Cyclists "drive motorists somewhat insane", claims councillor; LTNs 'need time to settle'; Tokyo broken bar probe begins; Kangaroo rescued by cyclists caught attacking cyclist; Brighton bike lane debate; Gravel champs reaction + more on the live blog

Awavey wrote:

Presumably the Mayor of London, might like to have a word, on his doorstep so to speak,with Ealing borough council then, voted to remove 7 LTNs theyd installed at last nights council meeting.

Does teh mayor have any direct authority over the councils? 

Werent the LTNs funded by TfL via the mayors bold London street space plans...

Also would it not be paradoxical (others may use different words) to claim in one breath climate change is on our doorstep, its OUR problem too, but to then use the get out that you dont have any direct authority on this part,literally on your doorstep, to do anything about it, so just ignore it, quick do a Boris & muppets meme to distract people.

Awavey wrote:

Werent the LTNs funded by TfL via the mayors bold London street space plans... Also would it not be paradoxical (others may use different words) to claim in one breath climate change is on our doorstep, its OUR problem too, but to then use the get out that you dont have any direct authority on this part,literally on your doorstep, to do anything about it, so just ignore it, quick do a Boris & muppets meme to distract people.

I thought (not arguing with you per see you may be correct) that the mayor has control over TfL controlled highways. The money for the council controlled ones came from their own budgets or gov.

The council cannot impose or block schemes on TFL roads and vice versa

As for councils being paradoxical, well.....

Awavey wrote:

Werent the LTNs funded by TfL via the mayors bold London street space plans

No, the Mayor only has control over TfL roads (principally main A road arteries). LTNs were funded and encouraged by central government. Try persuading a cabby of this though...

When asked a question in the London Assembly on this subject, the mayor said LTNs are delivered by London Boroughs,but funded through TfL or the DfT, as part of MY (the mayors) London streetspace programme.

I'm not saying the mayor can overrule a boroughs decision here in some kind of turf war over who controls which roads, as no he doesnt directly control what happens on those borough roads or stop those LTNs being ripped out, but it was his streetspace scheme that TfL, who he is chair of the board for, followed in awarding the money to the borough to specifically put some of the LTNs in,which they have now voted to take out.

Surely he can pick up a phone,better still pop round in person,maybe best walk or cycle, to ask Ealing what the hell they are actually doing and why are they wrecking his streetspace scheme for Londoners, when he is so passionately demanding everyone including individuals, businesses and government do everything they possibly can to prevent climate change.

Abdicating responsibility by suggesting it's not in his direct control, is the path of inaction, that he also tweeted about today, that we should not choose to follow.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

 Didn't he just drive a 13mpg cavalcade of limousines to take his dog for a walk?

Sadiq Khan is one of the highest profile political figures in the country and one of the, if not the, highest-profile Muslim leaders in any non-Muslim country anywhere in the world. He is a target for both right-wing racist extremists and Islamic terror groups. Sometimes the Metropolitan police detail assigned to his security will decide (and it's entirely their decision) that certain areas are too dangerous for him to walk in with his family and will say he has to go elsewhere. On such occasions, they will travel with him in their operational vehicles. Hope that clears that up for you.

Prepared to bet you don't complain about the Prime Minister, or the Queen, or (heaven forfend) your pinup boy Trump travelling with heavy security and several vehicles, now what could there possibly be about the Mayor of London that provokes your particular ire and scrutiny? Oooh, that's a tricky one...

You appear to have missed the bit about there are times that the Mayor is advised by the police to avoid certain areas. It's lovely to see all your little sums, gold star, but he doesn't do that every day, most of the time he walks his dog in Tooting, I've seen him.

As you're so keen on adding up, go and figure out the carbon and financial costs of Johnson and Carrie going on their holidays, or your hero Trump flying to one of his own resorts in AF1 virtually every weekend of his presidency for a round of golf. 

I am a hardworking London taxpayer, which you're not, and I'm happy for the Met to spend what they deem necessary to provide security for our Mayor. I don't suppose in the whole year it costs a fraction of what it's cost to fly the PM and his entourage to New York for a couple of days to talk shite about Kermit the frog to the UN.

Rendel Harris wrote:

You appear to have missed the bit about there are times that the Mayor is advised by the police to avoid certain areas.

He's also missed the point that actually he cherry-picked the incident in question, using the Daily Mail as his source of flem.

The costs, if they are realistic (let's take them at face value), are the costs of ensuring an individual can exercise the role of Mayor without curtailing their own personal life in doing so.  Just as the costs of protecting any individual might range from incidental to full-on, whole-family CPTs and relocation, the costs of ensuring that a person can fulfil the role of Mayor extend to them being able to do normal things, protected fromthe risks that the role specifically brings.

It's not security to walk a dog; it's security to be Mayor.

My office is just out of shot to the left in the picture of Towerr Bridge.  Pre-pandemic, I was a daily cycle commuter into London.  However, on the last occasion that I rode into London I got demolished by a right hook, spent 9 hours in A&E and was told on discharge that I had had a miraculous escape. Unfortunately, my wife had a call from a PCSO who wasn't too sharp and left more questions unanswered than not.  My wife then spent a very unpleasant 6 hours unable to establish how badly injured I was (given that the initial list was life-threatening).

As a consequence, I am now banned from riding into London.  I tried it once and then I found out how serious the ban was.  The point is, I have been knocked off my bike by a car twice in London - both times on the magic blue paint of CS7, and those stupid wands achieve next to nothing in most places.  Both times, it really hurt.  

London really needs proper, pedal powered infrastructure and fewer cars and vans.  Seemingly, the latest thing is to accuse protesters blocking M25 junctions of putting people's lives at risk by delaying ambulances (cp LTNs and cycle lanes).  If it is a legitimate argument that traffic jams cause deaths by delaying emergency vehicles, then logically one should ban on-street parking, which would both clear the streets and reduce the number of vehicles.  It would also drive the AA, RAC et al mad with fury

brooksby wrote:

(I'm losing track a bit now, by the way: are we referring to this as "climate emergency", "climate change", "climate collapse", or "OMG this could be the end of civilisation"?)

All the above are effectively equivalent & interchangeable. Except, of course, the last one. It's a bit hard to see how "civilisation" could end when it hasn't even started yet.

Awavey wrote:

Wouldnt you have expected removing the cycle lane to make congestion worse, what with all the cyclists back using their cars to travel that section 😉 Plus if you saw the governments stats about travel during Covid, all motor vehicle use is regularly breaking 100% at the moment, ie theres far more traffic on the roads currently than there should be still probably because bus & train usage hasn't recovered yet.

Don't be silly. Everyone knows that people on bikes don't need o travel anywhere. It's about time that road planners considered hard pressed hard working hard driving hard drinking hard bargaining hard standing hard shouldering hard knocking hard deadlining hard limiting hard ..... (did I say pressed yet?) motorists.

I suspect that there's something akin to confirmation bias going on - the drivers driving along there now don't feel hemmed in by the cycle lane or something, so they think that everything is much improved even if it objectively isn't...

brooksby wrote:

I suspect that there's something akin to confirmation bias going on - the drivers driving along there now don't feel hemmed in by the cycle lane or something, so they think that everything is much improved even if it objectively isn't...

Are you honestly suggesting that irate motorists aren't making objective observations? BollOX!!!! Why do they beep their horns then eh??? answer me that????

Communist.

Busses aren't stopping at bus stops because they are "full" to new capacity, so if people have to get from a to b they do it other than on a bus because you can't be late for work/school/etc some choose to cycle most choose to drive. 

For all the lovely speeches Boris the Liar makes about sorting climate change he is not directly addressing the issues with either his own party councillors or the electorate. In order to "encourage" people out of their cars we need to make the options more attractive, that obviously means good public transport and active travel infra but it also means making the use of cars less attractive. ie long journey times, high running costs etc...

All of this is clear from the Gear Change policy document. The trouble is that for many this sounds like levelling down not levelling up. 

Oh, come on! The Gear Change policy was last year, you should have forgotten about it by now.  I'm sure Johnson has.

It would be good to hear a speech from a senior minister direct to the nation, explaining that global heating is real, and setting out in broad terms the steps required to tackle it.

There would be no first class air travel, free food, or photo opportunities at the top of the Empire State Building associated with that.

Awavey wrote:

Wouldnt you have expected removing the cycle lane to make congestion worse, what with all the cyclists back using their cars to travel that section 😉 Plus if you saw the governments stats about travel during Covid, all motor vehicle use is regularly breaking 100% at the moment, ie theres far more traffic on the roads currently than there should be still probably because bus & train usage hasn't recovered yet.

Anyone got numbers on the relative contributions of extra delivery vans (more online shopping), said increased use of cars and taxis over public transport and less car sharing? How does that weight up against less commuting and maybe still a general reduction in travel? I'd love to see a graph...

Well the goverment stats about travel during Covid I refer to might be a good place to start