Autoglass repair, Autoglass disgrace: why cyclists don’t use cycle lanes; Max Stedman goes Everesting; Walmart sponsors CX worlds; Slippery cyclists; Wicker baskets beat bar bags; Jeremy Vine talks LTNs; Pog transfer rumour + more on the live blog

90 thoughts on “Autoglass repair, Autoglass disgrace: why cyclists don’t use cycle lanes; Max Stedman goes Everesting; Walmart sponsors CX worlds; Slippery cyclists; Wicker baskets beat bar bags; Jeremy Vine talks LTNs; Pog transfer rumour + more on the live blog”

1. Apart from the ladder, the

   Apart from the ladder, the scaffolders are fine in my opinion, and they have at least made an effort with the orange barrier. They’re on double yellows too, but traffic can clearly get around it OK. Not sure what the alternative would be — park in the car lane leaving the cycle lane free but then carry a load of poles across it? Negotiate a complete road closure?

   Societal life isn’t always ideal, it’s about reasonable compromise in exceptional cases like this (and, to some extent, the Autoglass van). If we as a cycling community start demonising every little thing like this, it won’t help improve public opinion of “us”, and dilutes the voices highlighting real problems of casual parking of public cars.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Troon wrote:

     Apart from the ladder, the scaffolders are fine in my opinion, and they have at least made an effort with the orange barrier. They’re on double yellows too, but traffic can clearly get around it OK. Not sure what the alternative would be — park in the car lane leaving the cycle lane free but then carry a load of poles across it? Negotiate a complete road closure?

     Societal life isn’t always ideal, it’s about reasonable compromise in exceptional cases like this (and, to some extent, the Autoglass van). If we as a cycling community start demonising every little thing like this, it won’t help improve public opinion of “us”, and dilutes the voices highlighting real problems of casual parking of public cars.

     — Troon

     I agree – though it would be good if they also had a “narrow lanes – do not overtake cyclists” sign.  (But at least they haven’t put up a “cyclists dismount” one.)

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Steve K wrote:

       I agree – though it would be good if they also had a “narrow lanes – do not overtake cyclists” sign.

       — Steve K

       Because that’s helpful at every pinch point ever, agreed nobody.

       I guess I’m just not as well equipped as you in the optimism department…

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Not really. The orange
     Not really. The orange barrier is for their safety so that a driver who isn’t paying attention hits the barrier before hitting one of them. Nothing to do with cycle safety. The ladder in the lane simply serves as notice to a cyclist that the lane is blocked ahead too.

     As for societal life not always being ideal, this isn’t a case of having a go at the scaffolders parked there, it’s more to do with highlighting the fact that this is often what happens with cycle lanes yet drivers always mean that cyclists aren’t using them. That’s the whole point of this tweet, to remind drivers that they need to be aware of the fact that cycle lanes are not always the safest place to be.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • sapperadam wrote:

       As for societal life not always being ideal, this isn’t a case of having a go at the scaffolders parked there, it’s more to do with highlighting the fact that this is often what happens with cycle lanes yet drivers always mean that cyclists aren’t using them.

       — sapperadam

       Don’t forget when various warning signs (roadworks, etc) are put up either blocking the footway or blocking the cycle lane because we can’t put it in the main traffic lane FFS…

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • The  biggest danger looks

         The  biggest danger looks like the raised dividing line between the cycle lane and main traffic lane. Perhaps it’s the remnants of “orcas”, “armadillos” or was originally the base for bollards? Whatever it is or was, it looks to be raised enough to cause a danger to any cyclist crossing it and has only small gaps. It would be better if it were either a normal flat paint line or something obviously vertical, such as bollards/wands, or even a kerb. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • there is no change in level –

           there is no change in level – just the painted line, some armadillos and two wands. You can’t see the wands because one is behind the camera and one is under the truck.

         • Precisely. It’s the

           Precisely. It’s the armadillos that are the danger. Though it looks to me as if the long painted line beyond the armadillo is also raised – maybe that’s just how it appears on the photo. 

   • Troon wrote:

     Societal life isn’t always ideal, it’s about reasonable compromise in exceptional cases like this (and, to some extent, the Autoglass van).

     — TroonAs ever, it would be interesting to see what the Dutch do in similar circumstances.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • eburtthebike wrote:

       As ever, it would be interesting to see what the Dutch do in similar circumstances.

       — eburtthebike

       Transport scaffolding on cargo bikes, of course

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Have fully segregated cycle

       Have fully segregated cycle routes so that cyclists don’t have to mix with cars at all?

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • But such cycle lanes still
         But such cycle lanes still pass through areas where they need to carry scaffolding from their truck on the road to its destination, so what do they do ? Barrier the cycle lane and road ? Create a temporary diversion?

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • eburtthebike wrote:

       Societal life isn’t always ideal, it’s about reasonable compromise in exceptional cases like this (and, to some extent, the Autoglass van).

       — eburtthebike

       As ever, it would be interesting to see what the Dutch do in similar circumstances.

       — Troon

       This is specifically on roadworks but we can see that: [1] [2 with video] [3 with video] [4 lots of videos]

       For an analysis of what we do in the UK instead: [5 from Cycling UK] [6 diversions in the country] [govt. guidance 2015]

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • chrisonatrike wrote:

         Societal life isn’t always ideal, it’s about reasonable compromise in exceptional cases like this (and, to some extent, the Autoglass van).

         — chrisonatrike

         As ever, it would be interesting to see what the Dutch do in similar circumstances.

         — eburtthebike

         This is specifically on roadworks but we can see that: [1] [2 with video] [3 with video] [4 lots of videos]

         For an analysis of what we do in the UK instead: [5 from Cycling UK] [6 diversions in the country] [govt. guidance 2015]

         — Troon

         Many thanks for such a comprehensive response.  None of them quite show what happens when a scaffolder needs to unload his truck on the highway in Holland though.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • eburtthebike wrote:

           Many thanks for such a comprehensive response.  None of them quite show what happens when a scaffolder needs to unload his truck on the highway in Holland though.

           — eburtthebike

           Is this some kind of joke? “I don’t know, what does a scaffolder do when he needs to unload his truck on the highway in Holland?”

           I’ve no idea either but in the interest of answering “ah but you can’t do x!” I’ve also found a solution to moving house there. People will no doubt accuse me of cherry-picking examples though.

         • chrisonatrike wrote:

           Many thanks for such a comprehensive response.  None of them quite show what happens when a scaffolder needs to unload his truck on the highway in Holland though.

           — chrisonatrike

           Is this some kind of joke? “I don’t know, what does a scaffolder do when he needs to unload his truck on the highway in Holland?”

           I’ve no idea either but in the interest of answering “ah but you can’t do x!” I’ve also found a solution to moving house there. People will no doubt accuse me of cherry-picking examples though.

           — eburtthebike

           No, not any kind of joke, and I can’t work out why you might think it was.  As I said, thank you for the fulsome response, but the question remains; what happens in Holland when a scaffolder needs to load/unload? 

           Excellent video of moving in Amsterdam, at least the first five minutes that I watched anyway, but again, nothing to do with the case in point, and I’ve never seen a case where moving required scaffolding.

         • eburtthebike wrote:

           No, not any kind of joke, and I can’t work out why you might think it was.

           — eburtthebike

           Er, I don’t think chrisonatrike was genuinely asking if you were making a joke. Rather, the comment was a joke in itself, as in “This sounds like the set-up for a joke…”.

         • As mdavidford said – I still

           As mdavidford said – I still forget that writing doesn’t do “tone” sometimes.

           And no-one liked the cherry-picker pun.

         • And that’s 10 minutes of my
           And that’s 10 minutes of my life I’ll never get back.

         • They got me too! By the end

           They got me too! By the end the suspense was killing me.

         • chrisonatrike wrote:

           And no-one liked the cherry-picker pun.

           — chrisonatrike

           I feel your pain – there’s no love for my slippers and crocs joke either.

         • Please look up the meaning of

           Please look up the meaning of ‘fulsome’.

         • “The correct meaning today is

           “The correct meaning today is held to be ‘excessively complimentary or flattering’. However, the word is still often used in its original sense of ‘abundant’” https://www.lexico.com/definition/fulsome?locale=en

            

         • I think there might be a bit

           I think there might be a bit of ‘divided by a common language’ here. Looking at various different sources, it seems like in the US it has now transitioned to solely meaning ‘excessive’, while in the UK it’s used in both that sense and that of ‘complete’.

   • My issue with that though is
     My issue with that though is I doubt they,like 99.9% of motorists who stop/park in cycle lanes, remotely considered the cycle lane in what they were doing,its just abit of road.

     I had to have a rant at an Audi driver (shocked I was) yesterday who had deliberately driven into the cycle lane nearly up to the kerb in a queue of traffic to block it, waste of my time maybe, he looked about ready to explode in high blood pressure, clearly a driver who spends alot of their time in rage mode, and I dont care if that made public opinion of ‘us’ as some unhinged ranty cyclists complaining about a totally minor thing, I was making a point, stop deliberately blocking the cycle lanes.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Troon wrote:

     […] Societal life isn’t always ideal, it’s about reasonable compromise in exceptional cases like this […]. If we as a cycling community start demonising every little thing like this, it won’t help improve public opinion of “us”, and dilutes the voices highlighting real problems of casual parking of public cars.

     — Troon

     But is this an “exceptional case”? It is currently the default for the following to put stuff in the bike lane / on the pavement:

     • Road maintenace – any signage plus often general storage.
     • Utility companies since utilities are very commonly routed along the sides of the road under the footway / any cyle provision.
     • Tradesmen’s vehicles.

     In addition the following more “temporary” obstructions are there too:

     • Shops loading – normally regardless of signs (commercial necessity, don’tchaknow)
     • Taxis
     • Parcel and food delivery vehicles
     • People “justing” (thanks) eg. “I’m just popping in to the post office”.

     I agree that you’ve got to pick your battles. Cycling is – very marginally – on the radar now which is a development. Unfortunately not always for positive reasons. Provision other than for vehicles is currently both insufficient in quantity and substandard in quality. If you don’t at least point out the latter the authorities won’t ever know. But raise either too frequently and the reaction quickly becomes “entitled”, “unrealistic” or “you can’t be a special case – we’ve all got to share the space”. But “sharing” ends up being “mostly for motor vehicles” and everyone else share what’s left. Footways and cycle tracks are motor vehicle infrastructure – if the vehicles weren’t there they wouldn’t be needed!

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • it’s not exceptional in this

       it’s not exceptional in this spot sadly. There are vans parked there at least once a week – and that’s only when I’m passing which is max 2-3 times a week as I still mostly work from home!

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Sadly this is just the latest

     Sadly this is just the latest in a long line of vehicles parked in the same spot on Green Lanes, North London.  There are a grand total of two wands “protecting” the cycle lane. You can’t see the second of these because the truck is parked on it, and the first is well behind where I took the photo. I would say that most of the time, this isn’t a cycle lane at all.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • I think scaffolders and

     I think scaffolders and builders where they have to move a lot of heavy equipment should be allowed some latitude with blocking cycle lanes as they don’t particularly have a choice as to which location they pick and it’s often generally safer for them to be as close to the site as possible as otherwise they create a hazard with scaffolding poles, ladders etc. if they had to carry them any distance.

     What is far more annoying is general traffic just choosing to park on a cycle lane rather than walking a bit further.

     Log In or Register to post comments

2. Quote:

   Watch out for slippery cyclists this autumn

   My council / government keep sounding like a Network rail announcement – “the next footpath / crossing / cycle path has been cancelled due to the wrong kinds of cyclists on the road”.

   Log In or Register to post comments

3. A major Cyclocross sponsor

   A major Cyclocross sponsor that isn’t Belgian/Flandrien – about time too…..

   Log In or Register to post comments

4. There isn’t a lot to like

   There isn’t a lot to like about Team INEOS is there?

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Holty me lad, it appears you

     Holty me lad, it appears you didn’t read the ‘nothing to see here’ news article and just jumped at the chance to bash the only world tour team registered as British. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Greenwashing the reputation

       Greenwashing the reputation of an appalling company that is actively helping to destroy the climate…when the sponsorship started, I assumed the greenwash wouldn’t work, but I now see I was wrong.

       Log In or Register to post comments

5. Which is worse – slippery

   Which is worse – slippery cyclists, or ones in crocs?

   

   Log In or Register to post comments

6. Speaking as someone who has

   Speaking as someone who has been waiting months to find a Nitto rando rack to cable tie a Wald basket to, I think Beryl from Cheshire might be onto something. Off to the bathroom to see if I have any spare wickerware   

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. New video on the BBC showing

   New video on the BBC showing machete attacks on cyclists in lawless London: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-59000605.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Here’s a picture of a troll

     Here’s a picture of a troll on a fishing trip. Next!

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Not at all, if I’d wanted to
       Not at all, if I’d wanted to be inflammatory I’d have mentioned that cyclists can stay safe with plenty of security, provided they cycle round whichever park Mr Khan has decided to walk his dog in today.

       Or the fact that rather than tackle the issue, Sadiq’s pet project this week is to allocate £25,000 grants to “decolonise London road names”. That’ll teach the blighters!

       You get what you voted for, just try to keep them inside the A406 (or at least the M25), there’s a good chap.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Quite extraordinary that even

         Quite extraordinary that even after the tragic events of last week you’re still bitching about the fact that London’s mayor requires 24/7 security and sometimes, on police advice, has to go further afield to take exercise than he would like. You’re not being inflammatory so much as very stupid.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Nigel Garage wrote:

         Or the fact that rather than tackle the issue, Sadiq’s pet project this week is to allocate £25,000 grants to “decolonise London road names”. That’ll teach the blighters!

         — Nigel Garage

         You don’t think it’s possible that those are simply two completely separate issues and action on one does not signify lack of action on the other?

         No?

         Ok, let’s take your advice and only ever allow any level of government to work on one single issue at a time, only moving on to the next when it’s completely solved. That sounds like a very clever idea, I’m sure it’ll work wonderfully.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Wingguy wrote:

           Or the fact that rather than tackle the issue, Sadiq’s pet project this week is to allocate £25,000 grants to “decolonise London road names”. That’ll teach the blighters!

           — Wingguy

           You don’t think it’s possible that those are simply two completely separate issues and action on one does not signify lack of action on the other?

           No?

           Ok, let’s take your advice and only ever allow any level of government to work on one single issue at a time, only moving on to the next when it’s completely solved. That sounds like a very clever idea, I’m sure it’ll work wonderfully.— Nigel Garage

           I’m afraid when he dismisses stabbings and lawlessness as “the human cost of austerity” while simultaneously doling out cash to change the names of street signs, I can comment on the hypocrisy and lack of priorities.

           A month after the death of Dr Marta Krawiec at Holborn Gyratory, the man responsible for not upgrading the junction announced that London’s cycle lanes are “the envy of the world”, and that “I know Paris is jealous of our safe cycling“.

           Ask him about the spate of bike-jackings and no doubt it will either be “Tory cuts” or “part and parcel of living in a major city”. But if you want an EU-themed fireworks display, approval to fly a Trump Blimp, a blue plaque or street sign changing or a rainbow-coloured zebra crossing, then Khan is your man with a budget.

           “Stone cold loser”, as the greatest president in the history of the world once stated.

         • TfL, under Khan, gave Camden

           TfL, under Khan, gave Camden Council (who are responsible for the Holborn Gyratory, not TfL) £2.9M to improve the gyratory over two years ago. They have yet to do so, citing the pandemic. Earlier plans to improve the junction were spiked under Boris Johnson’s mayoralty, odd that you’re not blaming him for the four out of seven deaths that have occurred there since 2008 that happened under his tenure. Khan and TfL have done their duty, the blame for the lack of improvement lies squarely at the door of Camden Council.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           TfL, under Khan, gave Camden Council (who are responsible for the Holborn Gyratory, not TfL) £2.9M to improve the gyratory over two years ago. They have yet to do so, citing the pandemic. Earlier plans to improve the junction were spiked under Boris Johnson’s mayoralty, odd that you’re not blaming him for the four out of seven deaths that have occurred there since 2008 that happened under his tenure. Khan and TfL have done their duty, the blame for the lack of improvement lies squarely at the door of Camden Council.

           — Rendel Harris

           In 2018, after the earlier death of another cyclist, Caroline Pigeon MBE asked Mayor Khan specifically when Holborn gyratory would be made safe. He responded (empthasis mine):

           “We are working with Camden Council… Camden Council is working close with TfL on measure to reduce danger at key locations including Holborn. I understand the safety concerns extend to the whole operation of the gyrator and I have made it clear we see it as a key priority for TfL to work with Camden to improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists“.

           In 2021, after the death for Dr Marta Krawiec at the same junction which had seen no improvements made despite the above promise, Khan stated “unfortunately, due to the pandemic, the Liveable Neighbourhoods programme was paused in early 2020 when teams and funding were diverted to delivering temporary walking and cycling infrastructure… I am truly sorry for your loss”

           In September he stood on the shoulders of his predecessor and ignored these and other deaths by boasting that “Paris is jealous of our safe cycling”.

           Now I know that you simultaneously consider Khan to be an extremely powerful leader, yet apparently responsible for nothing, so I ask you: do you think that London’s cycle lanes are the envy of the world?

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

           I’m afraid when he dismisses stabbings and lawlessness as “the human cost of austerity” while simultaneously doling out cash to change the names of street signs, I can comment on the hypocrisy and lack of priorities.

           — Nigel Garage

           Im not sure what I was expecting but the ignorance is quite staggering. Since Khan is opposed to austerity, when he say something is the cost of it, that is the opposite of a dismissal. The majority of Met police funding comes from the government. When the Tory powers that be drastically cut funding, London council tax payers can’t make up that entire shortfall, despite the fact that Khan has significantly increased the funding that London itself supplies. How many policemen for how long does £25k pay for these days do you think? 

         • To be clear the £25k funding

           To be clear the £25k funding is per street and is part of a £1million “untold stories” campaign. That would pay for several more policemen, or alternatively a few more security guards in Khan’s dog walking cavalcade, take your pick.

         • Do you guarantee that none of

           Do you guarantee that none of the last three Tory governments have spent a million pounds on anything that wasn’t as important as violent crime?

           Maybe they weren’t spending it on anything that challenged the supremacy of White Britain, so you didn’t care.

         • £1M on an arts project, how

           £1M on an arts project, how dare he! Why, you could give eight fraudulent £125,000 grants to the woman with whom you’re having an affair for that money, or buy 1/53rd of a non-existent garden bridge!

         • That’s a very nice example of
           That’s a very nice example of whataboutery.

           Whenever a politician insinuates that an issue they have responsibility for is suffering poor results due to a lack of funds the first question we should ask is “What else are you spending money on?”

           In the case of Boris the garden bridge was a prime example of money being spent on something that most Londoners would not have prioritised.

           In the case of Khan does his spending align with the priorities of the average Londoner?

           Could the money spent on ‘art projects’ etc not have been spent on policing for example?

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Could the money spent on ‘art projects’ etc not have been spent on policing for example?

           — Rich_cb

           So do you believe that the GLA should ignore its arts remit? If not then what’s your problem, if you do believe that one of the world’s largest and most famous cities shouldn’t have an arts programme then that’s your problem. We could find all sorts of “unnecessary” things that could be cut to fund the police: sports programmes, parks and leisure facilities, libraries…would that be desirable?

           Central government has imposed £720M in cuts to the Met’s budget since 2010 and is demanding around £400M extra “savings” by 2024. That’s the problem with London’s policing, not a £1M arts project.

         • You seem to have avoided my
           You seem to have avoided my question Rendel.

           Does Khan’s spending align with the priorities of the average Londoner?

           My personal opinion is that politicians should spend money on necessities first (Health/Policing/Infrastructure etc) and only once all those are at a satisfactory level should peripheral needs be publicly funded.

           If Khan has the choice to either spend £1m on art or the police and he chooses to spend it on art then it seems a bit rich to complain about inadequate police funding.

         • So you genuinely believe that

           So you genuinely believe that we should have no publicly-funded arts or leisure until health, policing, housing etc provision is perfect? That sounds like a super world to live in.

         • Please answer the question
           Please answer the question Rendel.

           Does Khan’s spending align with the priorities of the average Londoner?

           We live in a democracy.

           If the average Londoner wishes to prioritise art above policing then they are perfectly entitled to vote accordingly.

           If their priorities align more closely with mine then we have to ask why Khan is not taking heed of this.

           As an aside I did not say ‘perfect’, I said satisfactory.
           Other than that you are correct.

         • You are questioning from an

           You are questioning from an entirely false premise that assumes that the budgets of large administrative organisations are dealt with on a top-down basis, moving from the highest priority to the lowest and not moving down the list until the higher area has been completely resolved. It doesn’t work like that, any regional or national government has a budget for policing, a budget for the arts, a budget for education, etc, in order to fulfil its remit to provide a multiplicity of services. You know this, of course, you’re not stupid, you’re just being silly – if not why aren’t you complaining about national government spending on the arts, leisure etc when clearly the police and health service need more funding?

           “The average Londoner” re-elected Khan with an overwhelming majority not six months ago, so I think we can assume that voters are satisfied with his management of our town, thanks.

         • You still haven’t answered
           You still haven’t answered the question Rendel.

           Does Khan’s spending align with the priorities of the average Londoner?

           You are correct in that we have separate budgets for arts, health etc.

           We do not have to have a budget for art though.

           Politicians could, if they chose to, remove all funding for peripheral concerns and divert it all to core areas such as health, policing etc.

           It is therefore a political decision to prioritise specific funding to art rather than policing.

           Khan could easily have chosen to divert money from the arts to policing, he has chosen not to.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           You still haven’t answered the question Rendel. Does Khan’s spending align with the priorities of the average Londoner?

           — Rich_cb

           The answer is (and like it or not this is the last response you’ll get as you just keep repeating the same thing over and over), as stated above, that as they voted him in by a landslide not six months ago, and part of his platform was to spend money on the arts, then yes, presumably they do. Good day to you.

         • If you actually answered the
           If you actually answered the question the first time I asked it I wouldn’t have had to repeat myself.

           If the average Londoner is happy to see larger cuts to the policing budget in order to protect arts funding then that’s their prerogative but it does mean they have to temper criticism of police cuts in the knowledge that they are at least partially complicit.

         • The question doesn’t make any

           The question doesn’t make any sense. There’s no such thing as ‘the average Londoner’. The remit of the Mayor is not to fulfil the priorities of some fictitious average constituent – it’s to balance the competing priorities of multiple constituencies, including giving due consideration to minority and niche interests. Arts funding may not be a key priority for many, but it is important to some, and therefore warrants some funding, albeit a minor part of the budget.

         • I’d disagree.
           I’d disagree, the concept of the average voter is well established and commonly used.

           The job of any politician is, essentially, to keep the electorate happy.

           If spending £1m on an arts project whilst cutting the policing budget does that then good luck to him.

         • You seem to be under the

           You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Khan is cutting the policing budget. This is not true.  The savage cuts to the Met’s budget have come from central Goverment, who are chiefly responsible for its funding. Khan has actually increased the part of the budget he is responsible for – and he’s paying a greater percentage of the policing budget than any previous London mayor.

           Despite being completely incorrect about where the cuts are coming from and yet again backing up someone who takes pride in knowing nothing about London apart from his dislike of the Pakistani Muslim mayor, there is a part of your logic that could be argued to be correct.  

           You could argue that you were right that the ‘average Londoner’ is not happy to see the policing budget cut, because the ‘average Londoner’ did not vote for the Tory government who are slashing the Met’s budget; and you could argue that the ‘average Londoner’ voted for a mayor who increased his share of the policing budget too.

           Far from being complicit in cuts and having to temper their criticism of them, they voted for the opposite. Following your logic, they have every right to be furious.

            

         • Could Khan increase the
           Could Khan increase the police budget further?

           If he can then he is, effectively, choosing to fund the arts instead of allocating more money to the police.

           That’s my point.

           He has made a choice.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           I’d disagree, the concept of the average voter is well established and commonly used.

           The job of any politician is, essentially, to keep the electorate happy.

           — Rich_cb

           Very commonly used (well, by successful politicians anyway). Target the median (or swing) voter.

           Hence the saying “Mondeo man”, and the way many public surveys take place in Reading, which is considered by marketing companies to be representative of pretty average urban centre.

         • I suppose it would depend if

           I suppose it would depend if the Police budget was cut to divert money for an art project though wouldn’t it?

         • No.
           No.

           The size of each budget is a political choice.

           By allocating money to art you are choosing not to allocate it elsewhere.

           You could choose to eliminate the art budget entirely in order to minimise the cuts to the policing budget.

           By not doing so you have essentially chosen to fund the arts with money saved from policing cuts.

         • So just or? One or the other.

           So just or? One or the other. Why only “Arts”? So funding safe infra for cycling is taking from Police? How about the Fire Service in London? Do you state to the Average Londoner you can either have more money to the fire service or to the Police. And by the way, that will take away from other services so whichever one you pick, public transport will be cut. After school activities will be closed, but don’t worry as this will be spent on the Police Budget which will be needed to combat the rise if crimes caused by bored teenagers. 

           I know you want to make a point, but there is no binary in budgets for services when there is more then two services needed for lots of society. 

         • I was using arts as an
           I was using arts as an example.

           The size of the police budget is within Khan’s control, by choosing to pass on the central government cuts he is effectively saying that everything else that he is continuing to fund is a greater priority than reducing the cuts to policing.

           That’s his prerogative, he is elected to make exactly those decisions.

           If you support more funding for the arts (for example) you have to do so in the knowledge that the money is being taken from somewhere else. Every £ for the arts is a £ less to spend on policing (for example).

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           The size of the police budget is within Khan’s control

           — Rich_cb

           No, it isn’t. 70% of the Metropolitan Police budget is set by central government. This is a fact, stop lying.

         • And Khan can top it up can he
           And Khan can top it up can he not?

           So if he chooses how much to top it up by then he controls the ultimate size of the budget…

         • And he did top it up as per

           And he did top it up as per Feb 2021. But of course only kept the rest of his budget for Arts and no other services. 

         • You seem to be deliberately
           You seem to be deliberately misconstruing what I’ve written.

           I couldn’t have made it clearer that I was using the arts as an example.

           I could have used any other area that Khan funds from his overall budget.

           The point would have been exactly the same.

           Everything discretionary that is funded is deemed a higher priority than further funding for policing.

         • No, I just see you

           No, I just see you specifically asking Rendal whether he wants Arts or Police. A binary choice and stating the Average Londoner would deem the Police more important then art. I don’t know why specifically you are having this discussion for but I suspect it has something to do with Boo’s argument that he is spending money elsewhere. Of course the people supporting Boo’s side put their point across with some more colourful language like the below from the RT’s take on it. 

           Some were more cynical, suggesting the mayor’s aim of telling the capital’s “fuller” story would be achieved by renaming Knightsbridge as Knifesbridge, and Elephant and Castle as Bomb and Bus. “Yea why not, Taliban road, jihad way, kaffir Avenue,” another jibed

           Still, if that is the side he wants to be on I suppose it tells more of him then me. 

         • So you didn’t see the fact
           So you didn’t see the fact that I explicitly stated that I was using the arts as an example and then repeated that phrase throughout my post?

           That was in a post replying to you?

           You didn’t happen to notice that?

           I even made it clear it was an example in my posts to Rendel.

           So, yes, you’re deliberately misconstruing.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           So you didn’t see the fact that I explicitly stated that I was using the arts as an example and then repeated that phrase throughout my post?

           — Rich_cb

           My issue with your posts is your choice of the arts funding, which I suspect was deliberate and inflammatory. You could have chosen from a huge range of other things – refuse collection, street lighting, congestion charge, bus fares to make the point.

         • The discussion had already
           The discussion had already covered arts funding so I used it as my example while being explicitly clear it was just an example.

           Why don’t you address the actual points made rather than try to distract with inconsequential details?

         • But as with vile like the DM

           But as with vile like the DM that is how they lead it with, have the Police or some artsy-fartsy project. You can claim it as whataboutism but the same questions could have been asked with have several water cannons we can’t use or have an extra 3 long ladder fire engines to fight high rise fires. 

           Tell you what, (for example) put the question out there to fund a rape crisis centre or fund a potential rapist parading as a Policeman.(for example).

            

         • Interesting.  So it follows

           Interesting.  So it follows that the Tory cuts to the Met straight after terror attacks, while we have an increased alert status, was a spending choice in favour of terrorism. A £ taken away from those protecting us from terrorism is a £ in support of terrorism.  

         • If you follow that logic then
           If you follow that logic then Khan, who has essentially made the exact same choice, is doing the same.

           Personally I think that’s hyperbolic nonsense but each to their own.

         • It’s the exact argument you

           It’s the exact argument you are using on this thread.  

         • No it isn’t.
           No it isn’t.

           Unless you’re arguing that Khan/Central Government has diverted money from funding policing to directly funding terrorism?

           Which would be an interesting development.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           I’d disagree, the concept of the average voter is well established and commonly used.

           — Rich_cb

           Many concepts, particularly ones based around ‘the average x’, are well-established and commonly used, while being entirely misleading and often harmful in use.

         • https://en.m.wikipedia.org
           https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem

           I think it makes a lot of sense.

         • It may make sense, but it’s

           It may make sense, but it’s not really relevant. It deals with electoral dynamics and strategy – not with good governance.

         • If you’re the incumbent then
           If you’re the incumbent then your electoral strategy is largely based on your track record.

           If your track record does not appeal to the average voter then you’re going to struggle.

         • But the ‘average voter’ is

           But the ‘average voter’ is not referring to an actual person you can identify – it’s essentially a cipher for ‘the widest possible coalition’. You try to put together a platform and/or a record of governance that appeals enough to the largest possible spread of voters (and alienates the fewest possible). That doesn’t mean that anyone who votes for you agrees with everything you do (or say you will do). It doesn’t even necessarily mean that the majority of them agrees with any individual policy. It just means that they all agree with enough of it to prefer your platform on balance.

           And in any case, once you’ve got elected, good governance requires you not just to keep those who voted for you happy, but to try to keep all of those to whom you’re responsible as happy as possible, whether they voted for you or not.

         • Which is why policies that
           Which is why policies that appeal to the average voter are a good idea.

         • You don’t appear to be keen
           You don’t appear to be keen to answer my question, so I’ll ask it again.

           Do you agree with Sadiq Khan that London’s cycling lanes are the “envy of the world”, and that London has “safe cycling” everyone else is jealous of?

         • Khan didn’t state that the

           Khan didn’t state that the cycle lanes were the envy of the world, he was talking about the whole package of green measures introduced by the GLA including tree planting, ULEZ etc. Whether they are the envy of the world is a matter of opinion, and I couldn’t really care less one way or the other. What I do know, as someone covering 50km-odd in London most days, is that cycling provision is hugely improved and continuing to get better and better – usually as a result of schemes that you, as a worshipper of the motor car as “humanity’s greatest achievement”, would wish to destroy.

           Still waiting for you to acknowledge the matter of fact, not opinion, that four people died at Holborn gyratory under Johnson’s mayoralty and that his administration quashed plans to improve it and that Khan’s administration paid Camden Council £2.9M for improvements over two years ago, so your assertion that Khan is responsible for the lack of improvement to the junction is a flat out lie.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           Whether they are the envy of the world is a matter of opinion, and I couldn’t really care less one way or the other.

           — Rendel Harris

           Really, you don’t care if it’s safe to cycle in London? A rare tacit admission of Khan’s disastrous tenure by Rendel.

     • Rendel Harris wrote:

       Here’s a picture of a troll on a fishing trip. Next!

       — Rendel Harris

       To be fair, his fishing trip has caught a few.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Exactly. Ignore it

         Exactly. Ignore it

         Log In or Register to post comments