Councillor campaigning against CS9 schooled on cycling by police

cycle.london wrote:

So the good councillor was gracious enough to respond..

Many thanks for the offer.  There have been plenty of explanations.

You might like to read the blog I wrote after taking up a challenge, made by a Chiswick resident, to experience cycling infrastructure in Chiswick.  I hope reading about my views might be as as eye-opening for you as the ride was for me.  I also hope you'll agree that it isn't "the usual Tory gobsh*t.  (Apologies for the asterisk which is not added for prudishness but because I suspect the word without it will prevent the email from being sent through the council system and I don't want to deny you the chance of posting an update on the road.cc site.)

Here's the link to my blog: http://turnhamgreen.yourcllr.com/2017/10/02/cycling-through-chiswick-pro...

That site is broken - turnhamgreen.yourcllr.com seems to redirect to multipipe.co.uk unless I'm doing something dumb.

HawkinsPeter wrote:

cycle.london wrote:

So the good councillor was gracious enough to respond..

Many thanks for the offer.  There have been plenty of explanations.

You might like to read the blog I wrote after taking up a challenge, made by a Chiswick resident, to experience cycling infrastructure in Chiswick.  I hope reading about my views might be as as eye-opening for you as the ride was for me.  I also hope you'll agree that it isn't "the usual Tory gobsh*t.  (Apologies for the asterisk which is not added for prudishness but because I suspect the word without it will prevent the email from being sent through the council system and I don't want to deny you the chance of posting an update on the road.cc site.)

Here's the link to my blog: http://turnhamgreen.yourcllr.com/2017/10/02/cycling-through-chiswick-pro...

That site is broken - turnhamgreen.yourcllr.com seems to redirect to multipipe.co.uk unless I'm doing something dumb.

Works for me.
Browser hijacker by squirrel for you.

hirsute wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

cycle.london wrote:

So the good councillor was gracious enough to respond..

Many thanks for the offer.  There have been plenty of explanations.

You might like to read the blog I wrote after taking up a challenge, made by a Chiswick resident, to experience cycling infrastructure in Chiswick.  I hope reading about my views might be as as eye-opening for you as the ride was for me.  I also hope you'll agree that it isn't "the usual Tory gobsh*t.  (Apologies for the asterisk which is not added for prudishness but because I suspect the word without it will prevent the email from being sent through the council system and I don't want to deny you the chance of posting an update on the road.cc site.)

Here's the link to my blog: http://turnhamgreen.yourcllr.com/2017/10/02/cycling-through-chiswick-pro...

That site is broken - turnhamgreen.yourcllr.com seems to redirect to multipipe.co.uk unless I'm doing something dumb.

Works for me. Browser hijacker by squirrel for you.

Okay - that's odd.

Looks like they've got a mis-configured website as if you visit the HTTPS version, you get a mismatched certificate for multipipe.co.uk and the HTTPS site displays multipipe's website (but with the TurnhamGreen URL). Visiting the plain HTTP site works but is subject to MITM attacks etc.

TLDR; the HTTPS Everywhere extension pointed out that the Tories don't know what they're doing.

mattsccm wrote:

"homophobic shits"

Obviously as nasty as you then. How come you have a right to be foul yet others haven't? If they have no right to an opinion neither do you. Or should it be that both parties have that right?

Unlike your sexuality, your homophobia is a choice. You homophobic shit.

userfriendly wrote:

mattsccm wrote:

"homophobic shits"

Obviously as nasty as you then. How come you have a right to be foul yet others haven't? If they have no right to an opinion neither do you. Or should it be that both parties have that right?

Unlike your sexuality, your homophobia is a choice. You homophobic shit.

Wot 'e said.  

mattsccm wrote:

"homophobic shits"

Obviously as nasty as you then. How come you have a right to be foul yet others haven't? If they have no right to an opinion neither do you. Or should it be that both parties have that right?

You can be as 'foul' as you want, matey.

If you shout homophobic abuse at someone within earshot of me, I'm not only going to film them kicking the fucking living daylights out of you, I might lend them a hand.  

cycle.london wrote:

I have this evening sent a VERY polite e-mail to Councillor Biddolph, asking if she would like me to explain the physics of it to her. 

I hope you're a constituent, otherwise it's unlikely you'll get an answer.  Even if you are, and you do, don't expect it to make sense; she's both a tory and a driver, and not a cyclist, ergo, completely unqualified to say anything on the subject at all, but we already knew that.

burtthebike wrote:

cycle.london wrote:

I have this evening sent a VERY polite e-mail to Councillor Biddolph, asking if she would like me to explain the physics of it to her. 

I hope you're a constituent, otherwise it's unlikely you'll get an answer.  Even if you are, and you do, don't expect it to make sense; she's both a tory and a driver, and not a cyclist, ergo, completely unqualified to say anything on the subject at all, but we already knew that.

Oh, I know that there is unlikely to be a response, and that if there is one, it will be the usual Tory gobshit. 

I shall report here, of course. 

cycle.london wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

cycle.london wrote:

I have this evening sent a VERY polite e-mail to Councillor Biddolph, asking if she would like me to explain the physics of it to her. 

I hope you're a constituent, otherwise it's unlikely you'll get an answer.  Even if you are, and you do, don't expect it to make sense; she's both a tory and a driver, and not a cyclist, ergo, completely unqualified to say anything on the subject at all, but we already knew that.

Oh, I know that there is unlikely to be a response, and that if there is one, it will be the usual Tory gobshit. 

I shall report here, of course. 

But you must admit that what you're campaigning for isn't working right? We are not going to get Dutch type infra anytime in the next 50 years, it simply isn't going to happen because you and others are campaigning for the wrong thing and the cycling groups shrug their shoulders and say well it's better than nothing (see the backing by Sustrans, CTC et al for the Bedford turbo rbt!!)

Even in Manchester the new cycle lane that is fanfared by Sir Chris of Merseyside is simply not good enough for mass cycling, it's not good enough for all levels of people on bikes to mix freely and without worry there's enough space, it's not connected and as per the Cardiff infra it dog legs/doesn't take the most direct route, which is why stuff like Caxton's Stevenage cycle lanes failed ... because the roads for motors was wide, direct and easy to get about on.

Even in NL they are roughly 50% less modal share of cycling than the UK in the late 40s, even in NL they have lovely wide roads for motors that take the direct route far more than the cycle lanes, particularly in the towns and cities.

Up to you but having used the cycle infra in London it was awful and I simply went back onto the roads as it was less constrictive, less hazards (ergo safer) and more direct. Whilst for some they would use it, it's not mass cycling friendly, it's not great for families with young children to mix with faster speed cyclists as it's far too narrow.

The road in the pic I attached means it's wide enough for absolutely everyone, wide enough for all types and all speeds, it's the shortest route (most often) and os absolutey connected to everywhere, frankly it's a no brainer which way to back and yet cycling groups insist on segregated lanes which as I said, is the wrong argument/direction to encourage true mass cycling in this country.

crazy-legs wrote:

What never fails to amaze me here is that the answer to all of these issues - cycling on the pavement, filtering, undertaking, not using cycle lanes, jumping red lights - is to campaign and push for *proper cycling infrastructure*.

Not some half-arsed bit of paint on the road that disappears 20m later but proper segregated lanes as per The Embankment or Blackfriars. That removes at a stroke people feeling they need to ride on the pavement to avoid the traffic, it means they don't feel the need to jump a red light to escape an HGV that's pulled up right next to them, they won't be filtering past your precious car, they won't be "holding you up"...

Honestly, I despair of our political classes - if it's not the total fucking shambles of Brexit, it's dogmatic prehistoric views, an ideology stuck in about the 1950's and an inability to show any hint of progressive world views.

The question of 'infrastructure' for cyclists always reminds me of the US military when being gay was not allowed, do you remember that?   Essentially, the question seemed to be 'why won't you allow gays to serve in the armed forces?'

And the answer was that well, some people don't like it, so we're going to ban it. 

Basically, because some people in the military are homophobic shits, we're going to penalise the innocent people they hate, and reward the bigots by keeping these otherwise lawful, entirely decent and patriotic people away from them.

Am I the only one who thinks that this policy was seriously fucking backwards?  That the proper policy would have been to say, 'Some people are gay.  Get the fuck over it'?

And so we come to cycling infrastructure.   The majority of British drivers consider cyclists to be 'road lice', and whilst not all of that majority are willing to kill or seriously injure a cyclist on purpose, enough of them are, and the 'justice' (*hollow laugh*) system is willing to look the other way when they do so.  Of the remainder, they lack either the intelligence or the foresight to alter their behaviour in a way that will make the roads safer for the most vulnerable road user, because they don't give a flying fuck, and let's face it: getting Kylie to her gymkhana or Harry to his maths tutor is a lot less important than the life or personal safety of the 'freeloaders' that are cyclists, anyway.

And what do we do?  'Please, Mr Government .. if .. if ... if we ask nicely, will you .. will you ... will you please take us away from these drivers?'

And the drivers snarl, 'Yeah, get them fackin' cyclists off my fackin' road, innit?'

The response of a properly-constituted government not made up of psychopaths in hock to the oil industry would be to say very calmly to the driving 'community' in this country that cyclists have a right to be on the road.  That they will use the same roads as car drivers.   And that if a driver kills or seriously injures a cyclist (or a pedestrian) - even if it is 'an accident' (there is no such fucking thing), ' ... then you are going to prison for a long time.  If it transpires that the act was deliberate, then you will never, ever know freedom'.

We should not be begging for the crumbs of 'infrastructure'.  We should be fucking demanding equal treatment and equal protection under the law.   And we should be saying to the British state: either you protect us, or we will protect ourselves, and our justice will be a damn fucking sight less clement than yours.

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

crazy-legs wrote:

What never fails to amaze me here is that the answer to all of these issues - cycling on the pavement, filtering, undertaking, not using cycle lanes, jumping red lights - is to campaign and push for *proper cycling infrastructure*.

Not some half-arsed bit of paint on the road that disappears 20m later but proper segregated lanes as per The Embankment or Blackfriars. That removes at a stroke people feeling they need to ride on the pavement to avoid the traffic, it means they don't feel the need to jump a red light to escape an HGV that's pulled up right next to them, they won't be filtering past your precious car, they won't be "holding you up"...

Honestly, I despair of our political classes - if it's not the total fucking shambles of Brexit, it's dogmatic prehistoric views, an ideology stuck in about the 1950's and an inability to show any hint of progressive world views.

The question of 'infrastructure' for cyclists always reminds me of the US military when being gay was not allowed, do you remember that?   Essentially, the question seemed to be 'why won't you allow gays to serve in the armed forces?'

And the answer was that well, some people don't like it, so we're going to ban it. 

Basically, because some people in the military are homophobic shits, we're going to penalise the innocent people they hate, and reward the bigots by keeping these otherwise lawful, entirely decent and patriotic people away from them.

Am I the only one who thinks that this policy was seriously fucking backwards?  That the proper policy would have been to say, 'Some people are gay.  Get the fuck over it'?

And so we come to cycling infrastructure.   The majority of British drivers consider cyclists to be 'road lice', and whilst not all of that majority are willing to kill or seriously injure a cyclist on purpose, enough of them are, and the 'justice' (*hollow laugh*) system is willing to look the other way when they do so.  Of the remainder, they lack either the intelligence or the foresight to alter their behaviour in a way that will make the roads safer for the most vulnerable road user, because they don't give a flying fuck, and let's face it: getting Kylie to her gymkhana or Harry to his maths tutor is a lot less important than the life or personal safety of the 'freeloaders' that are cyclists, anyway.

And what do we do?  'Please, Mr Government .. if .. if ... if we ask nicely, will you .. will you ... will you please take us away from these drivers?'

And the drivers snarl, 'Yeah, get them fackin' cyclists off my fackin' road, innit?'

The response of a properly-constituted government not made up of psychopaths in hock to the oil industry would be to say very calmly to the driving 'community' in this country that cyclists have a right to be on the road.  That they will use the same roads as car drivers.   And that if a driver kills or seriously injures a cyclist (or a pedestrian) - even if it is 'an accident' (there is no such fucking thing), ' ... then you are going to prison for a long time.  If it transpires that the act was deliberate, then you will never, ever know freedom'.

We should not be begging for the crumbs of 'infrastructure'.  We should be fucking demanding equal treatment and equal protection under the law.   And we should be saying to the British state: either you protect us, or we will protect ourselves, and our justice will be a damn fucking sight less clement than yours.

100% agree. Segregation is not the right approach. A change in attitude towards cycling is what’s really required to improve safety and increase the use of cycling as a basic form of transport.

crazy-legs wrote:

What never fails to amaze me here is that the answer to all of these issues - cycling on the pavement, filtering, undertaking, not using cycle lanes, jumping red lights - is to campaign and push for *proper cycling infrastructure*.

Not some half-arsed bit of paint on the road that disappears 20m later but proper segregated lanes as per The Embankment or Blackfriars. That removes at a stroke people feeling they need to ride on the pavement to avoid the traffic, it means they don't feel the need to jump a red light to escape an HGV that's pulled up right next to them, they won't be filtering past your precious car, they won't be "holding you up"...

Honestly, I despair of our political classes - if it's not the total fucking shambles of Brexit, it's dogmatic prehistoric views, an ideology stuck in about the 1950's and an inability to show any hint of progressive world views.

That's the wrong argument IMHO, campaign to remove motorvehicles from the existing infrastructure, pretty much to a mile UK cycle specific infra is crap and not fit for mass cycling of all levels. It's narrow, winding and circuitous, crosses major motor roads often with no priority and usually stops without connecting up to anywhere useful. You only need look at what the guy being prosecuted by the MET to see how even in London the infra is crap and univiting.

This small time thinking will never, ever work to get people out of their cars, this is what happens when you give over the whole of the roads back to the people without their killing machines.

THIS is what we should be aiming for!

burtthebike wrote:

What's it called when a selfish, entitled, car-driving councillor opposes sensible cycle provision, which is undoubtedly in the council's policies, and is supported by the majority of her constituents?

'Being a tory'.

burtthebike wrote:

Answers on a postcard to Cllr Joanna Biddolph, Chiswick Council.

What?  Question a female public figure?

You 'vile troll', you! 

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

What's it called when a selfish, entitled, car-driving councillor opposes sensible cycle provision, which is undoubtedly in the council's policies, and is supported by the majority of her constituents?

'Being a tory'.

burtthebike wrote:

Answers on a postcard to Cllr Joanna Biddolph, Chiswick Council.

What?  Question a female public figure?

You 'vile troll', you! 

Thank you.  I'm adding 'vile troll' to my list of accomplishments, doubling them at one fell swoop.

Deeferdonk wrote:

Why is dropping a tonne of bricks next to someone any different from them walking close to a brick wall?

Oh, I know this one. Is it something to do with a raven and writing desk?