tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post6922182683459444050..comments2024-03-18T08:51:07.314+00:00Comments on i b i k e l o n d o n: CTC rep to talk cycle paths and segregation in Scotland this Saturdayibikelondonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06978714126105951294noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-46414079712994605742011-01-11T08:12:44.828+00:002011-01-11T08:12:44.828+00:00@Townmouse - Strict Libility
"My ex MP says ...@Townmouse - Strict Libility<br /><br />"My ex MP says it will never happen because our law presumes innocence until proven guilty."<br /><br />Your ex MP doesn't understand the difference between Guilt and Liability. One does not have to be found guilty to be liable under strict liability. If you brought the car onto the road then you are liable for its effects unless you can show that someone else was negligent. There is as presumtion of liability in favour of the vunerable, which is the opposite of the situation now. It is a civil not a criminal matter which mainly bears on insurance. Actually, it's a bit of a non issue with respect encouraging mass cycling. The campagin could be a PR disaster as most people misunderstand or misrepresent it.<br /><br />I like the thrust of what is being said here but untill cyclists represent a larger group, local councils CAN NOT allocate the kinds of funds needed for good lanes. We are a minority, sadly. I know council officers who would love to put in more infrastructure but are constrained by democracy... They say things like, "please get more people to ask for it". Remember, there are many people who are anti ANYTHING that constrains motorists. They write letters too.<br /><br />Also, as a London cyclist of 30 years, please let me assure you all that cycling has grown loads in London recently. Nationally it is not such good news though. So, yes cycling is growing in London but the national figure pulls the average down and indeed our modal share is pretty flat... sigh.<br /><br />- Dr MoohahahaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-48486473186994344302010-12-09T16:54:06.116+00:002010-12-09T16:54:06.116+00:00Anonymous said...
@billy isn't there strict li...Anonymous said...<br />@billy isn't there strict liability concerning horses? could be wrong...<br /><br />Don't know. Would it be something to do with the law being an ass?<br /><br />Surely, campaigning for segregated cycle lanes like the Dutch is a difficult prospect, nonetheless one worth campaigning for.<br /><br />I agree with that :0)billynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-40730085691960270192010-12-06T14:47:21.806+00:002010-12-06T14:47:21.806+00:00Sorry to join the party rather late, but that'...Sorry to join the party rather late, but that's sort of me all over.<br />I started cycling properly just over a year ago, after my holiday had taken me to Chicago. Now *there's* a car-centric city. But it also has extremely egalitarian planners, who realised they had this beautiful 20-odd mile lakeshore that everyone should be able to enjoy. In came a ban on building along it, and long paths and plenty of access points so cycling 26 miles up and down it was an absolute doddle, and thoroughly enjoyable. I've always loved being on a bike, but good grief, this was something totally new and wondeful. (It also helped that after years of riding a cheap-for-halfords-style bike I got back in the saddle on a supremely comfortable Trek, so my day wasn't spoiled by a sore backside.)<br />Had I not had the segregated (but pedestrian shared) path to get my pedals spinning again, I probably wouldn't have bothered - after all, I've been in plenty of other cities with bike hire but not taken it up.<br />It's not like I'm scared of traffic either. I drive a little car in a fairly sedate manner and that tends to get you honks and flashes aplenty from reps and minicab drivers, so I've developed a thick skin. Bring it on; I'll cycle in the middle of the lane if I have to. But that's after years of being relatively protected from abuse by the ton of metal surrounding me - and that I can do it doesn't mean I should have to.<br />When I'm abroad, I'm like most people in the UK. My perception is different. To me, this is because everything in my head is geared to being on the left of the road, and suddenly everything's on the right. My brain can't cope with the amount of extra processing involved, and I get nervous to say the least. Chicago and Portland were *normal* for me because they let me focus on the cycling, not all that other stuff. In chicago segregation helped. In Portland it was having a cool local guide (who rode on the pavement sometimes, tsk tsk), and infrastructure that meant cars *had* to respect you (and enforcement of the laws backing up that respect).<br />Here I see crappy or nonsensical infrastructure, like the tiny cycle lane going up Notting Hill Gate when the pavement is wider than one vehicular lane and could be easily shared - or no respect for the measures in place to help bicycles - parking in cycle lanes is my current bugbear, I've given up on ASLs. Yesterday I found myself utterly confused and frustrated by the 'closure' of the cycle paths through Green Park and St James' Park - no more than a few cones at each end and signs saying they were shut. I wouldn't mind so much if there was a visible explanation as to why.<br />So: I want segregation wherever possible, enforced cycle lanes and stop zones where we have to share. Drivers to be taught cycle sense as part of their lessons, and tested on it. If a road is wide enough for parking on both sides, take the parking away on one side and redistribute the roadspace so there's a cycle lane in both directions. <br />I also want to be able to eat chocolate without it going straight to my thighs, so I know I'm probably asking a lot. But chocolate aside, these things are entirely possible - it's the probability we need to work on.gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09507079719901455980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-24030127088289530142010-12-05T22:16:45.913+00:002010-12-05T22:16:45.913+00:00One thing I want to add is that the council's ...One thing I want to add is that the council's fears of upsetting motorists push them to choose transport options -for buses and bicycles- that don't upset cars. This is why bike paths and lanes vanish when you get near inner cities, why plans fall apart when they get controversial (e.g portsmouth seafront path). They start on the politically easy bits but that gives people a chance to put together the opposition and kill the plans that would be useful, leaving a broken network. Better to be aggressive and make useful routes -then improve them- rather than gold-plate stuff nobody uses.SteveLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654931341335136008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-41138063307093477852010-12-05T20:44:12.425+00:002010-12-05T20:44:12.425+00:00This is an interesting discussion. As a former edi...This is an interesting discussion. As a former edinburgh resident, I pine for their functional public transport as well as a town that is OK for adults to cycle round. Here in bristol we lack the public transport, though cycling is improving, piece by piece -though how to get the masses out of their cars is still a big question. <br /><br />But I don't care about modal share. All I care is about a safe route from home to school for my son, who is getting too big for the tagalong, and then a route to work that isn't unpleasant. That means bike lanes that don't have cars in them (stokes croft?), roads where I don't have to worry about oncoming cars trying to clip their mirrors on my handlebars.<br /><br />The only way to do this is to take space away from the car. Not much. Start with the bit marked "school keep clear". Enforce it. Councils to do drive-by ANPR scanning of parked cars, tickets in the post. If the council does a drive-by once a week, parents will soon stop parking there, start walking from houses 500m away instead. Same for bike lanes. The lost-lanes of stokes croft could come into existence, all it needs in the council will to enforce the rules. <br /><br />If enforcing today's double yellow lines, solid bike lane lines and school keep clear zones means taking space away from cars, so be it. I opt not to feel guilty.SteveL from Bristol Traffichttp://bristolcars.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-56781906158175470222010-12-05T11:21:09.614+00:002010-12-05T11:21:09.614+00:00@billy isn't there strict liability concerning...@billy isn't there strict liability concerning horses? could be wrong...<br /><br />Surely, campaigning for segregated cycle lanes like the Dutch is a difficult prospect, nonetheless one worth campaigning for. However, surely creating cul-de-sacs with bollards cutting off the rat runs and dropping speed limits in these areas is also part of their plan. This surely would be easier to campaign for initially. It could be sold to parents as reducing traffic in their area, slowing what traffic there is, safer for the children etc. Also, it's more likely to be approved as a few thoughtfully placed bollards here and there and some different speed limit signs would surely be relatively cheap. If these aspects could help raise cycling's modal share then we'd have more support for stage two, campaigning for proper cycle lanes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-171385018695245912010-11-07T12:27:21.160+00:002010-11-07T12:27:21.160+00:00townmouse said...
I was thinking about how best to...townmouse said...<br />I was thinking about how best to campaign for strict liability law (I agree that would do a huge amount for cyclists and pedestrians). It's a tricky one because it's hard to sell to the Mr. Toads - it's foreign for a start....<br /><br /><br />My ex MP says it will never happen because our law presumes innocence until proven guilty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-82136925598530450162010-11-05T16:52:28.910+00:002010-11-05T16:52:28.910+00:00@don_don I was simply pointing out that CTC and LC...@don_don I was simply pointing out that CTC and LCC had nothing credible to say about why most people decide not to allow their children to cycle to school. It's all very well to assert that children have the right to cycle to school - it's quite another to assert that it's safe for other people's children to cycle to school - they are quite different arguments. The later being an argument the cycling establishment have spectacularly lost. Parents simply prefer to drive. <br /><br />My point is that LCC and CTC allowed one of the best opportunities to talk-up Dutch Model Infrastructure (for years) sail silently into the night. To be fair, they are hamstrung - they're wedded to Vehicular Cycling.<br /><br />I would argue that, despite the stats, it's quite dangerous for children to cycle to school. Why? The current mortality rate for children on the roads is misleading. The numbers are simply too low to be statistically significant. It's bit like saying there are no Polar bear deaths on the roads today, therefore it's perfectly safe to release 300,000 Polar bears on the roads of London and expect no Polar bear deaths. If we dropped 50% of school children on the roads tomorrow, without any kind of compensating infrastructure, there would be absolute carnage - deadly carnage. Carnage over and above the rates we see today. I can hear the middle classes saying: No safety in numbers for my child thank you very much. Vroom Vroom.<br /><br />Run with the bulls, anyone?Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-43368391154474264722010-11-05T13:04:58.530+00:002010-11-05T13:04:58.530+00:00To be fair to the CTC, they did show strong suppor...To be fair to the CTC, they did show strong support for the Schonrocks on their own and other cycling websites. However, Boris Johnson's comments unsurprisingly gained far more media attention.don_donnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-24151687807403629062010-11-05T12:07:54.937+00:002010-11-05T12:07:54.937+00:00Cycle campaigning needs to get really, really focu...Cycle campaigning needs to get really, really focused at a national level. Cycling simply cannot afford to have half a dozen different campaigns running simultaneously.<br /><br />Vehicular cycling campaigns have had their day.<br /><br />It's time that CTC, LCC, Sustrans, and (even) BC stand together and declare that the Dutch have it right. Lets not advocate spending yet more money on schemes that essentially say: you'll live longer; be more assertive; wear hi viz; watch-out for that HGV; watch-out, the sun is low in the sky today; safety in numbers!<br /><br />@don_don made a very good point about kids cycling which I would like to pick up on.<br /><br />The state of cycle campaigning in the UK was neatly summed up recently with the case of the Schonrocks - not one of these so called cycling organisations had anything meaningful to say as to why most parents do not allow their children to cycle to school (accompanied or unaccompanied). Why the hell weren't they shouting from the rooftops about the Dutch Model (and the Dutch way of life)? As a group, cyclists were unable to defend a 5 year old. Unbelievable isn't it. Essentially, people like Carlton Reid would have 5 year olds riding on the road to school - just so his adult, but minority right to ride on the road can be preserved. What he's essentially saying is: my right to the road is so important to me that any kind of campaign for Dutch Model Infrastructure is incompatible with my rights. Don't believe me? Well, with the reality of a tiny and yet fragmented UK campaign budget of only 500K - this is exactly what he's saying. The debate doesn't move on - stalemate. Vehicular Cycling prevails.<br /><br />With attitudes like this - what hope 30%?Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-77771812847039893502010-11-05T11:19:13.781+00:002010-11-05T11:19:13.781+00:00I was thinking about how best to campaign for stri...I was thinking about how best to campaign for strict liability law (I agree that would do a huge amount for cyclists and pedestrians). It's a tricky one because it's hard to sell to the Mr. Toads - it's foreign for a start, and it doesn't come across as being particularly fair. Instead of campaigning for a 'Continental-style strict liability law' (might as well give up from the start) we should be campaigning for 'bring the (implied British) law of the sea onto our roads' - at sea, steam gives way to sail, because the the faster and more powerful vessel always gives way to the less so. And play up on the fact that it applies to those mythical demon cyclists terrorising little old ladies on the pavements, as pedestrians are considered more vulnerable to bikes.townmousehttp://cityexile.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-3419746267150478832010-11-05T09:47:33.630+00:002010-11-05T09:47:33.630+00:00Apparently it's something that we will never g...Apparently it's something that we will never get, no matter what we try - this is what Carlton Reid said. And I believe this is what other campaigners think. So while they say they do want segregation (for the sake of keeping members) they are not going to waste time campaigning for it. Quite disappointing. <br />However this is not to say that campaigners don't have a clue. Carlton reminded my about the strict liability law, which would also give an impulse for mass cycling.ndruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15324118775089929952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-83532131930384948492010-11-05T09:47:09.008+00:002010-11-05T09:47:09.008+00:00I find myself in complete agreement with ndru and ...I find myself in complete agreement with ndru and freewheeler. Like freewheeler (if I recall his blog correctly) I am an 'integrationist turned segregationist', prompted partly by the arrival of children in my life, who are now almost old enough to ride to school.<br /><br />I think that any criticism of freewheeler's comments need to be taken in context. He appears simply to be one of the more vociferous critics of the current situation. Personally, I am grateful for that. He accurately reflects the frustration that I (and I suspect many others) feel about the domination of transport policy by the motor car. When no-one wants to listen then sometimes you can't help but shout.<br /><br />I think ndru is right. In a way, the views of us 'Cyclists' are unimportant. I will keep cycling because I need and want to. Its the other lot that don't currently cycle that need encouraging, and all the signs indicate that segregated infrastructure is the only way to really achieve this. Personally, I would love for my children to be able to enjoy cycling in the Dutch style, and I know I would enjoy it myself.<br /><br />Carlton Reid talks on his blog about the immense cost of putting segregated facilities on ( or more accurately beside) every road in the country. This is not the point. He himself accepts that the Dutch don't have that sort of situation because they don't need it, and neither do we. All we need is to stop arguing, accept that what the Dutch et al are doing is right, and copy them. I refuse to belive that this is impossible.<br /><br />In the meantime, the hugely professional and highly organised motoring lobby lights another collective cigar and sits back, laughing at our dis-unity and inability to agree.don_donnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-81357615179189176782010-11-05T09:33:50.447+00:002010-11-05T09:33:50.447+00:00@Neil @Chris @Everyone
Which is exactly the point...@Neil @Chris @Everyone<br /><br />Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make! Why the radio silence indeed?ibikelondonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06978714126105951294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-44766090412409217312010-11-05T08:42:08.201+00:002010-11-05T08:42:08.201+00:00@Neil
I think you've almost hit the nail on t...@Neil<br /><br />I think you've almost hit the nail on the head - I agree with you when you say that no-one would disagree with campaigning for segregated infrastructure (Dutch Model Style) - and before everyone flames me for being a Segregationist, I'll simply point out that Dutch Model infrastructure isn't all about segregation (but I'll leave it to the more knowledgeable hembrow to fill in the details there http://hembrow.blogspot.com).<br /><br />So, if we're all in agreement, why aren't we campaigning for it? If you look at UK national campaigning there is near complete radio silence on the subject.<br /><br />In fact, at an estimated combined UK campaign budget of only 500K - why the hell aren't we campaigning for the only thing that's going to achieve 15, 20, 30% cycling modal share?<br /><br />It's mystery to me.Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-70689791970327118452010-11-04T14:37:09.954+00:002010-11-04T14:37:09.954+00:00Perhaps the terminology is not the greatest - seg...Perhaps the terminology is not the greatest - segregation (dutch style paths) is not the same as segregation (shared use pavements).<br /><br />Would anyone really object to having properly implemented Dutch style paths? <br /><br />I think one key point is the right of way at side roads. There is absolutely no point in campaigning for paths that have to give way at every side road. <br /><br />So much of cycle infrastructure relies on getting the details right. It needs to be very clear what details make a path good and what make it cr*p.Neilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-46276305442956252912010-11-04T11:13:53.994+00:002010-11-04T11:13:53.994+00:00@townmouse
Perhaps it would be a good idea to sta...@townmouse <br />Perhaps it would be a good idea to start with nice cycling routes leading to schools. What's a better way to promote cycling then by enabling mums to cycle with their kids. It's been shown that once mums take to cycling it becomes contagious. I guess it's the persuasive nature of women. <br />Social campaigns are good of course, but posters without anything to back it up. People will see cycling as troublesome - they have to take kids to the school, do some shopping etc - if they can't do it easily with a bicycle they will stick to cars no matter how many posters you're going to put up on walls and bus shelters.ndruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15324118775089929952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-65373778250589503022010-11-04T10:40:59.480+00:002010-11-04T10:40:59.480+00:00But the first thing is we have to create the desir...But the first thing is we have to create the desire among non-cyclists for bikes to have a higher modal share, because honestly that's really not there yet (talk to any committed driver about Boris bikes in London and they're certainly not celebrating the fact that there are all these extra bikes on the road). What there is is a desire for fewer cars (especially other people's cars). So perhaps if there's only a little money nationally it should go into campaigns like the German 'Kopf an Motor aus' (Brain on, motor off) or the Swedish 'ridiculous car journeys' one, both of which were highlighted on Copenhagenize recently. Once you've got people to think about not driving, then actually bikes become the obvious alternative as riding a bike is actually much more like having a car than something like walking or (horrors) taking the bus.townmousehttp://cityexile.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-48688098015183859762010-11-04T09:14:04.995+00:002010-11-04T09:14:04.995+00:00I wanted to point out one thing. The issue here is...I wanted to point out one thing. The issue here is that this discussion is between people who already cycle and want to do so. Because let's be honest about it 90% of people reading bicycle blogs are people who are into riding bikes. However it's not us that Carlton Reid, LCC, CTC and others have to convince that segregation isn't necessary - it's all the people who don't cycle yet. This should be the goal of these organizations. Go and tell a mother with a young child to cycle on the road on an advisory cycle lane, remind her about safety in numbers and about the fantastic road network we have, then give her all the hi-viz. and helmets and she'll send you to hell. Why? Because people don't feel safe. They don't feel cycling is convenient. On the other hand driving a car is - you have safe, separate facilities of good quality, continuos and leading in all the right places. People tend to do what's more convenient for them and not all like to suffer for greater good. Sure - bicycles can also use these roads, but not all people want to for reasons mentioned above. So Cycle Campaigners are preaching to the already converted nothing is being done to simply make it convenient to cycle for normal people. And there's no better education for a driver then when they cycle themselves even occasionally. <br />It's time for a reality check. Let's see how the measures so glorified by the campaigners are perceived by people already riding bikes. Let's see how these measures are perceived by people who might want to ride bikes. Let's see if they are effective, enforced and really make cycling easier. Because it might turn out that what campaigners congratulate themselves on means nothing for everyday cyclist and it means even less for a person that doesn't yet cycle, but who might have been if there were the right facilities. <br />To sum up - Cartlon it's not us you have to convince that segregation is not necessary - it's all the other people - those who don't cycle.ndruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15324118775089929952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-49453378452586155042010-11-04T00:26:00.144+00:002010-11-04T00:26:00.144+00:00I'm in favour of pushing for segregation,if e....I'm in favour of pushing for segregation,if e.g. we want pre-teens to happily cycle independently, but to work the right-of-way rules/culture in this country need to be changed to the Dutch model.<br /><br />My take on this is at<br /><a href="http://kenningtonpob.blogspot.com/2010/10/segregation-and-integration.html" rel="nofollow">nj</a><br /><br />There is no need for segregation on many quiet roads given strict liability, 20mph limits, filtered permeability etc. But on busy, main roads then it's got really good points - if you don't have to stop at every side road for motor traffic turning off the main road, and if the cycle lane isn't really a parking lane like the Superficial Highways.Charlie Hollandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02907483153757193008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-44841064028306339012010-11-03T22:47:36.079+00:002010-11-03T22:47:36.079+00:00On the issue of the right to use the road - I high...On the issue of the right to use the road - I highly doubt that anyone from the Highways Agency will ever be riding on these lanes provided for cyclists to cross over slip roads. Of course I have a "right" to ride on dual carriageways that are effectively motorways; some of which are historic rights of way dating back hundreds of years, others more recent - but I have no intention of doing so, regardless of the vague gesture provided by the occasional sign or marking in the hard strip. <br /><br />Other roads are certainly not as bad, but the cyclist fatality rate on rural A roads is higher than that on other rural roads (the reverse is true for cars) - this is due to the high speed and volume of traffic on these roads. Unless proper infrastructure exists outside of towns along major roads, rural England will remain isolated and car dependent.christhebullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18058394246399615754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-28757019429541660792010-11-03T22:07:43.896+00:002010-11-03T22:07:43.896+00:00I think it's already been pointed out on this ...I think it's already been pointed out on this thread, but I'll reiterate: lets live in the real world shall we? Why? Let me demonstrate. What do people on here think the overall combined cycling campaign budget per annum is in the UK? (CTC+LCC+Sustrans+UK Levy+BC etc). I say 500K.<br /><br />Keep that number in mind while I try and persuade you why we have things terribly wrong on the campaigning front.<br /><br />Bikeability, cycle awareness, bike theft, SMIDSY, HGVs - clearly, these are important issues. But should we focus on these at a national level? At a grassroots level, yes. National, no.<br /><br />At a national level, and with only 500K , how many bullets do you think we can afford? Pea shooter anyone? The myriad of campaigns we rollout at a national level, along with our Vehicular Cycling philosophy does us absolutely no favours. The budget simply isn't big enough.<br /><br />See where I'm going with this?<br /><br />If you want another crass analogy, this time to highlight all that's wrong with campaigning in this country, try this cycling related one. Back in the day... when BC were looking at funding their talent program for the Olympics...they took an unusual step - instead of spending 26 million quid (or whatever it was back then) spread thinly across 50 athletes (all with differing chances of medalling), they chose, instead, to fund just those athletes (say 20ish) with a real prospect of attaining Gold. It was a bold move - it took balls. They focused on Gold. On the other hand, what do we do? We fund a myriad of Vehicular friendly campaigns, each individually having their own merit, but collectively produce no result - and we wonder why we're left with 1% modal share.<br /><br />I believe our focus should be: high modal share. That is our Gold. So, if we're to attain high modal share, which athletes should we invest in? First we need a model. Is there a model out there that works? Anyone think of a country with high modal share? We all know the answer to my question, so I won't bang on about it.<br /><br />But what I will say is this: the 500K should be spent on a political play, promoting, at it's core, Dutch Model Infrastructure. Why? Because, as Carlton rightly points out, the problem in the UK is one of a cultural/political nature. We need to get a lot better at spending what little we have on areas that will eventually pay the biggest modal dividend. We may not win the battle in the short term (years), but I think if we're consistent (and persistent) the political landscape will eventually swing our way, and we'll achieve high modal share. The problem right now is we offer such little resistance in terms of challenging current transport thinking that we'll never (ever) be taken seriously when true political change presents itself. We simply will never (ever) be credible Dutch Model advisors, not while we stay wedded to Vehicular Cycling.<br /><br />I'm not talking about 'demanding', or foaming at the mouth campaigning. I'm talking about firmly promoting Dutch Model Infrastructure every time there's an opportunity, like: lobbying in Westminster; or participating in national media debates on posh 5 year olds from Dulwich cycling to school accompanied by their 8 year old sibling; helmets; HGVs etc etc.<br /><br />This fascination with the right to ride on the road has done us absolutely no favours at all - in a perverse way it's pitted us directly against the car lobby. With absolutely no modal benefit. If you're going to take a shot at an elephant, namely the car lobby, at least make sure you're aiming for Gold.Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-53304496415436745762010-11-03T22:02:13.232+00:002010-11-03T22:02:13.232+00:00Campaigning for what’s possible or achievable righ...Campaigning for what’s possible or achievable right now is surely the most sensible approach. <br /><br />For example, strict liability, 20mph (or less) limits, restricting HGVs during rush hour, cycle lane and ASL enforcement would offer an immediate and significant impact. <br /><br />Segregation wont happen in London for the foreseeable as there isn’t the political will or popular support to make this happen.rogerhothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09124067352536366861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-87932877001067384932010-11-03T20:24:06.926+00:002010-11-03T20:24:06.926+00:00As I'm not a member of either the LCC or the C...As I'm not a member of either the LCC or the CTC this would be rather difficult.<br /><br />It is not clear to me what the feelings of the mass membership of either organisation are with regard to segregation and it would be interesting to know. But of course this would depend on what you mean by segregation. I mean the Dutch version. <br /><br />Everything that is wrong with British cycle campaigning is summed up by the photograph on the conference website which Mark links to above. This is represented as best practice and a campaign achievement. But what is it? A classic British cycle lane which drivers can legally drive into. The vast majority of the British public have no interest in cycling on rubbish infrastructure like this. The final irony is that this photo shows a long line of cars and just one solitary cyclist. By campaigning for rubbish infrastructure like this, and ignoring the highly successful Dutch example, British cycling campaigners simply perpetuate the status quo. Most local authorities are happy to put in token cycle lanes like this.<br /><br />By the way Carlton Reid has expanded on his understanding of segregation <a href="http://quickrelease.tv/?p=1351" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I would urge everyone interested in this debate to read it.<br /><br />If I understand him correctly, Carlton Reid believes that things are on the up and up in London, and that a significant rise in modal share will be achieved without segregation. I believe both propositions are false. Time will tell. In the meantime car ownership keeps rising.freewheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16731932510033958017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-80473924546492638642010-11-03T19:58:25.288+00:002010-11-03T19:58:25.288+00:00Those choosing to attack the CTC/LCC etc have an o...Those choosing to attack the CTC/LCC etc have an option. They could stand for election to those orgs and then change from within.<br /><br />Or is it easier to write a few words and then let others to do the on-the-ground graft?Carlton Reidhttp://www.bikehub.co.uknoreply@blogger.com