On your bike! How did the politicians who made questionable comments about cycling get on at the general election?

mattw wrote:

cnotrastni gpiece about cycling MPs amongst the new Parliament?

covefe

I like the extra commitment to the joke by actually misspelling 'covfefe'. 

That's right - I definitely did that on purpose

Guilty as charged.

I was on my tephelone !

Now corrected.

biking59boomer wrote:

I live in Wales where cycling is a devolved matter, so we're not really affected by the election. I don't think any of us are sorry to see the back of the Tories and their love bombing of drivers. Indeed it hasn't gone unnoticed that they lost Uxbridge and South Ruslip, Boris' old constutuency. Holding onto it after he jumped before being pushed was atributed to Tory opposition to ULEZs, LTNs and cycle lanes. Hopefully we'll see a national integrated cycling policy which will stop the removal of bike lanes just to pander to motorists. Let's hope they all have the sense and the courage to turn away from our car-centered system and follow the Dutch model. It worked for them so why not for us.

On the subject of bike lanes, we fought long and hard for improved cycle facilities; so let's use them and not give the anti-cyclists any argument for their removal.

I'm not convinced that Labour will be any more bike friendly that the Tories were. They certainly haven't been in the past and haven't given any indication that they will in the future.

As for bike lanes, I'll happily use them when they're better for me than using the road, but those shitty lanes that stop in the wrong places or don't join up with anything will remain unused. If you see a cyclist not using a bike lane, then that's purely the fault of the crappy bike lane and not the cyclist who's just using good judgement and local knowledge.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm not convinced that Labour will be any more bike friendly that the Tories were. They certainly haven't been in the past and haven't given any indication that they will in the future.

I agree.  However, it doesn't appear that they have any appetite to undermine other levels of government that are more bike friendly, as the Tories were planning to do.

Steve K wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm not convinced that Labour will be any more bike friendly that the Tories were. They certainly haven't been in the past and haven't given any indication that they will in the future.

I agree.  However, it doesn't appear that they have any appetite to undermine other levels of government that are more bike friendly, as the Tories were planning to do.

Yeah, I think the Tories were getting a bit desperate to hang onto power and were grasping at straws whilst stirring up "culture wars" to distract people. It's something that Labour shouldn't have to worry about for a couple of years.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Yeah, I think the Tories were getting a bit desperate to hang onto power and were grasping at straws whilst stirring up "culture wars" to distract people. It's something that Labour shouldn't have to worry about for a couple of years.

Yep.  After the perception that the Uxbridge by-election was won on the anti-ULEZ vote, they tried to replicate it across the country. And they lost Uxbridge.

Not necessarily local knowledge but can be a lack of local knowledge.

I did a trip in outer london where the lane kept swapping from one side to the other. By the time I realised that there still was a lane, just not on my side, it was too hard to get over, so I just carried on till it either reverted back or there was a chance to cross over.

Agree.  Generally driving somewhere doesn't involve time in advance scouting on Google Streetview and browsing local "driving forums".

A measure of this can be acceptable - cycling is a relatively local mode after all.  Perhaps every few miles - like this route in the countryside.  But more is inconvenient, confusing and means you have to interact with motor traffic.

Witness this in Milton Keynes, sometimes touted as "world-beating" cycle infra:

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/they-built-it-and-t...

aseasyasridingabike wrote:

The Redways hardly provide a straight route, either. A journey along them on this road, Grafton Street, will involve switching from the west side, to the east side. ... And then from the east side, back to the west side. ... And then from the west side, back to the east side.

Annoyingly, it’s not at all clear when the Redway switches sides as you cycle along it; at one of these roundabouts, I continued straight on, only to find myself at a bus stop with no continuing off-carriageway route.

Traditionally in the UK cycle "routes" and infra favour those with pathfinding abilities, often cyclocross skills and the time to "recce" routes ahead of time.

The internet won't necessarily help - carpets of broken glass, diversions for works and other obstacles can appear with little or no warning.  And good luck guessing from a map if a local authority has decided to tackle foliage, flooding etc.

That fits my nature ... but even if others didn't already have reasons not to cycle (eg. they already have a car, and everyone drives) those would be good reasons to be dissuaded.

Perhaps unsurprisingly where I am in Edinburgh we're never short of money for cycle route signs.  Making those routes connect up though...

chrisonabike wrote:

Traditionally in the UK cycle "routes" and infra favour those with pathfinding abilities, often cyclocross skills and the time to "recce" routes ahead of time.

And "route" does not always equal "path" anyway.  A "route" is a 'suggested' or 'preferred' route that you might take, probably mapped by someone who doesn't ride a bike, and marked out by teeny tiny little blue roundels…

Yeah, I can think of a few places where I feel a bit self-conscious (slash hooted at) for not using some passable separated cycle infra parallel to the road I'm on - but have not worked out where I'm supposed to enter it without crossing the road and mounting a high kerb. 

Hirsute wrote:

Not necessarily local knowledge but can be a lack of local knowledge.

I did a trip in outer london where the lane kept swapping from one side to the other. By the time I realised that there still was a lane, just not on my side, it was too hard to get over, so I just carried on till it either reverted back or there was a chance to cross over.

But if its not obvious where the cycle lane goes then that is a crappy cycle lane!

hawkinspeter wrote:

If you see a cyclist not using a bike lane, then that's purely the fault of the crappy bike lane

I think there might be a "car" vs "driver" thing going on here!

As an Entitled Cyclist I reserve the right to ignore "cycle lanes" should they be "cycle farcilities" as many in the UK are, or if they're full of debris, water, too narrow etc. All while simultaneously calling for actual proper cycle infra (eg. separate cycle paths, improved junctions, modal filters for quieter streets etc).

I think it's "we appreciate the thought - we really do - but now that you have done so you'll want to give people what they actually want, rather than buying too cheap and thus wasting money?"

Him holding was pretty much inevitable once Labour had their little internal squabbles.   Fazia was a loose cannon. 

Shh! Only the taxi folk, the Association of Bad Drivers and a few others have spotted that cyclists have *literally* taken over!