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

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 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 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. 

Quote:

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 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?

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 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 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).

Rich_cb wrote:

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

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/wiki/Median_voter_theorem

I think it makes a lot of sense.

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 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 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 appeal to the average voter are a good idea.

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:

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

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

Exactly. Ignore it

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

Greenwashing the reputation 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.

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.

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

Steve K wrote:

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

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

I guess I'm just not as well equipped as you in the optimism department...

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

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

sapperadam wrote:

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.

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

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

there is no change in level - 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.