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

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:

If you rode a bike in large cities, you would know that this is by far the safest way to make progress.

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 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:

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).

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 you guys had manage to kiss and make up. 

(sorry, late to the party didn't get lunch today.)

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 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:

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.

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:

mdavidford wrote:

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.

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.

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:

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... 

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:

alexb wrote:

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... 

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.

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:

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.

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:

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, 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.

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:

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?

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:

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.

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 - 1:03 - 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.