20mph zone and better bike lanes coming for the City of London?

You'll remember earlier in the year I urged you all to respond to the City of London's Local Implementation Plan.  It was a key opportunity to get cycling firmly on the agenda in the Square Mile, and many of you took the time to write in to tell the City to wake up and smell the energy drink - it was time they started to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to providing for cycling.

Holborn Circus, in the City of London

Some 113 people wrote to the City - thank you! - and it would seem the City is prepared to listen.  Cyclists in the City blog reports that's 100 more than the last time the Guildhall consulted on its transport plans, and there were letters supporting cycling from representatives of some of the biggest employers and financial institutions in the Square Mile.  The consultation, having worked its way through various meetings, has now been discussed by the Policy Committee who voted to support the three following amendments to the original LIP document, formulated as a direct consequence of all those letters you sent:

"(1) More ambitious road traffic casualty targets to reduce the number of persons killed or seriously injured to 50% below the 2004–2008 average by 2020 and the total number of persons injured to 30% below the 2004–2008 average by 2020.

(2) A commitment to provide continuous high-quality conditions for cycling on several routes through the City, with a further recommendation that these routes include both the London Cycle Network routes on City Corporation streets and several north–south and east–west quieter back-street routes through the City.


(3) A commitment to formally investigate the desirability of a 20 mph speed limit or 20 mph zone covering the whole of the City, with a further recommendation that the preferred option for such a speed limit or zone incorporate the Transport for London road network in the City."

This is a huge break-through for all of you who took the time to tell the City to step up to the plate, and a potentially game-changing decision for future plans for the City's streets. (Although, of course, saying this in a Local Implementation Plan is no promise of change on the ground in the future - but it's a start!)

But this is good news only in principle...  Whilst the City has shown it is prepared to listen to its own consultation process, the Policy Committee can only recommend the above points be included.  The ultimate decision rests with the Chair (Stuart Fraser) and Deputy Chair of the Policy Committee along with the Transport and Planning Committee.  If (and it is a very big if) they approve the above recommendations, the LIP will then have to be signed off by Mayor of London Boris Johnson, who, with his own policies about 'smoothing traffic flow' may well not be keen on the 20mph zone himself (Blackfriars Bridge, anyone?!).

Making space for cycling?

But the first challenge for people on bikes is to get the Chair (Stuart Fraser) and Deputy Chair of the Policy Committee with the Transport and Planning Committee to approve including the 20mph zone, road casualty reductions and continuos cycle lane provisions in the LIP.  If we succeed it will be a great victory - being the financial heart of London and a uniquely important local authority, what happens in the City will hopefully soon be followed by other Boroughs.  But as Cyclists in the City report, some of the gentlemen on the Committee who have been charged with approving these amendments have a somewhat tabloid view of us cyclists.

So, the question is... remaining positive, professional, upbeat and engaging, how do we get these City politicians to say 'Yes' to better conditions for people on foots and people on bikes?  Any and all ideas are welcome!



Share |

The winds of change... a new cycling campaign arrives

There's change in the air...  As cycling enters it's Governmental wilderness years, more and more people who care passionately about cycling are asking the same question - are we going down the right path to bring about mass cycling here in the UK?

You can trace the route of all this thought and introspection to the 'big blogs'; the likes of Copenhagenize and that great city's integrated bicycle culture, and David Hembrow's A view from the cycle path and his views on the importance of subjective safety, or his posts debunking some of the myths put forward as to why Dutch-style cycling could never be achieved 'over here'.  These blogs have become incredibly popular and have helped to spread ideas around the world.  Before the advent of the internet information distribution was a one way street; the likes of John Franklin would write about how dangerous cycle paths can be and what a disaster Milton Keynes was for cycling and such word was taken as gospel.  Nowadays a cyclist in London can see brand new cycle tracks being built in New York (of all places), read the comments and decide for themselves whether they think that's a good thing or not, and pass the information on...


As a consequence of this 'brave new world' of information exchange more and more people seem to me to be singing from the same hymn sheet and questioning the status quo;


The Grumpy Cyclist talks about why having to ride in the primary position is too much of a burden to expect of the most vulnerable.
Cyclists in the City talk about why we need 'the other 49%'; Mums, kids and grans on bikes and whether we are doing enough to encourage them.
Cycalogical recognises that fear of traffic is the main reason why most people don't ride a bike and wonders if we are doing the right thing to try and overcome this.
iamnotacyclist looks back on the history of the segregation debate here in London and finds a compelling argument for building more cycling infrastructure from an LCC campaigner from a decade ago - what's been done since?
At War With the Motorist's Joe talks about how he became a clips and lycra kind of cyclist and how he came to realise that it was a consequence of the cycling conditions and how those conditions would never encourage mass cycling.
Charlie Holland from Kennington People on Bikes thinks it is outrageous that a ban on cycling on the South Bank will force people to cycle on National Cycle Route 4 - a high speed dual carriageway with some paint on the side of it.  He asked some local Mums if they'd be happy for their kids to ride this route - the resounding answer was ''No!'
Even the Department of Health has got wind of the fact that we do so little active travel that if something doesn't change we'll all soon be fatties...
Cyclists here in the UK read about the Bicycle Policies of the European Principals (Continuous and Integral) from the Fietsbaraad, see how mass cycling has been achieved and ask "Why aren't we trying to achieve the same thing here using these tested and proven methods?"

People watch the pleas of the girls from Beauty and The Bike asking outright for road space to taken away from motorists and given over to cyclists...

And of course, over at Crap Cycling in Waltham Forest the mysterious, illustrious Freewheeler is not holding back on his acerbic criticisms of where our current campaign priorities have brought us.  Of particular note he recently dug up notes from a 2003 conference... doesn't look to me like much has changed since.  His post on how he traversed from being an integrationist to being pro-Dutch style infrastructure makes for an interesting, enlightening read. 

Of course, the internet is a two-way street and everyone is entitled to share their opinions and both sides of the argument do.  Carlton Reid sets off on an emotive but impassioned trek about why he loves black top, and over in Spain a certain well-known internet troll who thinks cycle lanes are the work of the Devil sets out his stall in typically fascinating fashion (I mean fascinating like as in a car crash. You know you shouldn't look but just can't help it. The comments are particularly, um, stimulating)

What's all this got to do with cycling, I hear you ask, other than lots of people getting hot under the collar?

Well, words inevitably lead to actions and over at the Lo Fidelity Bicycle Club blog, writer Jim may just be on to the start of something big.  A former employee of the CTC and long-time bicycle advocate he's setting up a new action group which intends to promote cycling as cool, accessible to all and indeed vital to the whole country. Modelled on the Cycling Embassy of Denmark it will seek to put cycling first in all matters of policy and seek to change things for the better over here in the UK.  Jim writes that the new campaign will be;

An Embassy, free from the burden of history, legacy and ties, created to work in partnership with fellow organisations and charities in Great Britain, mainland Europe and around the World trading ideas and experiences in how to promote cycling and make cycling infrastructure work in urban and rural contexts.

Some might think that we already have enough cycling campaigns here and that what we have is sufficient, but the creation of this new group stems directly from frustration with these existing campaigns.  Most excitingly of all it will;

..work with local authorities and relevant parties to redefine Cycling Infrastructure Design Standards in the UK and bring them in line with best practice in partner countries. ‘Hierarchy of Provision’, although well-meaning and correct in principle is too open to abuse or compromise by practitioners that know little about the requirements of cycling (or indeed walking) yet may wish to know more.

For me, those words about 'Hierarchy of Provision' are what are most exciting of all.   As a campaigning policy dreamt up by the CTC and adopted by the Department for Transport, 'Hierarchy of Provision' has failed to bring about mass cycling in the UK, or even in parts failed to stop the downward trend of cycling's modal share.  As a campaigning stance it was adopted by the UK Government in 1996 in it's policy document "Cycle-friendly infrastructure: Guidelines for planning and design" and states that Dutch-style infrastructure should be considered as a 'last resort' after traffic reduction, traffic calming, junction treatments and painted bicycle lanes or shared bus lanes.  Attempting to reduce traffic volumes in the UK has not been a success, as I've highlighted before in my previous post on the National Travel Survey.  Whilst of course this proposed hierarchy is desirable on paper, personally I feel all too often it's been used for political purposes to avoid providing quality infrastructure where it should be.  To be frank, this policy is car-centric and about ameliorating the conditions of vehicular cycling, not about putting the bicycle first...

A storm in a tea cup? A bit of a blow on the blogs?  Nothing but pie-in-the-sky dreaming and a waste of time?  Shouldn't we just leave it all up to the existing campaigns?! 

Maybe, maybe not. 

But whilst cycling is out of favour with the Government it gives cyclists themselves an opportunity to influence the shape of things to come.  As Jim writes; "If it fails, I get egg on my face but get to catalogue why and we all learn from the experience but if we were to succeed, the rewards would be incredible for everyone."  Put like that, it's worth rocking the boat a little, don't you think?

Share |

The dog that barks the loudest gets the bone; is it time for a cycling lobby?

It's so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye to Cycling England which hit the skids last week as part of the coalition Government's so-called 'Bonfire of the Quangos'.  The body had a pitiful cash burn and was practically unknown outside of cycling circles, but did help the Government invest in cycling projects based on expert advice, and was the guardian of the re-badged cycling proficiency test "Bikeability"... 

...Here in London even the cycling campaigns are keen to clamour about 'record levels of investment in cycling in the capital', but recent calculations from the Green Party show that our Mayor, Boris Johnson, is only spending about half of what he says he is stumping up in cash. (ie under spending the cycling budget by as much as 50%)  All of the spin but none of the win for the end users, us cyclists... 

...Meanwhile, over in our highest house the good lords and ladies are bumbling along talking about high vis jackets and helmets as if they were the be all and end all of all things two-wheeled. 

I'd despair if it didn't all make me so angry.

In the case of Cycling England, 'Bikeability' will be brought in-house at the Department of Transport, but it's funding is only guaranteed "till the end of this parliament" (which, considering the uncharted territories of running a country by coalition may well be sooner rather than later).  Meanwhile, funding for cycling projects (if any) will come from a newly devised "Local Sustainable Transport Fund".  That is to say, funding for the things that can really matter the most on the ground - the construction of segregated cycle lanes, bike hubs at train stations, bike stands for kids at schools - will be funded from the same pot as improved bus timetables, schemes to implement charging points for electric cars (of which Transport Secretary Philip 'Hoverboard' Hammond seems particularly keen) and any other scheme that can be spun as 'sustainable'.  The transport minister with portfolio for cycling, Lib Dem Norman Baker said "...there will no longer be a dedicated cycling pot of money, but instead a much broader fund, we feel that Cycling England is not the right way to continue to incentivise and encourage local authorities and others to stimulate cycling."

Cycling is going to be up against some seriously well-organised money-thirsty transport schemes.  Bus firms have them, rail firms have them, car manufacturers practically invented them... is it time cycling got serious about its own lobby?

Until recently perhaps Cycling England's most prescient purpose was as a pyramid head for the disparate and varied stakeholders involved in cycling; it drip-fed up to the DfT the ideas, advice and requests of the CTC, Sustrans, British Cycling, the Cycle Training Standards Board and others.  Now, in a classic 'divide and conquer' manoeuvre by the Government these organisations will be left squabbling and scrabbling for every morsel the DfT may care to throw their way.  Meanwhile, the bus boards, the train operating companies and the electric vehicle manufacturers will be flexing their well-toned lobby muscles.  If the future funding of sustainable transport is to be decided in an arena fashion, cycling will be the first to be thrown to the lions.  Or, if you like, the dog that barks loudest gets the bone.

The UK's cycling organisations, if they don't want to implode upon one another in a fit of survivalism, need to get their act together and unify to see this present funding crisis out.  We need to play the game on the playing field that the Government has chosen to provide us.  Cycle England will be gone by spring 2011 and it won't be coming back.  We need a new national umbrella body of some kind to represent the local, regional and national stakeholders at Whitehall.  At present none of our cycling campaigns are broadly popular or skilled enough to be able to do this alone.  More crucially still we need our retailers to be involved.  The Bicycle Association and the Association of Cycle Traders are pissing in the wind if they think their voices can be heard alone.  But their efforts, combined with that of the likes of the CTC, would double their strength and double their volume and help to put them on a more even footing with the likes of the bus and train companies.  On a public front we have plenty of cycling celebrities to add to our voice - get the likes of Victoria Pendleton and James Cracknell, Dermot O'Leary and even Lord Berkeley on side and the publicity follows.  Run a campaign incorporating all cyclists calling for support for cycling.  Remember the impact the NSPCC's green button 'full stop' campaign against child cruelty had?  Something on that kind of scale injecting a bit of cyclist's pride into the voter demographic will help to secure funding in the future.  So long as cyclists are few and represented by many small voices they'll not get the funding we all know they deserve.  Present them as many and with one loud voice and suddenly the Government will start to listen.  Again, the dog that barks the loudest gets the bone.

Get people involved!  If there's one thing the wider public think of Quangos is that they were London-centric 'jobs for boys like us' type outfits.  We all know that David Cameron has this thing about 'Big Society' so let's make it an opportunity to give him some good news; lobby for investment into a project to train out of work miners from Newport as cycling instructors so they can train their kids or something equally worthy and you'll soon have a happy PM praising you from a pit-head press conference and the funding will soon follow...  As I said, the Government has chosen the playing field, cyclists have to be ready to play on it.

Of course, a question of funding comes in to play here which in these financially difficult times is a tough one to address.  It's all well and good proposing to form a national cycling lobby, but who will pay for it?  Let us think of the ubiquitous coffee chain for a moment.  Those popular coffee shops which you find all over the country start by opening just one cafe, and start selling coffee for £1 a cup.  Of that pound 50p is profit, 25p goes on staff, 10p goes to the coffee farmer and supplier, 10p on overheads and that last 5p goes into a little pot to save up to open the next coffee shop.  When that opens you have double the amount of money going into the 'new shop' pot and so on and so forth until you can open shops all over the country, or even the world.  Of course bicycle retailers can only open so many bike shops.  So long as cycling remains a minority modal share of national journeys there are only so many opportunities to sell bikes.  But instead of putting that 5p towards a new shop, why not put it towards an autonomous organisation that helps to gain funding for cycle paths, money for national cycle networks or mountain biking hubs, secures the provision of cycle parking at stations, trains up the next generation to be efficient and enthusiastic cyclists?  Suddenly you'll have a hell of a lot more cyclists than if you leave things in their current status quo.  And all these new riders need new bikes, new locks, new lights and lovely accessories.  NOW you need to open a new shop, and another, and another... and suddenly you're in a position to badger the Government to drop VAT on new bikes, or give tax breaks to bike manufacturers in the UK (all part of transferring to a carbon neutral economy, remember?).  It puzzles me why this hasn't been proposed or discussed before but if a very small percentage of sales of all new bikes and cycling accessories sold in the UK went directly back into a national cycle lobby focussed on securing funding to grow cycling, surely this would be a self-fulfilling prophecy or funding circle?  Everyone wins, right?

We've had a few days to weep and wail over the loss of Cycling England, and that's only right because they did do some good work after all.  But it was, to be frank, a punitive organisation in the first place which worked extremely hard in return for very little.  Now that it is going there is a very real risk that petty in-fighting will descend upon the cycling advocacy scene here in the UK (which is exactly what the Government would like) but we need now to renew and increase our efforts if we don't want to enter another decade of cycling being out in the wilderness.  We have till March 2011, when Cycling England's mandate runs out.  Bike campaigners, retailers, advocates, lobbyists, riders, manufacturers et al; as Philip Hammond would say "Gentlemen, start your engines!"

Share |

What's stopping women from cycling?

To mark International Women's Day I joined the London Cycle Campaign's led ride around London in glorious sunshine over the weekend, and questioned why is it that on a national level 79% of all bicycle journeys are made by men.  What's stopping women from cycling?

What's stopping women from cycling? from ibikelondon on Vimeo.

This is my first attempt at making a blog entry by video - I apologise now for the shakey camera work!  Please do let me know what you think of the video, and also, what do you think can be done to bring about rider equality?

Know your enemies, know your limits: cyclists and HGVs in London

Cycling in London is not a dangerous activity. Contrary to popular belief not all drivers are trying to run us off the road, and not all cyclists are jumping red lights, mowing down pedestrians and flicking the finger at driver. As I’ve discussed here before, cycling is as safe as walking in Central London – I came to this conclusion using data that the media was using to portray riding a bike as being akin to chewing depleted plutonium...

But , as in everything in life, there are dangers involved in cycling, and we should do our best to address the source of these dangers and limit our exposure to risk – especially if that risk is avoidable. In my opinion, the biggest threat we face on the road are not car drivers but Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). In 2004 twenty two cyclists were killed in the UK in collisions with HGVs. Last year alone in London, of the 13 cyclists who died on our roads nine were killed by HGVs – of those nine, eight were women. In total, HGVs account for about 45% of all London cyclist’s death, but account for just 5% of traffic. The British Medical Journal, in their 1994 paper ‘Death of Cyclists in London’ said “the risk of heavy goods vehicles being involved in accidents in which cyclists die in inner London can be estimated at five times that of buses, 14 times that of light goods vehicles, and 30 times that of cars.” Clearly, this is not acceptable. Cyclists; know your enemies.

I thought it was common knowledge amongst all London cyclists that to ride down the inside of an HGV (or a large truck or bus for that matter) is an invitation for disaster, but last week alone I saw two cyclists doing just that. Cyclists are vocal and organised in calling for their full rights on the road, and the first to point out poor driving by others - and rightly so - and yet as the stakeholders who will always invariably come off worse in any road traffic accident, we must be pro-active in recognising that our own behaviour is the first line of defence we have with which to protect ourselves. Cyclists; know your limits.

We can spend thousands of pounds on driver training and complementary safety measures on our roads, but if cyclists put themselves willingly in positions of danger, there’s very little that anyone can do about it. We need to look out for ourselves, before we ask others to look out for us.

This video from the Metropolitan Police, was produced in association with Transport for London as part of their ‘Exchanging Places’ program which gave cyclists the opportunity to sit in an articulated lorry cab and see the driver’s point of view.  Whilst a little dry, I think this video is excellent in demonstrating what the lorry driver can't see – it’s worth noting that the lorry used in the film has every conceivable type of mirror attached – far more than many HGVs (especially those operated by smaller operators) actually do.

Of course, I am absolutely against any idea of blaming the victim – many of the cyclists who have died as a consequence of HGV collisions have been accomplished cyclists acting within the law or following the cycle paths put down on the road for them (many left curb approaches to Advanced Stop Lines encourage riders to go up the inside of traffic to reach the traffic lights). Indeed, 7 London cycle couriers have died as a consequence of collisions with HGVs and lorries and it’s arguable that they are the most knowledgeable cyclists on our roads. Not all HGVs have as many mirrors fitted as the truck in the film. Even if they did there is no guarantee that the driver is looking in those mirrors as you pass by. The simple fact is this; cyclists and large vehicles sharing the same piece of road is a source of conflict – sometimes with awful consequences.

Meryem Ozekman was 37 when she was crushed to death by a lorry on the Elephant and Castle roundabout in 2009.

There is a growing awareness of this problem amongst the authorities and some measures are being brought in to try and combat the issue – there will soon be a trial allowing cyclists to turn left on red lights, thus allowing them to get ahead of the danger posed at junctions, and new trixi mirrors will be installed at junctions along the London Cycle Superhighways, allowing large vehicles to see fully down the side of their vehicles. But more can, and must, be done.

If large vehicles are going to be allowed into city centres where a large volume of pedestrians and cyclists are inevitable, standards for HGV drivers and the state of their vehicles must be improved.

The Met Police Commercial Vehicle Education Unit was set up to tackle shoddy safety standards amongst hauliers – of the 3000+ lorries it has pulled over and assessed on London’s roads since 2005, a massive 70% have been found to have illegal defects. Sadly, our Mayor Boris Johnson is scrapping this scheme – it’s duties will apparently be absorbed by the traffic Police (whose numbers have also been cut by 20% in recent years) and covered by a voluntary traffic safety scheme that hauliers are under no obligation to join. This is the same Mayor who was almost taken out whilst cycling by a truck whose rear doors were held shut with a wire coat hanger...

More must be done at higher levels to incentivise haulage firms to prioritise safety over the speed of their next delivery. The Crown Prosecution Service must bring the highest charges if a driver is proven to be at fault, unlike in the case of cyclist Anthony Maynard, who was run over from behind in 2008 by a van driver who claimed in his defence that he didn't see Anthony cycling – this was excuse enough for no charges to be brought against the driver. More recently, the tragic death of 30 year old Eilidh Cairns has made the headlines; she was crushed to death on a road that the inquest into her death deemed too narrow to pass on. The inquest also found that if the driver had adjusted his mirrors correctly, he would have been able to see Eilidh clearly. The point in the road at which the accident happened was just 2 metres wide – the driver’s vehicle was 2.5 metres, raising the question of why he was on that particular road in the first place. A verdict of accidental death was delivered.

Ms Cairns's sister Kate said “The one thing we didn't want was an accidental verdict. We agree it was not intentional but we believed it was avoidable. People in power act as though these accidents just unfortunately happen to female cyclists and people have to deal with it. There is a huge problem with female cyclists being on the streets of London with HGVs and politicians are not doing enough to address that.

“These cyclists are not soldiers going into battle. They are just women going to work and nobody is doing anything to stop this needless slaughter.”

Eilidh’s family and friends have been instrumental in increasing awareness of the issues surrounding HGVs on our streets – they have been able to have an Early Day Motion tabled in Parliament calling for MPs to consider the law as it currently stands and what could be done in the future to stop the deaths: an essential first step in having this vital issue discussed at a higher level. At present 47 Members for Parliament support it, but it needs more signatures - write to your MP using an easy online form here and ensure they are fully aware of how important this issue is and ask them to add their support to EDM 600, which can be found here.

Last word goes to Kate Cairns, Eilid’s sister: ”We need to address the source of the danger. Policies of protection are not enough. I think we should be considering future lorry design, how compatible they are with our streets and the way the fleets are managed. By supporting this EDM MPs are working towards finding a real solution. It makes sense when all benefits are taken into account”

If you are a London cyclist and have ever wobbled slightly as the enormous wheels of an HGV pass you by, my advice to you would be two things: help protect others by urging your MP to support this motion, and help yourself by staying back in the traffic at junctions when there is a lorry ahead of you – no one is ever in that much of a rush that they need put themselves in unnecessary danger.

City's cyclists should have their say (and Mayor Boris should listen)

Mayor of London Boris Johnson held a meeting last Friday with representatives of some of the UK’s biggest cycling manufacturers and retailers. Aiming to brainstorm ways to encourage more cycling in London - with a specific focus on fixing the issues of safety and security – sadly, the Mayor is misguided if he thinks he is inviting the right people to City Hall...

Whilst high level cycling industry big-wigs undoubtedly have a passion for bikes and all that goes with them, it’s questionable how focussed they are on the real issues at hand. Representatives of big corporations are ultimately, no matter how well intentioned, going to be driven by their bottom line and profit margins.

Increasing bike security? As cyclists we all know the answer to this is better and more frequent cycle parking, given the same kind of street patrols and CCTV as vehicle parking, and the Metropolitan Police making at least a token start at taking cycle theft seriously. The industry, I suspect, will recommend we buy bigger, and stronger locks – maybe even two, or three per bike (which is now becoming the standard in London)

Getting more people on bikes? As regular readers here will know, I firmly believe that we need to take the ‘other’ out of cycling and rehabilitate it as an everyday and ordinary activity in people’s lives again. If you want mass cycling rates, the masses need to be able to associate with cycling. I’d probably start with the inequality in cycling rates between men and women and be asking why aren’t more women cycling? On this point I am inclined to agree with BikeBiz Editor Carlton Reid: “Not all cycling women want to be Audrey Hepburn with a basket-on-the-front, pearlised-pink Dutch bike. But there’s no escaping that this sector is the one that produces the best photographs for promoting cycling to a mainstream audience. Forget helmets, Lycra and speed; non-cyclists find all that a big turn-off”.  Promoting the public face of cycling as mainstream?  That's not something the bicycle industry has been doing, as I’ve previously discussed.

And, as we've otherwise discussed here, if the Mayor really wants to see cycling levels explode across London, he could do a lot worse by not scrapping the only Police department entirely dedicated to reigning in errant HGVs - the cause of the majority of fatal incidents in London.  Perhaps he could focus on a truly original cycle safety action plan instead of the current limp offering City Hall is presently putting forward.  I've said it before and I'll say it again; aiming for cycling to be just 5% modal share of all traffic by 2026 is less like a velorution and more like a wet Wednesay matinee of Les Miserables.

2010 does stand to be a record year for cycling in London. Transport for London, under the stewardship of Mayor Johnson, will launch 6000 new bikes onto our streets with the launch of the Zone 1 bike hire scheme. The first two of 12 ‘cycle superhighways’ (essentially existing cycle lanes re-painted and re-branded to raise their awareness) will open to the general public. The cycling budget for the next five years is a fairly hefty £110 million pounds. The potential for a political backlash from the Mayor’s outer-London car-dependant voting block is massive if these schemes are seen to fail. As such, you’d think he’d be inviting representatives from the cities of Copenhagen, Groningen or Amsterdam to his cycling summit, rather than a self-publicising ex-promoter of a pedal car race from Dorset.  (No, dear readers, I kid you not.)

I’m sure the people from our various bike manufacturers are lovely people, and that they believe their hearts are in the right place, but I don't believe they have the day-in day-out first hand experience of cycling in our capital city that the city’s cyclists do. Bike shops traditionally do not make much money on the bikes they sell – the profit margin lies in the sporting cyclist’s favourite mantra; “Accessorize, accessorize, accessorize.” London’s cyclists know, however, that no amount of whiz-bang gadgets or sweat-whicking clothing are going to get more people on two wheels – only strong clear infrastructure and safe roads for all will do that. Perhaps with their help the city can avoid installing nightmarish cycle lanes such as this, or remember to include cyclists in all of their transport projects in the future, unlike here.

It’s great that the Mayor and his people are seeking out industry opinion, but if they want to know how to really make 2010 London’s cycling year they could start with talking to our city’s cycling groups, dare I say it, it’s cycling bloggers, and - shock-horror-gasp! – even the city’s cyclists themselves.

Is this the worse cycle lane in London?

You'll often hear the argument from other cyclists that we should "be grateful for any cycling provision we get" or that cycle lanes that have been campaigned for have been "hard earnt", as if this means we should be silent in accepting them if they are second rate, or worse still dangerous.


Unfortunately, there are many cycle lanes here in central London that are so second rate as to actually pose a danger to cyclists.  Defensive cycling means cycling at least three feet out from the curb, away from the gutters full of dirt and debris, away from the doors of parked cars that might open at any moment, away from the potholes and drains and, most importantly, out in the lane where you can maintain a straight predictable course (instead of weaving back and forth between gaps in parked cars) and where you can be seen by other road users. 

If you kept within the boundaries of this cycle lane that I snapped on Lambeth Bridge near the Palace of Westminster you would be riding less than half a metre from the curb side - the useable part of the lane (ie the bit not covered in half an inch of raised slippery-when-wet paint or in the gutters) is so narrow you'd be so busy focussing on trying to balance and maintain a straight line within the confines of the lane that you probably wouldn't even notice the lorry ahead of you turning left without signalling....


Cycles lanes like this decrease the road space available to cyclists and, because drivers seem to perceive the painted boundaries of such lanes as some kind of 'magic barrier' are likely to get much closer when passing - this was demonstrated by a report by the Warrington Cycle Campaign  which showed the differences between overtaking space given by vehicles to cyclists on the road and cyclists in designated cycle lanes:

And when cyclists are wise enough to protect themselves by choosing not to use poorly designed cycling infrastructure, they are accused by motor users of not 'getting out of the way' and using the lanes provided (at great expense no doubt!).  This only increases the animosity sometimes evident between cyclists and other road users.

Regardless of the statistical truth, cycling is perceived as being a dangerous activity in central London.  Whilst more and more people are realising how easy, safe and convenient cycling really is, and the numbers of cyclists are growing year on year, we are a long way off from 'convincing the masses' to get astride their bikes.  If there is to be a shift-change towards achieving mass cycling rates (such as in the Netherlands or Denmark where certain urban areas are currently working towards achieving 50% of modal share of journeys by bicycle) there needs to be perceptibly safe and well-designed cycling infrastructure provided.  Our present Mayor is exceptional at marketing cycling in a positive and encouraging way that makes cycling out to be everyday and ordinary, which is great, but the marketing spin has to be backed up with well maintained, well designed and good quality infrastructure to boot.  If you don't think your Mum or Gran would feel safe using the facility provided (such as the Lambeth Bridge cycle lane) then it isn't good enough, and if you don't think your Mum and your Gran would feel safe cycling in the traffic there either then something else, a third way in terms of cycling facilities, needs to be found for London...

Post Script:

Of course not all cycling facilities in London are as bad as the one above, and some do provide safe passage or well constructed contra-flows against one way systems or across dangerous gyratorys.  But they need to be maintained and patrolled (like double yellow lines) to ensure that people don't abuse the facilities and park in them.  Over at MyBikeLane you can view and report incidents of vehicles encroaching on our space.  I am sure that most London cyclists will be more than familiar with having to cycle round one of their worst perpetrators: