Badger wrote:
Your apparent obsession with hurting other people’s bottoms is disturbing…
Can you truly not see how absurd it is to ride towards oncoming traffic in the oncoming traffic lane and then say oh if I get hit it’ll be because the car driver was careless or dangerous? Really? I can tell you this, in law if one of those cars hit Vine or his pilot fish, provided the driver was sober and within the speed limit, it would be classified 100% the cyclist’s fault, and rightly so.
Rendel Harris wrote:
And yet you keep returning to it darling….. the obsession is not mine luv
Oh dear, someone seems to be a bit overwrought. Perhaps go and have a nice cup of tea…..
Captain Badger wrote:
Thank you for the tacit acknowledgement that you don’t have an argument.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Oh come on children, play
Oh come on children, play nicely. But “butt-hurt”? Really?
quiff wrote:
Yes, it’s slang. Thought it was a fairly commonly understood term…
butthurt
/ˈbʌthəːt/
INFORMAL•US
adjective
adjective: butt-hurt
overly or unjustifiably offended or resentful.
“they’re all butthurt that she released the album online first”
Genuinely never heard / seen
Genuinely never heard / seen it before (I’m clearly neither US nor informal). Seeing it for the first time, I read it as a pretty unpleasant slur along the lines set out here: http://persephonemagazine.com/2013/01/can-we-please-stop-using-the-term-butthurt/ If Rendel did too, then I wouldn’t say they were “overly or unjustifiably offended”.
quiff wrote:
Thank you, it is indeed a foul homophobic term referencing anal rape and idiots providing dictionary definitions showing that it’s passed into common parlance doesn’t change that.
quiff wrote:
They were “overly and unjustifiably offended” that folk failed to agree with them….
The etymolgy as far as I am aware is relating to a slapped arse ( I did wonder if Rendell was projecting towards the end. By that time they were focusing more on a throw-away comment than the topic in hand).
Any sexual connotation really had not occurred to me.
Captain Badger wrote:
Ah, you had no idea that it referenced anal rape but you somehow imply that I must be gay. You’re making yourself look very stupid and really not very nice at all.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I don’t believe it does. Yet again a disagreement results in your being “overly or unjustifiably offended”. But if it actually does, I apologise for its use in that context. I meant arse-slapped
Not sure how my pointing out your projection of opinions onto what others say implies anything about your sexuality….
Not nice? We’ve already established that I might disagree with you, if that satisfies your definition…. Stupid? I must be in responding yet again. Good day Rendell, have that cup of tea.
Captain Badger wrote:
You really should make a beeping noise when you try to back up like that. I don’t think I need point out how ridiculous your pathetic attempt to justify your unpleasant language and attitudes is, it’s there for all to see.
quiff wrote:
I notice while this poor behaviour is going on that our resident stirrer is almost silent. Which is bad news as they will think their efforts have worked. If people want to devalue the debate with anger and insults then this forum will be damaged.
Is there space for people to apologise, retract, be the adult in the room? Without sarcasm? Both Badger and Rendel have made points I agree with. There’s no need for cheek or falling out.
Rendel Harris wrote:
We could debate the rights, wrongs and shades of how the cycling was done in the video for quite some time (personally, I think overtaking with oncoming traffic may be OK if the oncoming lane is wide enough, and you can negotiate your passage – but that is subject to a whole load of factors, including being there to make the judgement at the time). But it doesn’t help.
The key point of the piece is that the premise for removing the cycle lane was bogus and prejudiced. It was a retrograde measure, with a council facing high profile, minority pressure from the usual petrolhead gammon attitudes. The council is failing its residents and those passing through for whom it has a responsibility.
GMBasix wrote:
I entirely agree, I was/am disgusted with the removal of the cycle lane and the reasoning behind it. I just don’t think it’s sensible to claim “I was forced to cycle dangerously because there wasn’t a cycle lane”. Personally I’m avoiding KHS completely at the moment and riding through the backstreets – longer but faster.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I’m partly with you. I avoid riding in the opposite lane when traffic is approaching, and I do think it was a bit daft to label oncoming traffic a ‘serious hazard’, as if they were absolutely forced to ride into it, but for me it’s a question of degree. In this clip (a) I’m pretty sure the video is still sped up during that section, so I think they’re actually making cautious progress, not riding ‘fast’ as you say, and (b) they are using a tiny amount of the oncoming lane, which drivers would not be using.
If you rode a bike in large
If you rode a bike in large cities, you would know that this is by far the safest way to make progress. You can see everything that poses a risk to you, and you can be seen by everybody. What is much more dangerous is trying to sneak up between the kerb and the inside of large vehicles, you risk oncoming traffic turning across your path, vehicles turning left without indicating, pedestrians completing their crossing manouevre without looking, etc.
It bemuses me that not one anti-cyclist’s observation of that scene is “my god, how can so much road space be taken up by so few people in totally oversized modes of transport”. Most of those vehicles will have one human being in them. That is what needs fixing. Not someone making measured progress at a totally reasonable speed, and perfectly able to judge the situation. I’ve done 30,000 miles of this sort of riding in Central London over 8 years with zero incidents. And I make progress in exactly the same way as I did for the previous 12 years on a motorbike! Stop focusing on completely the wrong problem!
mpdouglas wrote:
Thank you for being so patronising. Now let’s see, have I ever ridden a bike in large cities, ooh..well, having lived in London all my life apart from a few student years, and now being 52, and having cycle commuted to every job I’ve ever had apart from one year when I worked as a motorcycle courier, and riding my bike for pleasure in and around London every weekend, currently riding a daily 16 mile round trip commute (some days twice) through Peckham, Camberwell, Vauxhall, Battersea, Chelsea and Fulham on some of the capital’s most dangerous roads, I might know a little about it. Not as much as you of course…
I can only therefore assume
I can only therefore assume you make very slow progress. Surely the whole point of using a bike is not to be held up by this selfish blocking of the roads and to use your small size to make progress. It works for my 55 year old body on my 35 mile round trip commute through Parliament Square, Tarfalgar Square and Piccadilly Circus (I thought I’d throw that in as you seem to want to play a numbers/credibility game).
mpdouglas wrote:
Pardon me, you were the one who patronizingly said “if you rode a bike in large cities”, I was simply proving to you that I do and have all my life. Clearly you don’t like being called as you have to try another patronising tack, so I’ll let you have another number, my average time for the 8.5 miles Peckham-Fulham is 35 minutes, that’s at rush hour and with lots of traffic lights en route, and I do it without once riding on the wrong side of the road when there’s oncoming traffic. Got any other patronising assumptions you need refuting?
oh no! Just when I thought
oh no! Just when I thought you guys had manage to kiss and make up.
(sorry, late to the party didn’t get lunch today.)
mpdouglas wrote:
[
This road is part of my
This road is part of my regular commute so I watched this with some interest as I have been down it a thousand times. Looked like a pretty typical evening ride home to me. I would ride it similarly to the way the bloke Vine was following did. You have two or three lanes of traffic down there that is often solid and barely moving for what must be a mile or so. The only way to make any progress is to thread your way through, otherwise you get off and walk. Taking to the outside is sometimes the only way – where he does it the road is actually quite wide on the opposite side so there is room. I have done it myself so I must be one of those ‘idiots’ and ‘spanners’ you are referring to. It isn’t ideal though and I don’t particularly want to take any risks – I am a safety first type rider. The point is you have to because they have removed the cycle lane, which made it much safer to negotiate. Removing the cycle lane doesn’t seem to have helped the traffic in any way – seems worse than ever.
Personally, I’d be more
Personally, I’d be more concerned about the danger from the points where they’re cutting across from one lane to another – edging between cars that could start to move, and the possibility of other cyclists coming up from behind as you emerge, etc. Either way, though, it seems to me that criticising riding dangerously is completely missing the point in this case. The whole thrust of what he’s saying is that those on bikes now essentially have two choices: (1) ride like the one he followed, with all its attendant dangers, or (2) give up (whether by queueing for hours in the traffic or getting off and walking, as the other rider did) and likely get in the car next time, because the benefits of cycling have been completely negated, and thereby make the congestion even worse.
mdavidford wrote:
Or (3) do what I do, which is know my London and whizz through the almost deserted sidestreets. I’d prefer there was still a cycle lane, but there are alternatives – as I said above, they’re longer but quicker. Until (and please let it be soon) we have safe segregated infrastructure, a few minutes with a map planning your own quietway can pay dividends. KHS is not the only west-east route, especially not for cyclists.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Most of the traffic is moving at just above walking pace, and the rider is going in the same direction most of the time, so the risk of harm is prett small, even in a collision, especially with a car, a low speed collision with a lorry is probably going to be fatal. The bit where he’s lane-splitting or overtaking is just part and parcel of commuting in London.
The sad thing is that there is almost no alternative in this area as the side streets are very broken up, there just aren’t many direct routes that run parallel to the High Street, it’s almost as if someone had designed them to discourage rat running…
alexb wrote:
Depends where you’re headed, coming from the east towards Kensington I follow the cycleways through Hyde Park then drop down Exhibition Road to follow the quietway through to Brompton cemetery, then if I’m headed for Putney or Richmond swing through Chelsea Harbour and Putney Bridge, or if going towards Hammersmith/Shepherd’s Bush there’s an easy backstreets hack from the Fulham Road. It’s further, but quicker and a lot safer.
Rendel Harris wrote:
If you want to do the opposite, go from West to East and you work at Imperial college for example, you can’t take any of the side streets around High Street Kensington as they don’t connect, or are one way, but in the wrong direction, or lead North or South. The High Street is the only direct route, which is why it’s so busy.
Rendel Harris wrote:
But those people are already on that road. It’s not really reasonable to expect them, when confronted with that situation, to whip out a map and start planning alternate routes.
And for many people the burden of the extra effort and time investment of researching and planning an alternative route in advance, and then being confident that you’ll remember it once underway, is just going to seem too high, so again, they’ll just give up and climb in the car instead.
mdavidford wrote:
99% of cyclists on that road will be commuters, could they really not be bothered to find and learn safer quicker routes for a trip they take twice a day?
Rendel Harris wrote:
In many cases, probably not. Human nature tends to be ‘lazy’ and seek the line of least resistance. It also tends to overestimate the cost of change – in this case, many people will assume that it would take a lot more time and effort than it actually would to find a new route, and conclude that they don’t have time for that in their busy lives.
mdavidford wrote:
How depressing if true; I may be sad (alright I am) but one of the things I really enjoy about taking on a new client is figuring out the most enjoyable and safest ride to their offices!
More signposted Quietways would be great to help with this.
Nah, I’m with you there – 1
Nah, I’m with you there – 1:03 – 1:10 is a bit too dicey for my blood. Yes, you see plenty of people doing it, yes I’ll happily cross over the centre line it’s clear/stationary/slow moving but as you say – into the teeth of oncoming traffic at speed isn’t A1 sensible.
Filtering is acceptable
Filtering is acceptable practice and is in the highway code. Looking at the video it would look scary to a non-cyclist, but I have to do this all the time if there’s no segregated cycle lane. If I sat behind a queue of cars and didn’t filter, I would never get to work. You just have to calculate it carefully, something that you can do after months/years of cycling, and always cover your brakes. You have to watch out for pedestrians, who always seem to be looking the other way as they scurry out in front of you from behind a vehicle. Why is that?
When I did my CBT I was told
When I did my CBT I was told to filter and it would be expected on the test and if I didn’t then I would loose points for not making progress, so if it’s approved by motorcycle instructers and testers then it’s alright when cyclists do it
I’m so glad to see that
I’m so glad to see that removing the cycle lane has completely cured the congestion. As I’ve said elsewhere, an apology from the imbecile who took it out and those who campaigned to get it taken out would be entirely appropriate, and not to do so might seem rather curmudgeonly.
As for those people commenting that the cycling was dangerous, well, the cure for that is simple and obvious; a segregated cycle lane.
Yep, that’s the very obvious
Yep, that’s the very obvious point Jeremy is making. Cyclists are not going to comply to the kind of behaviour car drivers are forced to by their vehicle size, they’ll find a way through. We can do it in a safe manner with segregated routes and make drivers envious, or we can let them filter in traffic at greater risk and make drivers angry. Envy is better.
eburtthebike wrote:
Not sure an apology would be enough. Tying them to a chair in a darkened room and playing this video on a loop at them with their eyes forceably opened a la ‘Clockwork Orange’ should do it. Then perhaps get them to write out 10,000 times ‘I must not deliberately endanger the lives of vulnerable road users by bending over for reactionary gammon cockwombles’. Seems fair.
“The irony is that the
“The irony is that the council acted after being attacked in the Daily Mail by Nigel Havers, who said the cycle lane had ruined his Sunday walk.”
It does annoy me that celebrities’ and actors’ views on matters on which they are not experts get this kind of prominence. If an actor had strong opinions about theatre then they should be listened to but when they’re giving an uninformed rant about something they don’t know about they should be ignored. Of course if Nigel Havers is, in his spare time, a renowned international expert on town planning, traffic flow and cycling infrastructure then I apologise.
Is that unrepentant convicted
Is that unrepentant convicted drink driver Nigel Havers? Not sure if refusing to apologise for drink driving is a qualification that makes him a world expert in road safety.
Well folks can say what they
Well folks can say what they like about the cyclists, but they are the only people (with the exception of bus passengers) on that road who are not adding to the congestion.
Presumably Google traffic data or somesuch can show what difference adding and removing cycle lanes made to average traffic speeds on those roads?
PRSboy wrote:
Neither are they adding to the pollution.
It would also be interesting to know about the rate of flow (cars per minute) which is not necessarily the same as average speeds
At least when the cycle lane
At least when the cycle lane was there, you had somewhere to park your van…for three whole bleeding days…
Nigel Havers, I hope you are pleased with yourself.
Is Havers in panto this year?
Is Havers in panto this year? We could all turn up (socially distanced) and boo him.
“He’s behind you (stuck in traffic)!”
All this talk of them both
All this talk of them both riding at speed into oncoming traffic… they weren’t! They were riding slowly, the video is clearly sped up. As a motorcyclist and London cyclist this is perfectly normal riding in my opinion, anyone who thinks otherwise probaby needs to work on their bike handling
Being normal doesn’t mke
Being normal doesn’t mke something right though
For many drivers breaking the speed limit ir “Normal” they do it almost everytime they get behind the wheel, it is still wrong and illegal.
I would go so far as to say normalising incorrect behaviour in this respect is complacency as the driver/rider becomes less aware of the risks they are taking since they have done it so often without issue.
All of this is completely
All of this is completely missing the point of the video – that it was safe until they took away the bike lane, and taking away the bike lane has not stopped congestion caused by cars.
Okay you’repicking on the use
Okay you’repicking on the use of a particular word there… call it normal, correct, perfectly safe. I don’t mind, I meant all of the above and will continue to do it :-p
But Mr Vine’s video is
But Mr Vine’s video is clearly ‘Fake News’ (TM TrumpCorp) – after all, everybody knows that cyclists hold up all the traffic and it’s never the other way around… 😉
We know you don’t produce any
We know you don’t produce any pollution but we are going to force you to sit in ours cos to try to use your narrower vehicle to get away from the fumes more quickly is unacceptable. If we hit you it’s your fault cos we are too busy not leaving any gaps in the traffic, in case someone cuts in in front of us and lengthens our journey by a few seconds, to check around us before we make a manouvre. Also if you hit a pedestrian who steps out in front of you that’s your fault as well, for not checking.
Oh and cycle lanes cause congestion so you can’t have one.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Excellent summation.
Re. Brought By Bike – I
Re. Brought By Bike – I suspect if you live outside London, and maybe a few other big cities, you’re going to be disappointed at the moment. Apparently, I can get… books. That’s it.
Even searching on a central Oxford postcode only returns more (different) books, a bakery, and a laundry service.
It appears to have grown
It appears to have grown significantly in the last few hours and there’s some who have recently popped up based in my area. I was going to ping it over to Bristol’s cycling plumber but he’s now on the list http://broughtbybike.com/company/pedal-powered-plumbing/
Most cyclists are also
Most cyclists are also drivers, so it isn’t them who is tribal; maybe you should be addressing your comments to the drivers Sir Chris.
Quite right. The reason
Quite right. The reason cycling is a pleasure in the Netherlands is because nearly every one cycles and therefore nearly all drivers there can empathise with cyclists and treat them accordingly. Now how do we get more people cycling to reduce tribalism and become more like the Netherlands. Cycle lanes? Can’t do that because some drivers will complain. Ban cars from parks in London? Can’t do that because some drivers will complain. Increase the cost of driving in towns? Can’t do that because some drivers will complain. Etc. Etc.
Just the point I was going to
Just the point I was going to make. Every time Hoy pops up here, it’s because he has said something daft and unhelpful.
eburtthebike wrote:
Yup, am getting fed up with the “why can’t we just get along” bollox
Quite. We’d get along just
Quite. We’d get along just fine except every time a tiny amount of road space gets allocated to cycling, a handful of incredibly loud entitled scumbags kick off about the war on the motorist.
If responsibility for crashes fell equally to drivers and cyclists Hoy might have a point, but it doesn’t; it’s overwhelmingly drivers maiming and killing cyclists.
Yep. Racing car driver Chris
Yep. Racing car driver Chris Hoy says cyclists and drivers should be less tribal… What he should have said is that some drivers need to be less tribal.
I think it’s more drivers
I think it’s more drivers need to be a little less killey.
Hmm. Many of my engagements
Hmm. Many of my engagements in the microcosm of the newspaper comments pages end with things like “typical arrogant cyclist” and me or someone snipping back “typical arrogant motorist”.
I think engagement, or attempting it, has its place and I don’t think we should be quite so hard on Sir Chris. I was suprised how many confessions arose on here a few weeks ago of past mis-deeds under Confessions of a (former Petrolhead.” (Not starring Robin Asquith)
.
I am glad following to see
I am glad to see that the government is spending £3.8 billion to clean up air quality following the inquest verdict (Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah: Air pollution a factor in girl’s death, inquest finds – BBC News) but then is commiting £27 billion to ensure more roads are built which nominally increase said air pollution directly or otherwise ?
I realise that it is mostly
I realise that it is mostly because of the campaign by the mother, however I can’t believe that with the last 100 year+ years including peas soupers, smogs and multiple cases of people having to leave the city to be able to actually breath, that this is the first “official” death attributed to air pollution as a factor.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
The 1952 Great Smog killed >10k. About 4k were killed between 5th and 9th Dec, but >6k died from illness in the following months. I seem to remember that the govt at the time put a hard stop on attributing deaths to the event so the total is likely significantly higher
I suppose that is attributing to a single event rather than general pollution, which may be a distinguishing factor
Can’t say I was offended by
Can’t say I was offended by wanking off the Dutch but if a cllr can’t put forward a coherent statement about an issue that affects many, then they aren’t worth their place.
A Highways Committee member
A Highways Committee member (and I think he might actually been Head of Highways), who is setting policy for all Oxfordshire’s roads making such disgusting remarks about vulnerable road users, is really not an appropriate individual to be holding such a role.
It was not his first offence either, which is probably why the Monitoring Officer followed the guidance of the cross party standards committee, which found him to have breached the Conduct standards and recommended his removal from the role. The Leader of the Council presumably felt (s)he really couldn’t find a reason to go against that recommendation. Hence the conversation where this was made clear to Cllr Walker, who opted to resign before he was pushed.
PP
You would think that if he
You would think that if he was so concerned with others valuable time and the taxpayers money spent, that he might have resigned one hell of a lot earlier in the process.
He couldn’t make time to
He couldn’t make time to attend the hearing because of ‘other work’. Makes me wonder how much effort he put into this position in the first place.
In his defence (which is
In his defence (which is surprising as I was one of the complainants to the Monitoring Officer), being an elected councillor does not preclude you from having a job. Many are better because of this as they bring some ‘real world’ into descussions and decisions. Far too many don’t have jobs and it is a hobby, or a pension top up, or a power trip.
I speak with some authority on the matter as my wife is a Town and County Councillor in Cheshire East and became Cycling & Walking Champion for the Borough. She puts her heart and soul into the role and spends up to 15hrs a day working on projects, campaigning alongside a normal councillor’s duties such as sorting out residents complaints about drains, planning etc etc. She sits on several committees and her C&W Champion role is a bit like a Minister Without Portfolio role, where she the backing of the Leader and Deputy to ‘float’ and attend ANY committee meeting if there is ANYTHING that will affect cycling or walking. This includes Highways, Planning, Health and Wellbeing, Schools etc etc etc.
This means she asks the right questions about cycling provision at planning meetings, parking and pavement decisions, health and leisure planning, cycling and walking to school etc. They have to listen and as I said, with the backing of the leadership the committee chairs are also onboard so her input IS listened to and considered seriously. They pretty much have to justify why they will not follow her recommendations now.
She has spent the last month literally flat out proposing a default 20mph speed limit on all residential and town centre roads across the Borough. Each road will be looked at on a case by case basis to decide if anything higher than 20mph is appropriate.
This included drawing up the proposals, collating a case ‘for’ through gathering of information and supporting data. She had to get the evidence to address the likely nay sayers, one of whom was particularly vocal and aggressive. She then contacted the vast majority of the 70+ councillors personally to talk them through it to educate them and answer their (very many) objections.
This culminated in a 3.5hr debate (I kid you not) yesterday at a full Cabinet Zoom meeting where the Conservatives tried everything possible to scupper the proposals. They failed. Then they suggested a cross party working group, which would mean they could then try to scupper every move once adopted. Scandalous. But she got the proposal accepted and it will be rolling out next spring. She had to turn the camera off as the vote was confirmed as she was in tears – of relief, joy and the lifting of huge pressure off her shoulders. She fell asleep exhausted at about 8:30pm last night. Today, she has made hundreds of shortbread biscuits, wrapped them in cellophane and put ties and gift cards on them to hand out to all the Officers on the council. Amazing.
She gets upwards of 50 emails a day, endless phone calls and of course is following up constantly on planning issues which have not put in the cycling provision that was passed at the planning meeting etc etc. Developers promise the world then default as they know councils are strapped for cash and can’t keep threatening to take them to court. In the past they got away with it – there was supposed to be a foot and cycling bridge put in from a new housing development into the town park – the developers were allowed to put no ‘green space’ on the development as the bridge would allow access to the big park. Funny old thing, they squeezed more houses onto the plot as a consequence and then never put the bridge in. This has gone on for 5 years (before she was on the council) and she is fighting tooth and nail to get the developer to fulfil their commitment. It is a thankless task that soaks up hour upon hour.
And for all that what does she get? An allowance of less than £12k a year. For all that and more. It’s not surprising many do the bare minimum…
PP
Pilot Pete wrote:
Pete thanks, that was a fascinating read. I wish all folk in her position were as dedicated and effective, and I also wish that they didn’t have to swim upstream to be so.
Thank you, I will pass on
Thank you, I will pass on your comments. Unfortunately it is an uphill struggle, as you can imagine, many of the councillors are very car centric in their thinking, and county councils do tend to lag a number of years behind cities in their thinking…
My wife has had to get policy changes just to bring them anywhere near up to date – for example, Highways were still working to a 1980s design guide last year! She had to push and convince them to start using LTN 1/20 – the up to date design guide for cycling infrastructure released in July this year. It wasn’t easy as she had to convince the Highways Leader and then go through the process of policy change, which is a lot of red tape. Writing a policy document takes weeks – it defines everything that the officers must work to, so you can imagine how much work that took. Now it is policy, she gets huge traction if the planning committee passes something without following it, or the highways committee designs a junction without considering cycle provision – as they have not followed policy! So she can challenge and they MUST change it.
That is massive. After several months, they have learnt and now they submit ideas, plans etc and ask for her input before even discussing it at committee meetings. Her first 4 year term is going to be changing as many policies as she needs to to facilitate improving cycling and walking provision. Everything will be in place then, so after that is when the real change will actually be implemented – these projects take years to get through design, planning, funding and building. So very frustrating for her – she just wants to see her first dedicated Cycleway, but that will take some time to actually achieve. It’s a thankless task if you ask me!!!
PP
Pilot Pete wrote:
Well, she has mine and a large number of other vistor’s to this site I suspect. Chapeau!
Say thank you from me. Sounds
Say thank you from me. Sounds like we need more like her.
Thanks you. I will.
Thank you. I will.
Sounds like your wife is
Sounds like your wife is doing a great job and thank you for putting forward a complaint. I suspect this individual was not quite as diligent in the role.
Certainly there are some who like to collect these roles, whilst they don’t pay much individually, if you manage to bag a few it’s not a bad sideline.
Thanks for the support. That
Thanks for the support. That individual was far from ‘diligent’. Turns out he was warned about his conduct a year or so back for calling people ‘bell ends’ on twitter, which I knew nothing of until after receiving the decision to fire him by the monitoring officer.
The thing is I think he has only lost his cabinet position, so he will remain a councillor – just losing a portion of his allowance which he would have got for leading on Highways (I know he was on Highways, but not sure if he was actually the leader)
When you say ‘bag a few’ I’m not sure what you mean. You can be a councillor on a town council (for which you don’t get paid anything), and on county council, for which you get a basic allowance, there are then special duty allowances for various roles such as being leader of the council, deputy, then chair of each of the various committees. Remember you have to be elected onto the councils first, then realistically you need to be in the controlling party on county council to be council leader/ deputy or chair of anything. Those roles are chosen by the controlling party. On our council that is a Labour/ Independent coalition, so the leader is Labour, deputy Independent and the various chairs are a mix of the two.
So you can’t really ‘bag’ anything else – you can’t chair loads of committees, only one, and you can’t sit on loads of different councils as you have to live or work in an area to qualify to stand for election.
On our council, under constant Tory control since Cheshire was split into two councils (East and West) many years ago – at the last election the perfect storm hit them – the council leader sacked for giving a contract to his physiotherapist without following any kind of tendering process, a finance director (an officer, so not elected) who was suspended for a year on £150k+ whilst an investigation was conducted, who resigned the week he was to have his disciplinary and then none of the details were made public, and of course the anger at the Tories nationally over Brexit.
My wife stood as an independent as did a number of others, campaigned hard (which virtually nobody does in local elections as voters normally just tick the same ‘colour’ candidates as they vote for with their MP in a general election) and they took loads of seats. Not enough for an overall majority, and neither did Labour. The Tories assumed the independent candidates would side with them to get power, but as most were disgruntled Tories there was no way they could as that would have betrayed their voters! So, they negotiated and agreed a coalition with Labour, reviewable each year and with the caveat there was no Momentum members in Labour. It has worked really well. The Tories are livid and now just constantly trying to undermine and trash anything and everything the coalition tries to do.
In my opinion, party politics shouldn’t come into local politics – if a 20mph speed limit or a zebra crossing is needed near a school etc, it should simply be voted in favour of to improve your town/ Borough. It is bizarre that the Tories oppose their own national party’s policies, such as cycling, LTNs etc at local level. It is all about regaining control in their eyes and they are happy to trash anything to achieve that, even things they might believe in! That is local politics for you.
Our local parish council is
Our local parish council is like a club. It’s really difficult for new members to challenge the status quo – in fact, they can be quite rude to each other, as the recent publishing of zoom calls has shown. I’ve a lot of respect for those who do it out of a sense of duty; your wife would fit that category admirably.
However, there are a lot who just like to have fingers in pies and pick up hats; chair of this, advisor to that etc. Perhaps I’m being harsh, but this Walker chap strikes me as a hat collector rather than a transportation policy fanatic.
But do remember, Parish
But do remember, Parish councils have very, very few powers. Less than Town Councils, which the saying goes ‘look after parks and dog shit’!!!
The actual power and budgets lie at City/ County Council level. My wife spent 4yrs on Town Council trying everything to get her ideas listened t9 and implemented, all to no avail. Hence why she stood for County Council and is now getting traction.
So I wouldn’t worry too much about your parish council, the6 probably look after a few benches and the green! Highways comes most definitely under County Council, so as cyclists if you want stuff done you need to lobby your county councillors. If enough engage with them on issues they have to act….
PP
Since my days as a Monitoring
Since my days as a Monitoring Officer, Town Councils have been my absolute fave for getting tangled up in sheer nonsense. They are big enough – just about – to matter, but too small to have any real responsibilities and not enough officer support to keep them on track. Sherborne, Minehead are a couple of examples.
Pilot Pete wrote:
lol, you’re not wrong there – the most recent contentious issue was PEOPLE crapping in the park bushes because the council closed the public loos! high-level stuff 🙂
Meanwhile, out on the
Meanwhile, out on the doorstep, it’s “they’re all in it for the money”, “they’re all corrupt”, etc.
I do think that certain
I do think that certain councils suffer a lot of corruption – remember they hand out grants to local projects as well as handing out contracts to businesses for millions. Some are more, shall we say, diligent at doing some (any) due diligence than others.
Many councillors sit on trusts and the like that apply for such grants. Mates of some of these on the various committees sometimes seem happy to hand out thousands without asking anything more than ‘what’s it going to be spent on?’ Once it’s granted there are sometimes very few, if any checks to see how the money was spent, no check for receipts or accounts. I’m not saying this happens a lot, but I know of a few who have been ‘at it’, who may well get a 5am raid in the new year….
If you follow the news there are plenty of stories of people getting done for fraud on councils – I believe the Mayor of Liverpool was arrested recently…..
At one point, the Liverpool
At one point, the Liverpool Mayor was “co-operating fully with police” – as opposed to what – going on the run?
I can’t remember whether it was East or West, but Cheshire seems to feature in the Private Eye Rotten Boroughs page.
Another doorstep-ism is “they shouldn’t be political” – CEC seems to be doing pretty well at being other than just the main parties. It’s hard to keep an Independent group together over time, and I notice a couple of Real Independents.
It’s quite worrying when individual councillors think the can go about with an order book and cheque book – new instances keep on happening, so it must be something they can do and get away with. I always think trade fairs shouldn’t exist, at least so far as the public sector goes – fine as a shop window and a day out, but they’re driven by sales made on the floor, so by definition no procurement process.
I had a quick look at Oxfordshire CC’s website, Cllr Ian Walker is still there in his portfolio holder role – I couldn’t see an obvious Highways Director among the modern job titles, but there must be one. As you say, his departure is likely to be a final straw case. It’s depressing that somewhere as “bikey”as Oxford has taken this approach.
It was Cheshire East under
It was Cheshire East under the previous Tory administration. You wouldn’t believe the corruption and incompetence…..
PP
Pilot Pete wrote:
invariably found dwelling together. It’s horrible, knowing or suspecting it’s going on around you – do you risk it all to make a disclosure or stay shtum.
Good ‘un Pete
Good ‘un Pete
You would not think that the bleedin’ obviuos 20mph speed limit in residaential areas would be so difficult to get approved.
I don’t think Cheshire East is that different from the rest of the country.
Cycloid wrote:
Indeed. It’s bizarre, muddled thinking that cars should not be restricted in any way, shape or form. Many local politicians, especially Conservative think this way – as though it is a threat to ‘freedoms’. They don’t think how the more basic freedoms of walking and cycling and not being killed by motor vehicles has been infringed for decades… however, THE PEOPLE are changing.
What parent, even who own 1+ cars, doesn’t want safer residential streets where their kids walk, play and travel? What parent wouldn’t want to be able to cycle with their kids, even if just on a Sunday morning, to the park, or into the town centre, or a circular loop for a bit of exercise and family time?
Town centres need to change. The current model with a main thoroughfare blighted by through traffic, tons of kerbside parking and shops which are dwindling in number due to the challenge of online retail, has failed.
Who doesn’t want their town centre to be a more friendly place to spend time? Who wouldn’t want the decades of ‘throughput of traffic’ being the primary design criteria dropped in favour of walking and cycling space? The whole concept is changing with ideas such as shop spaces that can transform throughout the day from one use to another to try to maximise their usage and revenue streams. We have to re-invent the high street and make it a welcoming place where people want to spend time. That doesn’t include shifting thousands of vehicles and hour through them, it is folly to claim this traffic is bringing trade – in my town, the choice of shops has got so bad it is literally only locals who pop in for a few bits – we are a major confluence of several A roads. The vast majority of traffic on those A roads is going somewhere else, we are NOT their destination. Why would you want to encourage them and prioritise them through your town centre? It’s madness that people have had enough of.
20mph speed limits are just one small step in this sea change that is coming. We have a bypass that will be complete in 2021 so good riddance to all the lorries that plough tough our town centre and those who are just trying to get somewhere else. Segregated cycling infrastructure is being planned, and that is another small step. I have great hope that our town will be a completely different place in ten years from now…
PP
Hoy has spoken simplistic
Hoy has spoken simplistic bollocks.
“People need to be less tribal about it. People see themselves as cyclists or drivers when in my opinion we are just people trying to get around”.
Like others have pointed out, most cyclists drive vehicles, most also walk, take a bus or take a train. However, if you cycle and drive, you have empathy with those cyclists with whom you share the road. It’s drivers who don’t cycle who are the problem. They are ones who lack empathy, who frankly don’t give a flying F how miserable & dangerous they make a cyclist’s journey.
But no, Hoy had to use the simple 2 tribes trope.
Councillor Liam Walker
Councillor Liam Walker resignation digested:
I have reflected on my “Dutch” re-tweet for which I again apologise – I recognise that it fell below the standard expected of someone in a responsible elected office. I will try to be a better person in future and learn from this mistake. I accept the decision made and am leaving my role Cabinet role at the end of the month to allow a smooth succession.
Wasn’t really like that : Digested, digested read: “I’m the world’s greatest victim here.”
Classic “sorry not sorry” as
Classic “sorry not sorry” as practised by the Home Secretary.
road.cc wrote:
Too much Dutch Rudder got him the Spanish Archer?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
I daren’t look those up, I’m on a work computer….
I am thrilled to see that one
I am thrilled to see that one of the services offered in my area by Brought by Bike is that of a plumber.