Public enquiry could see popular London cycle route scrapped

themamil wrote:

I agree with the comment about labelling. You shouldn't label all cyclists as idiots because a few are, in the same way we don't do it with car drivers, pedestrians etc.

The issue is that as a group, cyclists are currently being the most vocal about seeking change to vehicle infrastructure, and because of that people against the idea immediately label and latch on to reasons as to why they sholdn't be granted the cheanges they seek.

It's human nature. I read about Taxi's challenging changes to the roads system and I immediately think of all the times I have been "wronged" by a Taxi when I've been cycling around town. Again it's a tiny minority of Taxi drivers, but immediately in my mind I am lumping them all together and justifying to myself why their views are nothign but the rant of a selfish and irresponsible road user.

Regardless of whether these cyclists running lights and weaving through pedestirans at red lights are posing any grave danger to the public, the point is they provide the ammunition with which opponents can use to fight progress.

As a group, us cyclists should collectively remind the minority of the hate (an it is in many cases hate) that they are stirring up through their actions and the damage it does for our cause to seek a sustainable, working and safe infrastructure for all road users.

If we don't give opponents this kind of ammunition then we give them very little with which to oppose, and a much better opportunity for progress and change to be deabted on the core of the issue and not the fringe behaviour that simply de-focus the debate.

I think you've conflated two separate issues here;

there's the interests of cycling in general - promoting cycling as the safer, cleaner, healthier, and economically sustainable, option

then there are the interests of cyclists in particular - where you can ride all week in London and have your safety put in danger by people walking and driving in front of you without looking, and if you say anything to them it most likely results in verbal abuse, occasionally in silence, and very very rarely in an apology for forcing you to break or swerve - then you roll slowly through a red light, endangering no one, and some bright spark, the first person to apparently notice you in 60 hours of riding, starts wagging their finger and lecturing you about the rules - possibly so that some daily mail reading cabbie might have less ammunition...

themamil wrote:

As a group, us cyclists should collectively remind the minority of the hate (an it is in many cases hate) that they are stirring up through their actions and the damage it does for our cause to seek a sustainable, working and safe infrastructure for all road users.

If we don't give opponents this kind of ammunition then we give them very little with which to oppose, and a much better opportunity for progress and change to be deabted on the core of the issue and not the fringe behaviour that simply de-focus the debate.

Have you any idea how futile and misplaced that is? 1. you're appealing to 'cyclists' (anyone riding a bike) to behave themselves so that 2. prejudices dissipate.

You can not have that sort of control over other people's behaviour. Also, the people who are likely to hear preaching like that will be those already tuned into the message - the sort not to ride through a red light flicking the Vs anyway. Plus the number of city cyclist KSIs caused by left-hooking trucks suggests that there are valid reasons for flaunting the rules sometimes - in those situations, cyclists would rather be safe than polite.

Next time a bloke on a bike is filmed clattering a little old lady on the pavement, or giving a pedestrian unjustified abuse, or mugging someone, there is literally nothing you can do (unless you are there or know the offender). Similarly, you cannot stop the Wail turning it into a story about cyclists.

People do bad or daft (or both) stuff. Some stuff is open to interpretation and being made into a sensationalist headline by the likes of the Mail. Some people ride bikes.

There is no 'us', like I don't belong to a group that occasionally takes the train, or drives, or walks, or runs, or flies. The main reason, for me, that it feels like there is an 'us' is because 'we' are squashed too frequently and blamed for it.

themamil wrote:

As a group, us cyclists should collectively remind the minority of the hate (an it is in many cases hate) that they are stirring up through their actions and the damage it does for our cause to seek a sustainable, working and safe infrastructure for all road users.

If we don't give opponents this kind of ammunition then we give them very little with which to oppose, and a much better opportunity for progress and change to be deabted on the core of the issue and not the fringe behaviour that simply de-focus the debate.

The slight problem with your comment is that is that 'we', in the sense of any random person who gets on a bike, are not a group. And hence 'we' don't have a cause.

You also seem wildly optimistic about the alleged effect of miraculously getting every person on a bike to behave themselves, even if it were at all possible.

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

One of the cyclists spat at me (she missed), and the other three laughed at me and told me to fuck off.

I've shouted similar at other cyclists fuckwits and been given grief, even when I've been on a bike too. 

The thing is, there may be ten times more cyclists waiting patiently for the lights to change, but people are more likely to remember those acting like cu selfish twats.

The road conditions don't help - if you have to ride aggressively, it does affect you mentally. However, that their default response on being upbraided is to act aggressively, either verbally or physically, says rather a lot about the type of person they are. 

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

 cyclists are as hated as vegans and ISIS right now.  What is right and wrong in the public perception of the 'lycra lout' doesn't come into it.

 

If the hate is as ingrained as against "vegans and ISIS" , the damage has been done, no? You might conceivably change a few riders' behviour, but I doubt if your public's opinion is going to change at the same rate, and there's always going to be instances to reinforce the bigotry. What's it like in Worcester?

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

One of the cyclists spat at me (she missed)

You should have rammed something through her spokes, dirty bitch...

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

I got the train into London this morning, as for the past two weeks since my ingrown toenail went infected.  I stood patiently outside Charing Cross station until the green man appeared and then started to cross.  As I did so, four cyclists came through the red light, heading towards Trafalgar Square, weaving through pedestrians.  I stopped in the road and said, 'Red light?  Hello?  You're going throuugh a red light!'

One of the cyclists spat at me (she missed), and the other three laughed at me and told me to fuck off.

And there it is: the elephant in the room.   People hate us, and if they hate us, it's due in no small part to the actions of prats like those four.  And no matter how often we chant the idiotic mantra that we shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush because of the actions of a few, the fact remains that it's human nature.  If pedestrians see cyclists swanning through lights, cycling on the pavement and generally not giving a toss about the law, that's bad enough.  If, when those cyclists are challenged by Joe Public, they become aggressive or just laugh arrogantly, secure in their impunity from sanction, that's even worse.  

You have a point, but it's barking up the wrong tree.

Tarring cyclists with the same brush as those 4 is as illogical as deciding all drivers are bellends because one cut you up on this morning's commute, or that pedestrians are oiks because one dropped litter at lunch, or that tubeists are pissheads because you saw a drunk wet himself on the Northern line.

The issue isn't other cyclists' behaviour. The issue is 1. that people on bikes have become an outgroup, and 2. it is fashionable and acceptable to attack that outgroup in the usual rags and rantstations.

If you want this to go away, it is this issue that needs to be addressed, not the attitude of people you have absolutely no affiliation to other than that they occasionally use the same mode of transport that you do.

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

I got the train into London this morning, as for the past two weeks since my ingrown toenail went infected.  I stood patiently outside Charing Cross station until the green man appeared and then started to cross.  As I did so, four cyclists came through the red light, heading towards Trafalgar Square, weaving through pedestrians.  I stopped in the road and said, 'Red light?  Hello?  You're going throuugh a red light!'

One of the cyclists spat at me (she missed), and the other three laughed at me and told me to fuck off.

And there it is: the elephant in the room.   People hate us, and if they hate us, it's due in no small part to the actions of prats like those four.  And no matter how often we chant the idiotic mantra that we shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush because of the actions of a few, the fact remains that it's human nature.  If pedestrians see cyclists swanning through lights, cycling on the pavement and generally not giving a toss about the law, that's bad enough.  If, when those cyclists are challenged by Joe Public, they become aggressive or just laugh arrogantly, secure in their impunity from sanction, that's even worse.  

And where do we think that this is going to lead?  It's going to lead to bicycle registration, compulsory helmet use, and compulsory third party insurance.  And then when that happens, we can all whine and call ourselves the victim because cycling numbers are down.  

And I will be there to remind cyclists: we.  Were.  Fucking.  Warned.  

And yes, I know that car drivers break the law more often than do cyclists.  I also know that physics dictates that when they do, their potential for harm is greater.  But cyclists are as hated as vegans and ISIS right now.  What is right and wrong in the public perception of the 'lycra lout' doesn't come into it.

PS Try to avoid calling me a 'troll', just because you don't like what I'm writing.

Nah. You aren't a troll, but you are just uncritically accepting the same irrational manner of thinking you say 'others' do. That it's 'human nature' to be a bit hard-of-thinking doesn't mean you have to choose to be so yourself- it means you need to object to such lack of thought where you encounter it. Not adopt it as your own and pander to it.

Secondly what on earth is 'where do _we_ think this is going to lead...' supposed to mean? Who are 'we' in that sentence? Do I have some sort of policing power over everyone who ever gets on a bike? What the heck are you talking about in that paragraph? I am genuinely baffled how you think that paragraph makes any sense..

I'm not part of your 'we'. I'm just someone who has never liked the increasing growth in car-use in this country. The effects of which are getting worse all the time. Bikes are just a means to an end, really. Faster than walking and way more reliable than public transport. (and good for health, as a bonus).

Quite how not liking the domination of my city by cars somehow means I'm responsible for every rude person who has a bike is a bit beyond me. Am I also responsible for all the rude pedestrians (and there are a _lot_ of them in London - one mugged me once, was that my fault as well?).

Fact is, this city is full of rude and sometimes slightly deranged people, changing that is way beyond my abilities, I just want a more rational approach to transport policy.

I think what you are doing is the same thing people (especially newspaper columnists, incidentally) do all the time - reacting to an encounter with some obnoxious individuals by trying to turn it into a general 'state of the nation' rant and find a larger group you can get angry at instead. Because getting annoyed at unknown individuals just isn't psychologically very satisfying as a response to a bad encounter. Everyone does it, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense, really.

That in this case it's a group you regard yourself as being a member of doesn't make it any less irrational.

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

I got the train into London this morning, as for the past two weeks since my ingrown toenail went infected.  I stood patiently outside Charing Cross station until the green man appeared and then started to cross.  As I did so, four cyclists came through the red light, heading towards Trafalgar Square, weaving through pedestrians.  I stopped in the road and said, 'Red light?  Hello?  You're going throuugh a red light!'

One of the cyclists spat at me (she missed), and the other three laughed at me and told me to fuck off.

And there it is: the elephant in the room.   People hate us, and if they hate us, it's due in no small part to the actions of prats like those four.  And no matter how often we chant the idiotic mantra that we shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush because of the actions of a few, the fact remains that it's human nature.  If pedestrians see cyclists swanning through lights, cycling on the pavement and generally not giving a toss about the law, that's bad enough.  If, when those cyclists are challenged by Joe Public, they become aggressive or just laugh arrogantly, secure in their impunity from sanction, that's even worse.  

And where do we think that this is going to lead?  It's going to lead to bicycle registration, compulsory helmet use, and compulsory third party insurance.  And then when that happens, we can all whine and call ourselves the victim because cycling numbers are down.  

And I will be there to remind cyclists: we.  Were.  Fucking.  Warned.  

And yes, I know that car drivers break the law more often than do cyclists.  I also know that physics dictates that when they do, their potential for harm is greater.  But cyclists are as hated as vegans and ISIS right now.  What is right and wrong in the public perception of the 'lycra lout' doesn't come into it.

PS Try to avoid calling me a 'troll', just because you don't like what I'm writing.

so you weren't challenging them on the basis that they were riding dangerously or inconsiderately barging their way through, simply because they weren't following the rules?

it sounds like the moral of the story is that people dislike sticklers

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

I got the train into London this morning, as for the past two weeks since my ingrown toenail went infected.  I stood patiently outside Charing Cross station until the green man appeared and then started to cross.  As I did so, four cyclists came through the red light, heading towards Trafalgar Square, weaving through pedestrians.  I stopped in the road and said, 'Red light?  Hello?  You're going throuugh a red light!'

One of the cyclists spat at me (she missed), and the other three laughed at me and told me to fuck off.

And there it is: the elephant in the room.   People hate us, and if they hate us, it's due in no small part to the actions of prats like those four.  And no matter how often we chant the idiotic mantra that we shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush because of the actions of a few, the fact remains that it's human nature.  If pedestrians see cyclists swanning through lights, cycling on the pavement and generally not giving a toss about the law, that's bad enough.  If, when those cyclists are challenged by Joe Public, they become aggressive or just laugh arrogantly, secure in their impunity from sanction, that's even worse.  

And where do we think that this is going to lead?  It's going to lead to bicycle registration, compulsory helmet use, and compulsory third party insurance.  And then when that happens, we can all whine and call ourselves the victim because cycling numbers are down.  

And I will be there to remind cyclists: we.  Were.  Fucking.  Warned.  

And yes, I know that car drivers break the law more often than do cyclists.  I also know that physics dictates that when they do, their potential for harm is greater.  But cyclists are as hated as vegans and ISIS right now.  What is right and wrong in the public perception of the 'lycra lout' doesn't come into it.

PS Try to avoid calling me a 'troll', just because you don't like what I'm writing.

Some cyclists behave like arseholes it's true. And it's also true their behaviour makes it harder for us all. A short pedestrian tunnel under a rail line I use on my commute has no cycling signs posted at either end. Considering it's narrow and busy and not at all suited to cycling, I always push my bike through. I spotted a roadie riding towards me last week as I was entering the tunnel and told him he was getting us all a bad rep and he just sneered. I can't abide that attitude. If I see him doing this again I'll block his path with my MTB and repeat what I said, without swearing. I'm curious how he'll respond.

Yes, most RTCs invovling a bicycle and a motor vehicle are not the fault of the cyclist. I nearly was taken out by a roadie the other week who did a close pass and then cut into my path before he'd even overtaken, forcing me to brake. Some cyclists behave like utter morons and they frustrate me just as much as the idiots in their BMWs.

OldRidgeback wrote:

idiots in their BMWs.

I don't know I saw a bloke in an X5 using his car to bloke two lanes to let some people cross the road he probably had working indicators too.

Running this week I have nearly been taken out by thre people, all commuters, all wearing Hi Viz vests and lit up like the starship enterprise riding like tw'ts one on a pavement two on SUP's.

The one that really pissed me off was the woman ringing her bell repeatedly for me to move off the path...when I suggested this was tantamount to car blaring it's horn behind her on the road the retort was 'piss off I don't ride on the road'

dickheads will be dickheads... I just wish the media would report them as 'people on bikes' rather than Cyclists.

SingleSpeed wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

idiots in their BMWs.

I don't know I saw a bloke in an X5 using his car to bloke two lanes to let some people cross the road he probably had working indicators too.

Running this week I have nearly been taken out by thre people, all commuters, all wearing Hi Viz vests and lit up like the starship enterprise riding like tw'ts one on a pavement two on SUP's.

The one that really pissed me off was the woman ringing her bell repeatedly for me to move off the path...when I suggested this was tantamount to car blaring it's horn behind her on the road the retort was 'piss off I don't ride on the road'

dickheads will be dickheads... I just wish the media would report them as 'people on bikes' rather than Cyclists.

Yep it's true, dickheads are dickheads whether they're walking, running, cycling or driving. And not all BMW drivers are arseholes too (though there are a higher percentage of them than other most vehicle drivers IMHO).

John Chamberlain wrote:

should read "Taxi drivers and a minority of local residents..."

Exactly! Camden councils own figures state that around 66% of borough residents do not have access to private vehicles yet have to endure the pollution caused by them.

Whats funny is on the Evening Standards article about it, a lot of commentors who are anti think that the public inquiry is going to be the final nail in the coffin of the scheme, without a clue that its actually the last stage to make it permanent!

Awavey wrote:

so they held a consultion with 79% responding in favour... so 4/5ths in majority, and yet that means it has to go a public enquiry  because 1/5th werent in favour...how does that make any sense

The article is a bit misleading.

The public enquiry is happening because of a minor administrive error by Camden; they forgot to lodge a copy of the Experimental Traffic Order (which enabled the trial) at 5 St Pancras Square. If this oversight was later challenged by anyone (maybe from the LTDA, for example) it would mean the whole scheme would be in question.

If you read the Planning Officers' report it is very encouraging. They acknowledge all the benefits, acknowledge the huge response in favour and politely, but unflinchingly, destroy the LTDA's submission.

As Mr Monk says, it would be flabbergasting if the enquiry did not reach the same conclusions.

But given what we have endured in 2016, I for one am fearful of having my flabber well and truly gasted.

SaveSave