Cyclists in the City

My review of Labour's cycling summit at the House of Commons. Is cycling on its way to becoming a boringly normal part of everyday life? I'm pleased to see British Cycling taking some responsibility for achieving that goal..

2012-03-01T22:38:00.001Z

The reality of cycling in London. It really shouldn't have to look like this

Maria Eagle (Labour, Shadow Secretary of State for Transport today hosted a Cycling Summit at the House of Commons. I was impressed that the summit was taking place so promptly in light of The Times's on-going #cyclesafe campaign.

Several Labour councillors attended from around England, including Bristol, York and - closer to home - Hackney. The event was chaired by Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) and other Labour MPs Meg Hillier (Hackney) and Ian Austin (Dudley) both pitched up

No surprises so far.

What struck me was that none of the Labour politicians seemed to be grandstanding their party. In actual fact, the politicians spent the vast majority of the time just listening. When they did talk, it was about making it safer, easier and, frankly, normal to use a bicycle and stressing that this should not be a party-political issue. I agree.

The entire summit felt astonishingly consensual. Representatives from the freight industry, the AA and the construction industry added real value to the discussion and there was significant overlap with many of the comments being made by representatives of the cycling community. The only statement I took issue with was one by the AA who talked about 'roads for living in and roads for movement'. I kind of understood where he was coming from but, in my experience, roads are for people to move, not just people in cars. My sense was that the AA man's world view implied a town of quiet cul de sacs where people live and massive 'roads for movement' in between those quiet streets. That, of course, would deny people the chance to move from the quiet patch where they live to the quiet patch where friends or family live without getting in a car. Not a vision I, or many other people, share.

The one cycling group that really stood out at the summit was British Cycling, which released a statement today calling for tougher sentencing in cases where cyclists are killed and injured on the road. Martin Gibbs, British Cycling's Policy & Legal Affairs director talked about how feeble sentencing "send[s] the wrong message about how we as a society value human life and the rights of people to safely cycle in an environment of mutual respect.” The organisation went a step further and said 'Light sentences for drivers undermine confidence in the justice system'.

I think British Cycling's statement that light sentencing undermines confidence in the justice system is spot on.

The night before last, I was sat in a meeting with some senior police officers who explained to the room why it is difficult to stop people from jumping red lights if they're driving a car but easy to stop someone if they're on a bike. The room acknowledged that people jump red lights. Drivers and cyclists. But it's only the cyclists that get talked about, abused in newspaper columns and generally denigrated. Jump a red light in your car and you'll get off fine, mate. And you certainly won't get pilloried in the media, in the way you would if you were on a bike.

The topics at Labour's summit went much wider than policing and the justice system. There was a sense (shared by pretty much everyone) of a need to better legitimise cycling and to build the infrastructure both on the ground and in the legal and policing frameworks to support that.

I'm pleased British Cycling is picking up on these themes. I dimly remember that British Cycling was involved the first (and only) time I signed up for a 'Skyride' - the one day of the year that the Mayor of London shuts a few roads so that Londoners can use them to cycle on without fear of aggressive motor traffic. I remember at the time thinking it seemed a bit strange that a sporting organisation like British Cycling was branding a Skyride - all hiviz, helmets and families wobbling about in central London.

And it only really permeated through my (sometimes slow) brain today why British Cycling represents something important. Cast your mind back a few weeks to this:

Nicole Cooke, Olympic cyclist and star of British Cycling, talking about Elephant & Castle junction in The Times last month:

"I certainly wouldn’t fancy riding across Vauxhall Cross or Elephant and Castle in rush hour, and those are only two examples. If we want more people to ride their bikes, we can’t have parts of the city where cyclists feel like they are taking a big risk just crossing a junction — it just shouldn’t be that way."

Boris Johnson, Mayor of London on Elephant & Castle junction late last year:

"Elephant & Castle ..is fine. If you keep your wits about you, Elephant & Castle is perfectly negotiable. I want people to feel confident. The cycle superhighways are about building confidence."

It might not look like it, but can this man
help my young niece cycle to school? Maybe....

I can't help but wonder if British Cycling and Nicole Cooke in particular were more than fully aware of Boris Johnson's foolish and blase attitudes to safer cycling and whether her comments about Elephant & Castle were a deliberate but polite rebuttal of the Mayor's stance on the safety of Londoners on bicycles. What Cooke was saying (and by extension, British Cycling) is that even Olympic cyclists think places like Elephant & Castle junction are not safe or sensible places for cycling. In other words, Boris Johnson, if you want a 'cycling revolution', it's not good enough to simply tell people to fling themselves around the Elephant roundabout (my words, not British Cycling's of course).

I also noticed this: British Cycling President Brian Cookson last week wrote an open letter to 2012 mayoral candidates, urging them to put cycling high on the priority list of sustainable transport planning.

Don't get me wrong, I think the London Cycling Campaign is doing amazing things again these days (I think it lost its way a few years ago, to be honest). But for the bicycle to gain legitimacy, we're going to have to move beyond traditional campaigning and start to become refreshingly boring and normal.I'd never really put two and two together before but watching British Cycling in action today, I realised that their presence is a very useful step in the journey of cycling in the UK from campaign mode to normal, everyday, boring, just-get-on-a-bicycle-and-go-to-the-shops mode. I think that's probably a good thing.

'Cycling has risen up the political agenda'. Yes. But ministers need to do more than send a nice letter to council leaders. Come and show politicians you want them to do more. Saturday April 28th. Please join me & 10,000 other people at #thebigride London

2012-02-28T23:16:00.000Z

The government wants councils to look to London for leadership on cycling. We might have nice yellow bikes. But this woman has just given up on trying to cycle here. This needs to change.

According to today's edition of The Times, "Norman Baker, Transport Minister, and Mike Penning, Road Safety Minister, have sent a letter to every council leader or chief executive asking them to make the changes. “Cycling has risen up the political agenda in recent weeks, not least due to the excellent campaign run by The Times, and we are keen to seize the moment to make good progress on a number of fronts,” they write." You can read that letter in full here.

As it happens, ministers, cycling has been rising up the political agenda for more than a few weeks. For some reason, the UK is packed with people blogging and campaigning on cycling issues. There's something odd about cycling in the UK and the fact that it needs to be a political issue in the first place. If you look for blogs about cycling in Germany or the Netherlands, you don't find all that much to read about. Yet, look for blogs about cycling in the UK and there are loads of us writing about local government, about national government, about crap cycle lanes, about lousy infrastructure. None of us started out to be 'campaigners' or to be 'political' per se. But I think (I hope no-one takes issue with me on this), most of the bloggers and other commentators on cycling in the UK would agree with this editorial in The Times last Thursday, when the Times said this of its #cyclesafe campaign: "Success would not be a dip in statistics, and a few stretches of road painted blue. It would be a fundamental change in the popular expectation of how British cities ought to look." Absolutely spot-on.

The Guardian backed up comments by The Times. It described the mentality of UK transport policy which says: "roads are for getting cars from A to B as quickly as possible and everyone else can fend for themselves".

I think what is happening is that people are increasingly saying, 'No! Roads are not just for getting cars from A to B as quickly as possible'. The issue is that people want alternatives. They want to cycle safely. They also want walking to be more convenient (not three minutes for the pedestrian crossing lights to change. Or worse, for the pedestrian crossings to be removed as part of a policy to speed up motor traffic, as is happening in London at the moment).

The Times editorial last week set the standard. The newspaper said that: 'MPs should press the Department for Transport to build new cycle paths, to address the issue of trucks that kill and push new city authorities to appoint people to take responsibility.'

What we have instead is the Ministers who work in the Department of Transport washing their hands of it and saying it's all up to local councils to sort out. Oh, and they should do this by seeking sponsorship for bike lanes. In other words, not our problem, says the DfT. And so I believe that several other commentators are right to point out that they are less than optimistic about the government's response. Cycalogical wrote a very good piece along those lines here.

I suppose the question is, will MPs actually do anything? What's more, will the government, through the Department for Transport, actually do anything? I'm afraid that the letter penned by Ministers Baker and Penning doesn't reassure me.

Blackfriars Flashride number two. This time, let's make it
much, much bigger. And much more inclusive of children, parents,
old and young.

In that context, I think it's time to show Ministers that this is a really, really big deal for a lot of people. And that these issues aren't going away. It's a problem that's going to get bigger and louder.

Last year, Mark of ibikelondon blog and I worked with several volunteers in London Cycling Campaign to organise a series of Flashrides at Blackfriars Bridge. These rides saw over 2,500 come together with only a couple of days' notice each time to protest at the way London's Mayor has designed them out of one of the busiest bicycle bridges in London (36% of rush hour traffic on Blackfriars Bridge is people on bikes). If politicians can ignore people on bikes at a place like Blackfriars, they will have no qualms ignoring people on bikes elsewhere in London and the rest of the UK (notable that in Scotland and Wales, where power is devolved, things are taking a different direction). For those of us in England dealing with the UK parliament, things aren't looking too positive yet.

So, I think it's time to show there are more than a couple of thousand of us. On Saturday April 28th, the London Cycling Campaign is organising The Big Ride (twitter #thebigride).

The Big Ride aims to be the biggest mass participation bicycle ride in the UK ever. I hope that we can gather over 10,000 people to this ride. I'm going to invite everyone I can think of, my friends and my family, to join and to make it a really fun day for everyone. The ride is a week before London's Mayoral elections and it's about sending a message to the Mayor and to all UK politicians that cycling is here to stay.

The London Cycling Campaign has released details about the ride on its website here today.

I'd urge you to join me and 10,000 other people to push for cycling to be taken seriously in our streets and on our roads. And that, Messrs Penning and Baker, means you need to do more than send a nice letter to council leaders. It means you need to actually deliver this yourselves.

I'm planning to join one of the feeder rides to #thebigride and asking my friends and family to join me on that feeder so they don't feel threatened by cycling in London (most of them can and do cycle but most of them won't cycle in London though). I'll have more details on that soon. You're all welcome to join whichever feeder ride suits you.

By the way, if you have thoughts and ideas about what government ministers should be doing for cycling (other than writing polite letters shoving responsibility on local councils), please let me know. I'm very interested to explore some of these ideas.

Please complete the online survey and help get a new north to south bike route from Islington along Bunhill Row. Takes two minutes

2012-02-25T17:23:00.003Z

Two-way cycling streets cropping up all over the City of London. Can you help extend this into Islington?

Last month, the City of London turned almost a dozen one-way streets into two-way routes for people on bikes. You can read about those streets here.

These schemes are designed to make it easier to get through the maze of the City's back streets without having to go round and round in circles. Some of them provide really useful alternatives to some pretty busy and narrow alternatives.

Some of the key new links help people cycle in and out of the City from Islington where there is also a strong network of two-way routes people can use on bikes. However, there is one key missing link, Bunhill Row. You can cycle in both direction on the streets directly north of here but then the route stops as soon as you get to Bunhill Row heading southbound and you're stuck having to detour via some fairly major junctions that take you quite far out of your way and expose you to some of the most dangerous parts of the London road network.

Bunhill Row is wide north-south road that should (in theory) allow you to get into the City from Old Street without having to use the lethal Old Street Roundabout. There are good bike links either side of Bunhill Row but the road itself acts as a kind of barrier to safe, sensible cycling from the north of the City. This should be a crucial entry point into the City for hundreds (more likely thousands?) of people cycling into the City from the north.

After some very tenacious campaigning (and this has been going on for years) from Islington Cyclists Action Group, the council has drawn up plans to allow a contraflow bike lane on Bunhill Row. However, it will only implement this plan if people show they genuinely want this link.

Islington council has an online survey which you can use to show your support for the scheme. The survey is here. It takes two minutes to complete.

If you want to be able to cycle southbound in to the City, I'd urge you to click this link and complete the survey to tell Islington Council you support southbound cycling on Bunhill Row.

As The Guardian comes out in support of The Times, the issue of cycling has now trascended party-politics: My summary of the Westminster Hall debate on cycling. We're all in it together and now the real work begins.

2012-02-24T08:53:00.000Z

Symbolic: Yesterday, the last car showroom in the City of London closed its doors.
It is being turned into a bicycle shop.

Yesterday, 76 MPs including three ministers, debated cycling in the UK. Wesminster Hall was so rammed that Zac Goldsmith (Conservative) could only find a seat on the opposition side of the Hall. Over at ibikelondon blog, there is a picture that tells it all - 75 MPs in the cycling debate, virtually none in the Commons debate at the same time.

It was fascinating to listen to. I had worried earlier in the week that the debate might tend towards a focus on helmets, red light jumping and hi-viz jackets. Although the debate did touch on these things, it did so fairly and in proportion to the wider context. I was impressed by the informed quality of the debate but most of all by the heart-felt passion of the debate. My first observation was 'blimey, who knew so many MPs use bicycles?'. Almost all of them had a personal story to tell. Heidi Alexander (Lab, Lewisham East) talked of how she had twice been knocked off her bicycle and referred to the roundabouts in Lewisham and Elephant & Castle. Echoing the Prime minister, she commented that you 'take your life into your hands' here and that 'we must sort out these junctions'. She's completely right. She was not, by any means, the only MP to have been knocked off her bicycle or to have been intimidated and abused just because she was on a bicycle.

Ian Austin MP (Lab, Dudley) almost brought tears to my eyes at one point. He talked at length about poor sentencing, how drivers that kill on our roads are - for the most part - let off with minor cautions for ruining lives. It was a theme that echoed throughout the debate. His key point was that if people want to ride a bicycle 'they should be able to do so safely'. Spot on.

Again and again, MPs from across the country talked about how children want to cycle to school but can't because their parents don't want them mixing with heavy and fast traffic. Ben Bradshaw (Lab) pointed out that 20% of secondary school children in Exeter now cycle to school, following investment in safe cycle routes, 10% of primary school children. Sarah Wollaston (Conservative, Totnes) and a Conservative Somerset MP both echoed this point. Many MPs pointed out that much of this success was down to work undertaken by Cycling England - an agency that tied together government initiatives for better, safer, normal cycling in England that was scrapped by the coaliton government. There seemed to be general consensus in the room that the government, instead of scrapping Cycling England, should be beefing it up.

A surprise was Jane Ellison, Conservative MP for Wandsworth (a borough that is uniquely awful for cycling, in my view). She talked about the fact that our cities need continental street designs, about including cycling in junctions and at roundabouts. Infrastructure came up again and again during the debate - cycle routes cut in half by six-lane A-roads, bike lanes with cars parked in them, stop-start bicycle infrastructure that was a result of stop-start bicycling investment. I was almost floored by Oliver Colvile MP (Con) representing Plymouth - a somewhat portly chap, if you follow my meaning - who talked about being a lapsed bicycle user, someone who would cycle but only if there were properly delineated space for cycling on our roads away from big lorries. Here was someone who hasn't used a bicycle in decades but understood clearly why people don't cycle and knew instinctively what needs doing. I don't know the man but I felt his jocular commentary was important for really driving home how non party-political this issue is and how it really isn't about young, fit males sprinting to work in pelotons. It's about everyone and anyone.

Flashride to Parliament, the night before the debate.
Courtesy zefrog http://www.flickr.com/photos/zefrog/

All in all, though, three MPs blew me away (well, almost). Ian Austin, I've already mentioned. The other two were Julian Huppert (LibDem, Cambridge) and Maria Eagle (Labour, Shadow Secretary of State for Transport).

Eagle's main theme was this: "What struck me about that was how obvious were the changes we need to see. This isn’t one of those issues that needs a major ideological debate to be won – just some common sense. And a renewed commitment to cycling safety. None of these things needs to be impossible – or even difficult – to deliver. It’s as much about will as money." She's spot on that it's all about will. This is a theme that we've seen again and again in London where our Mayor has tended to take choices that encourage more and easier driving and instead of choosing safer, easier cycling or walking for Londoners.

I feel that the previous Labour government promised big things for cycling. You can look at the (utterly failed) National Cycling Strategy and see a promise to have 10% of all journeys made by bike in 2012. The money and the commitment never happened. But I think full credit to Eagle. She has got behind this issue, understood it and has dragged her party's heavyweights with her. She acknowledged one key point: "we will not repeat the mistakes of the past – and start taking into account the impact on cyclists of road design". Good.

Eagle talked, as did many others, about the need to fund cycling properly from the centre. Ian Austin talked about the fact that the UK spends £0.79 per person on cycling and that a real commitment would see that figure nearer to £10. Even that is less than half what is spent per head in countries like the Netherlands.

I think, though, the real star of the show was Julian Huppert (LibDem) MP for Cambridge who batted hard-hitting answers questions with speed and precision. His summary was that UK streets should be places that can be used by people from eight to 80. And he's right.

What struck me was the enormously consensual nature of the debate. This wasn't a debate of party-political proportions. It was a debate that showed people care about these issues in their communities. And it was striking how the Guardian newspaper picked up on that theme: 'Whatever newspaper you read (or don't read)', said the Guardian yesterday, 'sign up for the Times campaign. If you live in London support the London Cycling Campaign's Love London, Go Dutch initiative. And maybe, just maybe, the mentality that says "roads are for getting cars from A to B as quickly as possible and everyone else can fend for themselves" that pervades much of UK transport policy will start to change.'

I can't think of the last time that the Guardian came out in support of an initiative by a News International publication. What this says to me is that from this point on, we're all in this together. We're not cyclists any more, we are people that want to get about the places we live in. And we want to do that as responsible, normal citizens and do so by bike, safely.

I felt tremendously sorry for Norman Baker MP (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport), the man responsible for cycling. He had to sum up the government's response. He is a man who, I think, 'gets' these issues. But he is also the man whose boss scrapped Cycling England. The sentiment in Westminster Hall was fairly united. I sensed MPs on all sides of the House wanted more from the government. Norman Baker is going to need to stand up to his boss. And those of us who believe in these things are going to have to make a lot more noise to make that happen.

You can start by putting Saturday April 28th in your diary. We want this to be the date of the biggest ever bicycle ride in London and the biggest statement of support for cycling. It's about ordinary people saying they support cycling, converging on London but coming from all over the UK. Read here for more details.

You can read more about the debate on The Times's website here

David Cameron: cycling in our cities 'is taking your life into your hands' and promises piffling £25million. As the lady says, 'Grannies want to cycle too'. Says it all, frankly - My review of last night's Flashride at Parliament

2012-02-23T08:54:00.001Z

This glamorous granny has made exactly the right
point. Cyclesafe Flashride is about all of us

Yesterday, David Cameron stood up at Prime minister's question time and said this in response to a question by Cambridge MP Julian Huppert: "Anyone who has got on a bicycle, particularly in one of our busier cities, knows you are taking your life into your own hands every time you do so and so we do need to do more to try and make cycling safer." You can see the PM's full statement on The Times's website here.

Cameron went on to announce a handful of low-budget investments that the government will support - some mirrors, some cycling training. Nothing terribly significant.

Last night, the police reckon that around 2,000 people came to the Flashride at Parliament. My own view is that most of them came to say that the sort of status quo Cameron was promising is no longer enough. In actual fact, Cameron scrapped Cycling England, the poorly-funded cycling body and has replaced it with some dribs and drabs of money for mirrors and some cycle training. Mirrors are nice but not the answer. The Dutch road safety institute thinks this is completely the wrong way to go about things, for example. Cycle training for children is a must-have, frankly, not something the Prime minister should be too proud of.

But the point is that it is no longer enough to fob cycling off with handfuls of cash on isolated projects here and there. I said last week that - for the timebeing at least - those of us who cycle are a small niche. We are given only the odd niche bits of infrastructure. But many many more people want to cycle. And they don't feel they have the choice to cycle because of the way our roads are designed and because of the culture of our roads and traffic laws. To get these people on their bikes means cycling needs to be included as a formal mode of transport, one that involves sustained and consistent investment. The government spent nearly £4billion on UK roads last year. Cameron announced a whopping £15-25 million for cycling in the Commons and none of that is about building the sorts of facilities that would encourage more glamorous grandmothers like the lady pictured above to hop on their bike to the shops.

The editor of The Times wrote this today: "Our cities must be reimagined so that the cyclist is no hindrance to the motorist, and the motorist no danger in return....It is a campaign that intends to change the way we live". Hard-hitting stuff.

I said something clunkier on the BBC last night (forgive me, I was slightly nervous to make sure last night was a success) but with the same goal: "I thought [Cameron] was completely spot-on. He’s absolutely right that it’s quite difficult to cycle in UK cities. The thing is it shouldn’t be difficult to cycle in the UK and that’s a factor of how much investment we put into the UK, which has been pretty minimal and pretty patchy.”

Road.cc has summed up the mood well in its post-Flashride report: "Organiser says MPs at Thursday's debate should ask themselves whether they would let their children ride to school".

But I think the best description of last night was made by someone else who came along on the ride on his blog here: "I have never taken part in any type of rally, protest or demonstration prior to today. It was great! A real feeling of solidarity among like minded people who want to make a difference – making our roads safer for cycling and encouraging more people to take it up. Eminently sensible when the vast majority of car journeys in this country are <2 miles but most people are put off because they consider that cycling on our roads it just far too dangerous."

Sums it all up, really.

Today, MPs will sit down and debate issues around cycling. I'm keen to know how they repsond to these sorts of questions.

In the meantime, a huge thank you goes to Ian Austin MP (Lab) and Julian Huppert MP (LibDem) and Steve Brine (Con) for working so hard on this issue and to the rest of the All Parliamentary Cycling Group. An equally large vote of thanks goes to the Metropolitan Police who advised and supported us on last night's ride. At one point, an idiot in a BMW X5 exited the House of Commons car park then tried to ram his way through 2,000 people on bikes in Parliament Square. I'm pleased to say the man was swiftly surrounded by a number of very grumpy policemen before accelerating off very harshly. I don't know what, if any action, was taken but the man was clearly abusing his powers. Above all, my thanks to my co-conspirator Mark Ames of ibikelondon blog, to the 30 people who volunteered to help marshal last night's ride and to the London Cycling Campaign for taking centre stage on these issues and leading from the front.

Have a look at what the BBC has to say. And then book this date in your diary. Saturday 28th April, central London. A week before the Mayoral election. We want to bring 10,000 people together for a Flashride with children, parents, dogs, commuters, racing bikers, the whole community that believes cycling should be made normal for all of us. Oh, and please, more glamorous grandmothers. The London Cycling Campaign is taking the lead on this and I'm whole-heartedly behind it. Brompton bicycles and the Dutch Embassy in London have backed it. I hope many more of us will back it with our pedals and that more sponsors will come forwards too.

MPs debate cycling this week, Prime Minister hosts cycling summit. 63% agreed that they would find cycling on the roads stressful. No wonder cycling is such a marginal activity in Britain.

2012-02-20T09:08:00.002Z

Believe it or not, this is a bike lane.
No wonder most people drive.

MPs will be debating cycle safety this week, thanks - in part - to the CycleSafe campaign spearheaded by The Times. Tomorrow, the Prime Minister has announced, he will host a 'future cities' conference which may feature a flicker of discussion about cycling and the sorts of models used in other cities. The PM's debate sounds rather too futuristic for my liking when basic changes on the ground are what's needed, not apartment blocks where you can ride to the 10th floor.

Ahead of the debate, the House of Commons library has published a briefing note summarising official statistics on cycling safety. Here are the key points as shown on the intro page:

In Great Britain, in 2010:

• 3 billion vehicle miles were travelled on pedal cycles, 1% of all vehicle miles taken on the roads

• Males cycled more miles on average (66 miles per person) than females (19 miles per person

• 111 cyclists were killed on the roads; the second lowest number in the last 61 years

• 2,660 cyclists were seriously injured on the roads; the highest number this century

• Four-fifths of cyclists killed or seriously injured were male

The note is a decent summary of the bare facts, but is rather lacking when it comes to explaining them. And there's a risk that some MPs might draw completely the wrong conclusions. For example, at first glance it looks great that 2010 saw the lowest number of cyclist deaths in 61 years. On that basis, you might be forgiven for asking what the problem is supposed to be.

I think there are three crucial points which the Commons briefing note doesn't capture, and which MPs need to be aware of.

First, the low cycling rate (1% of traffic) and the low number of casualties are both due to the same phenomenon: most people don't cycle because most people don't think cycling is safe, so it has become the preserve of a small of minority of people on a small minority of roads. (Even the Daily Mail agrees with this point, for more see here). The disparity in serious injury rates between cycling and driving is huge, 553 per billion km for cycling versus 15 for driving. And as The Times has pointed out, the cyclist fatality rate in Britain is three times higher than in the Netherlands.

New York bike lane. Clear space to cycle in

People are well aware of the disproportionate risks cycling involves. A Department for Transport survey found that an overwhelming majority of people (86%) identified cycling as the least safe mode of transport. The same survey found that 60% of people who can ride a bike think the roads are too dangerous, while 63% agreed that they would find cycling on the roads stressful. Today's Guardian revealed a Sustrans poll which states emphatically that: 'The majority of Britons believe it remains unsafe to cycle on urban roads'. No wonder cycling is such a marginal activity in Britain.

Second, the reason cycling is so unsafe in Britain is because cyclists are so exposed to traffic. There is actually very little that is inherently dangerous about cycling, as shown by the fact that just 8% of the deaths or serious injuries to cyclists in 2010 were ‘single vehicle’ cases, compared to 26% of motorcyclist and 33% of car KSIs (see this table). That means that the overwhelming majority of deaths or serious injuries to cyclists are due to collisions with other traffic.

Third, the casualty rate is much lower now than it was in the 1950s, but since the early 2000s it's been fairly static (and in some places is getting worse). So as more people have taken up cycling, more cyclists have been getting killed or injured. You might wonder why more people are cycling if it’s so much riskier than the alternatives. I think it’s probably got a lot to do with the alternatives getting less attractive, as our roads and public transport get more crowded and/or more expensive. In any case, governments at all levels are constantly talking about trying to encourage people to cycle. If they succeed, are they willing to live with more casualties, or will they make the safety improvements required to make it safe for everyone?

Which brings me to the last point not covered by the Commons note. When you ask people what would get them cycling, they are most likely to ask for safe, high quality cycle facilities – you know, like they have in the Netherlands. In that DfT survey, 52% of people agreed that they would cycle more if there were more dedicated cycle paths. And when the London Cycling Campaign recently asked people what single change would encourage them to cycle more, the two most popular suggestions were “Safe and convenient cycle lanes all over London” and “Making it safer to cycle across junctions and roundabouts”.

No doubt there will be challenges making cycling in places like central London safe. But it is do-able, providing we stop designing roads for cars and start designing them for people. Hopefully the debate in parliament this Thursday will be the start of that.

(Note, this piece is written by a contributor but one whose voice I agree with 100%)
------------------

You can see the two Early Day Motions that are up for discussion by clicking here and here. You can also see how MPs have been responding to their constituents in London, Scotland, Wales and elsewhere in England by clicking here.

It's not to late to write to your MP before Thursday's debate asking them to attend by clicking here and sending an email directly to them.Alternatively, attend the Flashride to Parliament on Wednesday night to remind MPs why we feel this is important.

MP implies people who use a bicycle to get to work 'not essential to the economy'. Here's an update on how MPs are responding to The Times's 'cities fit for cycling' campaign. Flashride to Parliament Wednesday night. Join in.

2012-02-19T10:47:00.003Z

I put it to Angie Bray MP that the people parking their bicycles in this office in the City of London are just as 'essential to the economy' as the people driving motor vehicles on London's roads. I'm not sure she realises that.

Last night I posted details of the many MPs who have responded to their constituents asking them to support The Times's #cyclesafe campaign and to make our cities fit for anyone to cycle in. You can see what your MP has to say if you live in Southwark, Lambeth, Westminster, the City or in the Prime Minister's constituency by looking here. A number of Conservative MPs have sent a cut and paste response which you can see on this link here. However, Andrew Jones (Con) MP for Harrogate and PPS to Justine Greening has confirmed he will attend the debate and has indicated support for making our cities places where people can cycle as a matter of habit.

This morning I realised that I should collect a list of the MPs who haven't yet responded. Now, I don't want to get too hard on these MPs. Perhaps some of them are on holiday for the Parliamentary break. Some, however, are known to be fairly anti the idea of people getting about on bikes as a normal mode of transport. Angie Bray, Conservative MP for Ealing Central, made some fairly illuminating comments on twitter earlier this month which show where she thinks the priorities lie:

"@AngieBrayMP I certainly back safer cycling and segregated lanes surely help.But roadspace has to be shared so not always easy on busy roads"

"@AngieBrayMP I think the change in numbers probably marginal and it is mainly commercial traffic which is of course essential to the economy."

"@AngieBrayMP yes of course but we have to find a way of protecting the vulnerable while accommodating what is necessary."

"@AngieBrayMP they are carrying goods/tools/supplies etc which clearly can't fit on a bike"

Good that she sees the point of safe space to cycle. Bad that she doesn't realise the lack of this safe space is why the 'change in numbers probably marginal'. Equally bad that she doesn't understand someone on a bicycle might be just as 'essential to the economy' as someone driving.

I'm building a list of MPs who have failed to respond to constituents. If yours is ignoring the cyclesafe motion, please let me know and I'll add them to the list.

List of MPs who have failed to write back to their correspondents' letters about making our cities fit for cycling include:

Stephen Dorrell (Con) Charnwood, Leicestershire
Glenda Jackson (Lab), Hampstead & Kilburn
Joan Ruddock (Lab), Lewisham & Deptford - Has since responded with a positive message.
Eleanor Laing (Con), Epping Forest
John Cryer (Lab) Leyton & Wanstead
Frank Dobson (Lab) Holborn & St Pancras
Barry Gardiner (Lab) Brent North
Malcolm Wicks (Lab), Croydon North
Lyn Brown (Lab), West Ham
Vince Cable (LibDem), Twickenham
Nick Raynsford (Lab) Greenwich & Woolwich
Angie Bray (Con) Central Ealing & Acton and Richard Ottaway (Con) Croydon South - neither has responded to constituents directly but both have signed up to the template letter you can see here.

Meanwhile, if you regularly use the incredibly popular, segregated cycle track that runs east-west through Bloomsbury, you might like to see how Frank Dobson MP tried very hard indeed to prevent that cycle track from being built in the first place by reading this excellent review here.

If your MP is on this list, then write to them before Thursday's debate asking them to attend by clicking here and sending an email directly to them.

Just in case the point still isn't clear enough, do some
MPs think these people cycling to work in London
aren't doing their bit for the economy?

Some additional responses from other MPs
You can see how Kate Hoey (Lab) Vauxhall responded here and Mark Field (Con) Cities of London & Westminster here. Emily Thornberry (Lab) Islington South & Finsbury - has been in touch saying she can't participate in Early Day Motions but is inclined to support.

The senior Labour team involved in transport has been very clear and come up with a three point plan that contains many of the right issues. You can see those details on a previous post here.

Simon Hughes (LibDem) Southwark & Bermondsey has shown real understanding of cycling issues and been a prominent supporter. You can see his latest update on his website here.

I've seen positive reports from Zac Goldsmith (Con) Richmond and from Mike Freer (Con), Finchley & Golders Green. Freer's response to a constituent was generally sympathetic and talked about the fact that he cycles to work but contained the magical line that 'the roads are rarely wide enough to carve out a dedicated and segregated cycle lanes'. Firstly, that slightly misses the point. Segregation is one of several tools in the road kit. Also, it's not true. I asked one UK-based Danish diplomat to respond to Freer's email on twitter and this is what she said: "seems unambitious, when comparing LDN w my native CPH then seems there is room on streets & in heads for more #cyclesafety :)"

Exactly right: The 'lack of space on our streets for safe cycling' is actually about the lack of room in our heads. There's plenty of space, we just need to think about our neighbourhoods differently.

Mark Lazarowicz, (Labour-Cooperative), Edinburgh North & Leith said: "The potential danger presented by motorists driving at speed in urban areas can put many people off cycling. Cyclists are inherently more vulnerable than motorists and drivers should be more aware of the need of cyclists, especially when they are turning right or at junctions."

Jonathan Evans (Welsh Conservatives) Cardiff North: "I welcome the current campaign launched by The Times, which aims to improve safety. However, it is also important to improve through improving the proficiency of cyclists and by enforcing proper compliance with the Highway Code. I am disturbed by evidence that a major number of cyclists routinely ignore traffic lights and pedestrian crossings. I was struck by such a cyclist myself in London recently who told me he did not consider that compliance with lights and pedestrian crossings applied to cyclists. I also believe that it is important to promote the wearing of helmets by cyclists as part of this safety campaign..."

Bring a bike and join our ride to Parliament to ask MPs to make cycling a serious transport choice. Join us Wednesday 22nd February. Meet at the Duke of York steps, The Mall, 6.15pm.

More details on ibikelondon blog here and on the London Cycling Campaign page here. You can even register for the ride (but you don't need to) on the Londoners on Bikes website here. I'm also delighted that both Brompton bicycles and Evans Cycles have committed to support the Flashride. It would be lovely to see some other big cycling names get behind the ride as well.

Too many MPs have been failing cycling since 1996. It's not good enough to fail again. Now Brompton bicycles and Evans Cycles get behind next week's Flashride. Please join us on Wednesday and help encourage MPs to support cycling in our cities

2012-02-18T18:56:00.001Z

If she lived in Denmark, she'd probably
be cycling to school on her own next year.
Not in our country though. Something's
gone very wrong here.

"It is crystal clear that the bicycle has been underrated and under-used in the United Kingdom for many years. This is especially true when one looks at those other European countries where cycle use has been increased and maintained by deliberate action at both local and national level. There is enormous potential to increase the use of cycles in Britain, but it will only be realised if we develop a coherent approach setting out how the status quo can be altered in favour of the bicycle.” - UK National Cycle Strategy 1996.

I'd argue that, from a political and policy perspective, the bicycle has been largely underrated and under-used ever since 1996.

This week, MPs debate cycle safety for the first time (that I'm aware of at least) since that Strategy was set. It has been fascinating to see how MPs have been talking about cycling over the last few days.

My own MP, Labour's Kate Hoey, has been slightly disparaging and Mark Field MP for Westminster and the City sent an extremely ambiguous response to one of his constituents.

In general, Conservative MPs have copied and pasted an official line that seems to ignore many of the actual issues. One Conservative response has stood out, though, that of Hugh Robertson, Minister for Sport, talking to The Times. The most important thing, says Mr Roberston, is "that parents have confidence that their children can cycle in a safe environment." Spot on, I think.

Labour's Transport team has been highly active on twitter about cycling matters and seems to have encouraged some extremely positive responses from many of the more senior Labour MPs. Sadiq Khan, former transport minister spells out Labour's position on his blog:

First, a proportion of existing government funding for roads should be sent aside to be spent on building new cycle ways, improving junction design and installing traffic light phasing to give cyclists a head start.

Second, the government’s trial of longer HGVs should be axed and income from the proposed HGV road charging scheme used to support the road haulage industry in upgrading safety measures and training.

Third, the national targets to reduce deaths and serious injuries on Britain’s roads, axed by the government, should be reinstated.

Sadiq Khan MP hops on a bike

Harriet Harman (Labour) Camberwell & Peckham: "I am putting out a call to all cyclists in Southwark to let me know where they feel unsafe so these areas can be sorted out."

Chuka Umuna (Labour) Streatham: "Despite the importance of cycling proficiency and awareness, we must never give the impression that the responsibility to prevent collisions simply rests with cyclists. That is why The Times is right to highlight the importance of measures such as improving road junctions, creating alternative cycle routes and improving safety equipment on HGVs."

Karen Buck (Labour) Westminster North: 'It cannot be right that people have to fear their friends and relatives getting on a bike, particularly in our cities.'

Simon Hughes (LibDem) Southwark & Bermondsey : 'Southwark has huge potential for increasing cycling numbers but more must be done be the council to support cycling in our borough. The council's current target for increasing cycling levels from 4% to 5% by 2025 is pathetic, and alongside proposals to remove cycle lanes from 20mph zones, it's a pretty dim picture.'

Mark Field (Conservative) Westminster and City of London: "It is the job of government to balance the sometimes competing needs of all road users....Without a better understanding of the implications, therefore, I am afraid I am reluctant to give the aims of the campaign my wholehearted support. Nevertheless, if politicians are to continue to encourage the public to cycle - and this is something which is very actively promoted in a city like London - I would have thought that the time is ripe to review whether the existing arrangements are working well enough..."

David Cameron (Prime minister): "Ministers have committed to improve the driving test..."

As I said last week, that's why I will be attending the Flashride on Wednesday 22nd February, the eve of the biggest debate on cycling this country has seen in 16 years. I want to remind those MPs that it's time to fulfil the 'enormous potential' for cycling in the UK as a serious means of transport. They've been failing since 1996. Here's a chance to make them realise it's not good enough to fail again.

Join us. Wednesday 22nd February. Meet at the Duke of York steps, The Mall, 6.15pm.

More details on ibikelondon blog here and on the London Cycling Campaign page here. You can even register for the ride (but you don't need to) on the Londoners on Bikes website here. I'm also delighted that both Brompton bicycles and Evans Cycles have committed to support the Flashride. It would be lovely to see some other big cycling names get behind the ride as well.

It's not too late to write to your MP and tell them why you think they should attend the debate by clicking here and sending an email directly to them.

---------------

I'm building a list of MPs who have failed to respond to constituents. If yours is ignoring the cyclesafe motion, please let me know. You can see the list by clicking here.

I want my MP to take next week's cycling debate seriously - not just helmets, hi-viz and training. That's why I'll be at the Flashride the night before. Join our Flashride at Westminster, Wednesday 22nd February.

2012-02-15T23:09:00.002Z

Call the Midwife. My gran remembers cycling all over.
She'd never contemplate it now: 'too many cars..!'

Once upon a time, a UK politician who divides opinion told people looking for work 'to get on their bike'. So I did. When I was 17, I went and worked in Germany to earn enough money to pay for my first year at university. I bought a second hand bike and cycled to work. In a car factory, of all places.

I couldn't afford to live in the town so I rented a room 10km away. I didn't have a helmet or any hi-viz. But I did have some lights and I cycled in my work clothes. The entire route went along either a bike track or through streets in the town that were only for bikes and for the people that lived there to drive in and out.

Looking back, it sounds rather quaint but what I didn't really appreciate at the time was that this was something normal in Germany. The municipality was designed to include me on a bike in a way that you rarely see in the UK.

I very much doubt I'd have done an equivalent journey by bike in the UK back then. I would probably have caught the bus or looked for a lift to work. The reason? An equivalent journey in the UK would have meant cycling down the dual carriageway with cars at 70mph+ and lorries thundering past me, rather than cycling on a bike track well away from it. The infrastructure just isn't there to make me want to do everyday cycling and feel I'm doing something safe and normal in my everyday clothes.

I don't really have a problem with cars. I think people rely on them too much, I think they pollute too much and I think over-dependence on them is killing off our town centres (Mary Portas, bizarrely, can't appreciate that point). But like many people, I see them as something of a necessary evil. I don't cycle because it's sustainable or because it's green or because it's 'active travel'. I just use a bike to get around. End of story.

Back then (we're talking mid 1990s) there were just shy of 20 million cars in the UK. Now there are just shy of 30 million. That's a pretty fundamental shift in the way our roads look and feel. During that period, almost nothing has happened to make it easier or safer to cycle on those roads, despite the fact there are massively more people using them now in faster and bigger cars.

My feeling is that people who aren't in cars have been squeezed off the roads by the massive shift towards a car-centric transport network.

During that period, many politicians will argue, our roads have become safer. So what's the big deal? Well, here's a comment by Peter Hitchens, writing in the Mail on Sunday of all places:

"I think our roads are statistically safer largely because soft targets, particularly child cyclists, have almost entirely retreated from them. But the roads are not really safer. It’s just that people have learned to avoid them unless they themselves go out in armour, and have narrowed their lives as a result."

I couldn't agree more.

Next week, for the first time in over 16 years, cycling gets a look-in at national level. As Carlton Reid points out: "In the mid-1990s both Labour and the Conservatives seemed to be fighting over who could be the most cycle-friendly. But bugger all got done. All the promises, all the pledges, they all got broken."

Hats off to The Times's 'Cities fit for cycling campaign' for raising the issue at a national level (although I note Scotland's government has already radically altered its funding plans in favour of cycling) and to Julian Huppert MP (LibDem) for tabling next Thursday's early day motion in Westminster. Hats-off also to the several MPs (Simon Hughes LibDem and Zac Goldsmith Conservative stand out in London so far) for getting behind the campaign. Labour's Sadiq Khan (Shadow Lord Chancellor and Shadow Secretary of State for Justice) told me today on twitter that his party supports 'proper cycle ways, junction design and traffic phasing'. We'll see what happens.

Carlton Reid continues: "Big bucks needs to be thrown around to protect vulnerable road users. Some tough decisions need to be made on how we want our cities to look in 20 years time. And the race tracks that are our rural roads need to be changed, too. Naturally, it will be far easier for MPs to lobby for things like helmet compulsion for cyclists rather than place draconian restrictions on the “freedoms” enjoyed - and exploited - by Mondeo-man."

David Cameron's response to the cycling debate.
Sadly lacking.

I've been dismayed by the responses to the cycling debate that many Conservative MPs have sent to their constituents. Many have used the exact same text as this letter sent by David Cameron which you can see here.

As Carlton Reid points out, the emphasis risks being 'cyclists should wear helmets, cyclists should wear hi-viz, cyclists should have more training'. End of debate.

I think that's only the start of the debate and I'm disappointed to see how many Conservative MPs have sent a cut and paste version of Cameron's letter. It suggests they don't really understand why thousands of people are writing to them about cycling.

That's why I will be attending the Flashride on Wednesday 22nd February, the eve of the biggest debate on cycling this country has seen in 16 years. I want to remind those MPs, including my own Labour MP (whose response you can see here) that I want them to understand the issue and not resort to helmets, hi-viz and training as the be all and end all of the problem.

Join us. Wednesday 22nd February. Meet at the Duke of York steps, The Mall, 6.15pm.

More details on ibikelondon blog here and on the London Cycling Campaign page here.

It's not too late to write to your MP and tell them why you think they should attend the debate by clicking here and sending an email directly to them.

Flashride Wednesday 22 February, 6.15pm, The Mall. Too many MPs think #cyclesafe is just about more training and bike mirrors. There's much more to it. Come and tell them to make cycling a legitimate mode of transport not just a training 'issue'

2012-02-15T09:29:00.000Z

The Newington Gardens Womens' Cycling Group
Frankly, this is the sort of thing that the words 'cyclist' and 'London' ought to conjure up in people's minds. One day...
Courtesy Kennington People on Bikes blog. For more info click here.

The Telegraph's London correspondent, Andrew Gilligan, made a good point in his blog this week:

"If we are to get the improvements we need, we need to avoid coming across as shrill or entitled. Not all cycle safety campaigners manage this, frankly. And if cycling is to become a genuinely mass means of travel, as it is in Germany or the Netherlands, with the mass political clout that entails, we mustn’t needlessly scare off the parents and the grannies and all those people you see cycling over there, but never over here."

I sense that Gilligan thinks my blog can sometimes be a little shrill. And in a way, sometimes it can. Largely because I try to point out the dangers being designed into our roads and to show how those often lethal designs are the result of policy decisions by the Mayor or by local authorities. Although I disagree with Gilligan that we might 'scare off the parents and grannies' - in the London I live in most of the grannies or mothers with kids already seem to be scared off zipping about on bikes - he is right to say that only when these sorts of people think using a bike is something they want to do will there be sufficient mass political clout to shift 'cycling' from a niche to an everyday issue.

And in a way, those of us who use bikes at the moment are a small (albeit growing) niche. We are given only the odd niche bits of infrastructure on London's roads too. In fact, we're caught in a sort of trap where Transport for London doesn't seem to understand how to make roads that anyone and everyone would feel safe to use on a bike and instead tries to address the issue of 'cycling' by adding a few niche bits of infrastructure here and there. Transport for London tends to slot safe cycling as a kind of niche around its day job, that of moving as many motor vehicles around the city as possible. It's all slightly self-reinforcing.

This has been going on for years. A decade ago, the London Cycle Network was in full swing. Although much of that network is still very useful, you need to be a pretty dedicated 'cyclist' to know where it is and how to use it. For the most part, it's very very niche indeed. I'd point out that under the last Mayor, Ken Livingstone, grand plans were floated for 'de-niching' the London Cycling Network and making it something much more useful. Never happened though.

And so I can understand why Boris Johnson scrapped most of the funding for the London Cycle Network and went for the Cycle Super Highways instead. They're big, loud and you can't miss them. On the surface, at least, the Cycle Super Highways sound incredibly sensible.

Parliament Square - London Cycling Campaign impression
of how the Square could work better for people not just motor traffic

Unfortunately, much about the Super Highways has been deeply compromised, sometimes fatally so. Again and again, Super Highways wimp out exactly when you need them - at major junctions, or alongside multiple lanes of fast-moving motor traffic. The result is that the Mayor has replaced one niche solution with another. No wonder most Londoners still don't see bikes as just a normal way to travel in London.
After four years of Boris Johnson's 'cycling revolution', there still isn't a single obvious and safe route through central London for people to use on their bikes and the 'revolution' seems to be confined to only some blue paint that helps commuters cycle to work during a three hour window each day.

That's to the detriment of all of us, whether we sit in congestion in buses, taxis and cars; whether we live on residential streets turned into rat runs; whether we wonder why our high street shops are shutting down in favour of large out of town retail outlets (that people drive to) or whether we want to use a bike to get around at night or to the shops or to school.

Gilligan is right to say that we need to think bigger than this. In particular, we need our politicians to think bigger than this. Next week, MPs will meet next week to debate the issue of making our cities fit for cycling - a debate that has been made possible thanks to the noise generated by The Times's Cities fit for cycling campaign. So far, the responses I've seen from MPs have been varied. Shadow Transport Secretary Maria Eagle has been very supportive, as has Julian Huppert (LibDem) who tabled the early day motion on the topic - the first serious debate on cycilng as a mode of transport in 16 years. My own local Labour MP in Lambeth has sent mixed messages and the Conservative MP for Westminster and the City of London has indicated he is not supportive.Four other Conservative MPs have sent this identical letter which you can see here.

A typical London bike lane. Encouraging cycling by keeping
people safe from large, fast, dangerous machines

I don't think it's good enough that MPs believe the issue is simply one of the relative merits of mirrors, advance traffic lights or other niche ideas about how to make cycling a viable mode of transport. I want MPs to realise the debate is about something much bigger than that. It's about creating an environment where we give people space to get about that is not entirely dominated by the private car.

One campaign that I think has started using this sort of language is the launch last week of the London Cycling Campaign's Love London Go Dutch effort. This is a campaign that is focussed entirely on making London the sort of place where grannies and mums with kids can get about more easily and safely by bike and not just by car. According to research by the Campaign, 81% of mothers said they could be encouraged to cycle and favoured safer bikes lanes or safer junctions and roundabouts to help them do so.

Pictured above, the LCC's vision for Parliament Square. Sponsored by Brompton Bicycles and supported by the Dutch Embassy, the LCC is aiming to show how the Mayor could create "more people-friendly streets where people work, shop and live".To that end, the Campaign is hosting a mass bike ride on April 28, designed for all Londoners from young to old. It is also building a petition that states: "I want the mayoral candidates to pledge to make London more liveable for everyone by making our streets as safe and inviting for cycling as they are in Holland” You can sign the petition here.

The point I'd like to make to MPs and to our Mayor is that they can choose to make London and other cities more liveable and more easily accessible for everyone. It's up to them to start talking about this from a policy-making perspective.

Bike being used yesterday for its true purpose?
Courtesy Murad Qureshi, London Assembly
Member via twitter

It is in that context, that several of us have decided next week is time to host another flashride. Our intention is not to be 'shrill or entitled'. Our intention is to focus the minds of our MPs and our Mayor. We want to encourage MPs to attend the debate and to listen to the actual issues, not spend three hours talking about the odd niche solution here and there. In fact, what I'd really hope for is a realisation that to really make it possible for 'grannies and parents' to get about by bike, requires people in senior political and policy roles to own targets to achieve just that.

The police are providing support, there will be marshalls helping us on the way, a number of MPs have expressed support, the London Cycling Campaign is in support and ibikelondon blog has a well-argued post with more details here.
Meet Wednesday 22 February Duke of York steps on the Mall at 6.15PM for a 6.30PM departure (see link for location)

We'll head down the Mall, along Horseguards Parade, around Parliament Square to Lambeth Bridge, along the south to Westminster Bridge, back round Parliament Square up Whitehall to Trafalgar Square, through Admiralty Arch back to the steps. Please join us.

It's not a protest. It's not even about 'safer cycling' per se. It's a polite but forceful request to our MPs and to the Mayor to listen to and think about the bigger picture : to make our cities places in which we can live and get around more easily and healthily for all of us and not simply kick around issues of more bike training, more bike mirrors and other niche solutions that won't change the current status quo. And to encourage MPs to attend the debate taking place the next day.

-----

If you haven't already, it's not too late to write to your MP as well and ask them to attend the debate on 23rd February. You can email your MP using http://www.writetothem.com/. Mark at ibikelondon has a useful template email you can send at this link here but it's always best if you can send a personal email that explains why you think it's important that they take cycling seriously.

My Labour MP tells me it's my responsibility to keep away from danger when I'm on my bike. How am I supposed to do that when the Mayor is re-designing London roads to make it even harder to stay safe?

2012-02-10T19:17:00.000Z

The old A13 junction at Blackwall Tunnel with its relatively
safer bus and bike lane. Picture thanks to @jplumbum on twitter

The Times's Cities fit for cycling campaign is going from strength to strength.

On February 23, MPs will debate cycle safety for three hours. And if you haven't done so yet, do take two minutes to ask your MP to attend the debate by filling out this form.

I did exactly that earlier this week and wrote to Kate Hoey, Labour MP for Lambeth. The text of her response follows:

"Thank you for writing to me about the Times Cities Fit for Cycling Campaign. I certainly agree that the number of cyclists who die on our streets each year is a concern that needs to be addressed. The Times Manifesto lists some interesting proposals, and I would add the need for cyclists to clearly understand their environments and not put themselves in danger.

I fully understand your concerns and have been happy to raise them with the Transport Minister."

I'm at a slight loss how to interpret this response. On the one hand, good news she's listening. On the other, what's this statement where she says 'cyclists must not put themselves in danger' all about?

Let's look at one example. Pictured above, the A13 in London at the entrance to the Blackwall Tunnel, a main route into the City of London from east London. The picture shows the road layout as it used to be.

Have a look at the video below (or click here to view) which shows the exact same junction now that is has been redesigned by London's supposedly cycle-friendly Mayor. This new road layout was finished a couple of weeks ago, part of Boris Johnson's scheme to revise London's junctions to make traffic flow more 'smoothly'.

This new Boris-designed junction is frankly terrifying. Where once you could cycle in relative safety in the bus lane, now you have to swing into the second lane of four, a lane in which motor vehicles will be turning left in front of you at high speed as you pedal frantically straight ahead. It's unbelievably lethal. As one commentator says: "I seriously fear for my life and other cyclists' lives on this junction." What's more, the bus lane has gone and notice just how much space there is beside the road for a decent Dutch-style bike track to run alongside.

My question to Kate Hoey MP is whether she genuinely understands the implication of her statement that cyclists should 'clearly understand their environment and not put themselves in danger'. I would like Ms Hoey to realise that London's Mayor has implemented road policies that put Londoners in danger when they are on bikes. The same is happening all over the country. What I want to know is what Kate Hoey proposes to do about it, not have a lecture about my ability to read road conditions. Her statement is insulting and utterly misses the point that The Times is making.

My concern is that Kate Hoey interprets the Cities fit for cycling campaign as a campaign to tell people to cycle more safely. That's only part of the message. The bulk of it is that the way our streets are designed and policed has to change. I hope she realises how little she has understood of the issues that are being discussed and debated in the media and that she changes her position before the debate in the Commons on February 23 but I doubt she will.

In fact, I doubt she wants me to use a bike at all. Back in 2010, Kate Hoey was vocal in trying to ban people cycling along London's South Bank - an off-road family and leisure bike route.It seems she doesn't want bikes to mix with cars but she also doesn't want bikes to get safe alternatives either. What's it to be? Shall we all take to our cars, Ms Hoey?

Southwark Labour council reverses previous cycling policies, states publicly that fear of motor traffic is what puts people off using their bikes and pledges to change that. About time too.

2012-02-09T08:52:00.001Z

Vauxhall Cross - spot the bike lane. There is one. It's the width of your handle bars. Clearly not enough space for more
Courtesy ibikelondon blog

Pictured above, Vauxhall Cross - an urban race track for motor vehicles. Yes, there are bike lanes here but they're fairly substandard. The one over Vauxhall Bridge (bottom right of the picture) is next to five lanes for motor vehicles and is literally as wide as my handle bars. Cycle from Wandsworth towards Oval on the bike track and you have to wait at eight separate bike traffic lights. People in cars, by contrast, only need stop at two traffic lights. If you're on a bike, this junction screams at you that you should get out the way of people who are in motor vehicles.

No amount of training makes you feel this is a safe place to use a bike. Last week, Olympic cyclist Nicole Cooke told The Times: "There are also junctions in London that need sorting out to make cyclists less vulnerable. I certainly wouldn’t fancy riding across Vauxhall Cross." But if you're coming from Wandsworth or Stockwell, this is the only way to reach central London and you have no choice but to cycle through it.

In that context, I am encouraged by the way The Times is raising the issue of safer cycling in our cities. I noticed in today's edition that David Cameron has committed to support the initiative and Julian Huppert (LibDem) has secured a three hour debate later this month. If you read this blog and think cycling is important, you should write to your MP and ask them to make sure they attend the debate. You can do that by clicking on The Times link here.

However, the same edition of today's Times quotes roads minister Mike Penning, who seems to think that cycling is already accounted for in the government's budgets and plans. Note that it isn't Mike Penning who wants a debate about safety for people on bikes, it's the MP for Cambridge, not the MP who is responsible for our roads. Penning talks about how the government is giving billions to local councils to spend on "transport improvements, including measures for cyclists". The reality is the vast majority of that money is going on new or wider roads, on electric car infrastructure and virtually none of it on infrastructure that will help people choose to use their bike rather than their car. The prime minister pledges his support but his minister is simply showing the support is little more than words.

Most people don't use bicycles to get from A to B in this country. The reason is simple. Most people look at the roads and think, no chance am I putting myself on a bicycle in the middle of four lanes of motor traffic and then turning right across that junction. As one local councillor put it in Cornwall this week: 'parents told me it was not safe, and that's why many choose to drive'.

And it's in that context that I want to laud some very recent changes in thinking at Labour-controlled Southwark Council, which yesterday announced plans to work on a 'network of safe routes for cyclists'. Yesterday's press release stated very clearly that the council will build 'safe, cycle routes free of intimidatory traffic for those who travel across the borough by bike'. Surveys, says the council, 'show that many people want to cycle but are put off by fear of traffic. This initiative aims to reduce those fears.'

This is the sort of language that makes sense, nothing like the obfuscation and denials of Mike Penning. It is also a significant shift in tone from the Labour administration at Southwark council. A couple of weeks ago the London SE1 website pointed out how the Southwark councillor responsible for cyclists' safety in the borough said that he would spend his time and money to 'focus on equipping cyclists with the skills to interact with other traffic rather than building a network of segregated routes'. This blog lambasted that intention as utterly out-of-touch and irresponsible. It is encouraging to see that same Labour councillor now supports a proper network where people will feel it is safe and sensible to use a bike.

Unfortunately, the Southwark press release also contains a cautionary note which is this: "We are also committed to lobbying Transport for London to ensure that the roads they are responsible for are as safe as possible....nine out of the ten most dangerous junctions on the borough are under the control of TfL." What that means is that Southwark has no power over the big main roads that run through the borough and are controlled by the Mayor, Boris Johnson - places similar to Vauxhall Cross (in Lambeth but controlled by Boris Johnson).

Plenty of space to make cycling safer on roads that are
controlled by Boris Johnson in Southwark

Just like David Cameron, London's Mayor has started making the right noises about making London's roads places where people feel they can cycle safely. He announced a junction review late last year and then re-announced it as something new to The Times this week.

But the early signs are that Boris is listening but not yet implementing. Over at Euston Circus, the Mayor has announced a consultation on a new junction layout at the top of Tottenham Court Road. This consultation was announced after Boris Johnson had promised 'a step change in the way engineers think when planning road layouts'. Well, they clearly didn't have a step change here. The junction will be reduced from six lanes to three. And people on bikes will be expected to cycle bravely along these extra narrow lanes.

The Mayor needs to demonstrate he realises that the way his engineers design London's road network has an impact on the way we get around on London's streets. For people who use bikes on London's streets, that can have lethal consequences. Another blogger puts this point extremely well:

"The local police safer neighbourhood team were out on my commute home tonight warning cyclists about breaking the law on Victoria Park Road. They seemed to accept, though, that Hackney Council’s failure to provide safe lanes on an important cycling route was causing scores of cyclists to either put themselves in danger or conflict with pedestrians on the (also inadequate) pavements. I’m also hopeful from my chat with the SNT officer that the police in Hackney are actually already advocating for better infrastructure."

I think it's time that London's Mayor demonstrates that his much promised 'cycling revolution' actually has some legs. And he needs to start by actually building the infrastructure to support it. After an outcry by councillors and residents, Southwark's Labour council seems to have realised that too. It's not about building segregated bike lanes all over London. It is about building our road infrastructure so that there are plenty of 'safe, cycle routes free of intimidatory traffic for those who travel across the borough by bike'. Provided they get on and build it, then this is absolutely spot-on, in my view.

Telegraph journalist rightly criticises Mayor's cycle super highways but slightly misses the point when he declares cycle safety campaign is about 'dissing' Boris Johnson. It's not. It's about making the Mayor accountable for safe cycling.

2012-02-07T05:07:00.001Z

A cycle super highway should be more than a bit of blue
paint in the middle of a three lane carriageway

Telegraph correspondent Andrew Gilligan has written an article on his blog this week that criticises cycling bloggers for hyping what he calls 'carnage' on London's roads. He breezily implies that he feels fine cycling around London and points to statistics showing that, over a long term period, cycle casualties aren't increasing.

Gilligan concludes by saying:

"Allowing for the rising number of trips, the trend is, as you can see, clearly down. I’m sorry if that doesn’t help the people trying to diss Boris Johnson, but there it is."

Outside of some very political circles, the topic of safety on bikes is not about 'dissing Boris Johnson'. Nor is it about 'promoting' Ken Livingstone. As I posted a few days ago Livingston's own position has been less than positive in the past although there are signs he's changed his mind on cycling issues in recent weeks, as you can see here.

I think Gilligan's article is slightly late to the game and it's a shame that he misses the actual issues.

The key issue is fairly simple and represented very well by this comment from Angus Hewlett in today's Times: "A third of my office cycle to work and another third would like to but they’re too scared. It’s irresponsible of Boris Johnson to say ‘get out there’ when it’s not safe to. He should feel responsible. It is things like this and The Times cycle campaign that will make a difference.”

Gilligan has been a vocal supporter of cycling over the year. On this occasion, Gilligan is right to criticise the Mayor's cycle super highways. He actually wrote a far more critical commentary of Boris Johnson's cycling strategy in 2010 when he described the first of the Mayor's cycle super highways as "pointless, verging at some places on the dangerous". However, I'm surprised he hasn't realised that the cycling bloggers aren't trying to 'diss' the Mayor per se. They're trying to raise the issue on to the Mayor's agenda and to have the Mayor show he accepts that he shares a large part of the responsibility for the safety of people cycling on London's roads.

Until very recently, the Mayor has tended to suggest it's all down to the individual and that the way he designs roads has little to do with it. Increasingly, people are saying the way that the Mayor has Transport for London design roads has everything to do with it.

The volume of people signing up to The Times's CycleSafe campaign is evidence of some of that. But one thing that really stood out to me this week was an article in the Jewish Chronicle. This year, says the JC, is the year of the bike. Not only are community groups organising a 'rabbi relay' - a bike race from Land's End to John O'Groats they are also campaigning for a "cycle super highway through the Jewish areas of north-west London".

What this demonstrates to me is that people from all walks of life are starting to call for London to be a place where they can cycle to work or to the shops safely and easily. It is no longer confined to 'the cyclists', whoever they may be. What people are calling for - among other things - is a change to the way that our streets and junctions work, to make them places where pretty much anyone feels safe enough to get on a bike and pedal.

I think it's a shame that Gilligan hasn't realised safe cycling space is no longer a party political issue, but that it is becoming something that a lot of people are beginning to expect from their politicians. All politicians.

Last year not a single person was killed riding a bike in Paris. In London there were 16. Boris Johnson is spending a fortune but something is going very wrong. Where on earth is he spending all that money?

2012-02-04T11:16:00.001Z

I'm going to let the poster do most of the talking.

The Times today points out that Copenhagen has spent £77million over the last decade on cycling. This is a city where the majority of school children feel safe enough to cycle to school.

By contrast, London's Mayor is extremely proud of spending £2million per mile on London's cycle super highways. As I pointed out last month, that is at least 10 times more per mile than the properly segregated bike lanes in Chicago.

Boris has spent more on Cycle Super Highways in four years than Copenhagen in 10. I suggest that Copenhagen has had much better return on its investment than our Mayor has achieved in London.

What the hell has he spent all the money on? Blue paint doesn't cost that much.

What's more, the blue paint doesn't seem to be working.

Boris's £2million per mile cycle super highways. Impressive, huh?

Last year, 16 people were killed in London on their bikes. In Paris, that number was zero. Yes, no-one was killed cycling on a bike in Paris last year.

What's different? Well, in London the Mayor has this attitude to people on bikes:

Boris Johnson:

"It is simply not possible to put in a dedicated lane that would protect a cyclist in the way that we would all want without totally disrupting the traffic….."

What the Mayor forgets is that people are traffic, whether they're on bikes or in cars. Or on foot, frankly. That's why at Bow roundabout - a place where several pedestrians and cyclists have been killed in the last two years - he won't install pedestrian crossings. Why on earth not? It might interrupt the 'traffic', he implies.

Interestingly, Ken Livingstone made this point last week:

Ken Livingstone:

"In some places you can put in separation. Most of our roads are wide enough to do that"

I'm not quite sure if I believe Livingstone yet, to be honest. Here's what he had to say about bike lanes last summer: "In a perfect world, we would have hundreds of miles of segregated cycle routes, but we have to face the reality that this is very difficult on many of London’s roads.” So which one is it Mr Livingstone? The new message or the old one?

Paris bike lanes springing up everywhere

Meanwhile, over in Paris? They're building a 700km network of bike lanes that look like this. Right through the middle of the city and spanning in all directions.

It makes Boris's blue paint look like the wrong strategy. And a very expensive strategy at that.

I don't think that's good enough. If you're going to spend hundreds of millions, do it properly and don't just give us blue paint.

If you haven't done so yet, sign up to The Times cyclesafe campaign. And in particular copy their manifesto and click the link to send it to your MP.

New City of London bike lane. How come the Square Mile authorities can build something like this but Boris Johnson can't on the roads he controls? Lack of political will?

2012-02-03T02:46:00.000Z

New bike lane all the way through Beech Street tunnel City of London. How come the City can
build bike lanes like this but Boris Johnson can't on his roads?

This might not look like much but the picture on above represents something quite significant. Something that links directly to what The Times has been pointing out so forcefully in its editorials this week. Roads can be designed to make them safe for cycling. And that is not a hugely difficult thing to do.

One such example is in the City of London. It was revealed a week ago:

The scene is Beech Street - a tunnel underneath the Barbican in the City of London.

Until two weeks the picture you see above was very different. There were two very narrow lanes for motor traffic and the bike lane didn't exist.

There were many problems with this. The pavement pictured on the left is extremely narrow. It made for some fairly nasty walking (bear in mind this is the main route for most people from the tube to the Barbican Centre). The layout also stuffed people on bikes who had cycled along the wide bike lane that leads up to this junction (which you can't quite see in the picture) and then found themselves literally stuck behind a queue of belching motor vehicle exhausts in a tunnel and simply couldn't get past the motor traffic on this very important east-west link. Imagine walking along a pavement and then suddenly the pavement stops and is filled with cars pushing and shoving you out the way - Deeply, deeply unpleasant.

So what has the City done? Well, it has extended the bike lane all the way to the junction and removed one lane of motor traffic as part of a three month experiment. Several people have contacted me to say the results are 'absolutely fantastic'. You can now cycle safely to the junction and not find yourself literally squashed between buses, HGVs and taxis.

What's more the City has fiddled around with the traffic lights so they stay green for longer and cars can get out of the tunnel more easily even though they're in single file rather than in two lanes. Pedestrians get a longer green phase too. Yes, everyone has to wait a few seconds longer but then they get to cross the junction in a more measured way. And that's of benefit to everyone. More time to cross the road, more time to drive across the junction, easier and safer to cycle to the junction.

In other words, pretty much everyone should benefit from this.

Taxis ignoring the new bike lane at Beech St

Is there a downside? Yes there is. The bike lane is mandatory through the length of the tunnel. But then it becomes a dotted white line (ie advisory) near the junction. The result? Well, something like the scene pictured left: Cars fill up the bike lane and the advanced stop box as well, rendering the scheme useless.

So, full marks for trying but unless something forces the motor drivers into their space, there's a risk the scheme won't work well for people on bikes or for pedestrians.

TfL incapable of even designing a bike lane?

All the same, hats off to the City of London for trying to get a bike route that is continuous and goes all the way to a junction.

Transport for London (controlled by Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London) seems singularly incapable of creating continuous bike routes on its own junctions. It seems to have an irrational fear that if you give people a proper bike lane that leads all the way to the junction, there will be congestion mayhem for the people in cars. That's the excuse you hear again and again from TfL when it designs bike lanes like this one pictured here. Boris himself likes to say so as well.

Yet the City of London scheme suggests that Boris Johnson is wrong and that it is possible to build proper bike lanes (well, almost) that work for people in cars and on bikes.

But TfL won't do this. Boris won't let them upset the natural order of cars everywhere and in all available space. What TfL builds instead are 'ghost bike lanes' - is it a bike lane or is it a motor traffic lane? It's basically a normal motor lane painted blue. In fact, Boris has so utterly failed cyclists that even a brand new junction at Tottenham Court Road won't get bike lanes. Three lanes of motor vehicles are being removed but he still doesn't seem to think there's space for a bike lane. It's not simply wrong, it's frankly perverse. You can see how London's Mayor is removing lanes for cars but just expects bikes to squeeze into ever narrower, ever more dangerous road space here.

I first talked about 'ghost bike lanes' a year ago. They're a dismal and dangerous design. I don't really understand the point of the things. They woo people on bikes into thinking they have a safe bike lane. But in reality they are just normal motor vehicle lanes. And you end up stuck, having to squeeze alongside HGVs and buses, just at the most dangerous point of the road. TfL is designing road danger into its junctions. At least the City of London has the guts to try and do something better.

Boris Johnson - you promised a 'cycling revolution' and you've completely failed to deliver. Even The Times suggests your thinking on cycling is way out of touch. Each of us can do something about this

2012-02-01T22:44:00.000Z

Tomorrow's front cover of The Times

Two months ago, I telephoned the media team at News International. I wanted to know what they thought - as an employer - about the fact that one of their journalists had been run over by an HGV just outside their offices. That cyclist was a woman called Mary Bowers, a woman who is still in hospital and still in a coma.

What the team at News International told me was that this was not the first time.

'this is not the first such accident involving a member of staff. Following the horrific injuries suffered by a member of our staff last week, we will be talking to both the police and the Mayor's office to see whether safety for cyclists at that particular junction on The Highway can be improved.'

Those comments echo comments made by many, many others in recent months. Like these comments made last week by Peter Halliwell, the father of Jayne, killed on her bicycle in Oxford Street in 2010: "There needs to be a review of road safety in light of the recent number of deaths of cyclists...We’ve gone through a year and a half of sheer hell...The roads are not safe enough to take the boom [in cycling], he said. He said: “We visited Jayne’s friends and they all get around by bike. These kids work so bloody hard. “They don’t have much money of their own. They should have the freedom to cycle around London without fear. “They’ve got just the same rights as drivers.”

Today The Times editorial bangs this message home very very forcefully. Incredibly, it has gone as far as making its cycling articles free online and you can review most of these from this link here and this link here.

One article in particular stands out to me and that is a piece by Nicole Cooke - Olympic cyclist - which you can read here. Cooke says this:

Nicole Cooke, Olympic cyclist on Elephant & Castle junction:

"I certainly wouldn’t fancy riding across Vauxhall Cross or Elephant and Castle in rush hour, and those are only two examples. If we want more people to ride their bikes, we can’t have parts of the city where cyclists feel like they are taking a big risk just crossing a junction — it just shouldn’t be that way."

I have to cycle through either of these junctions to get to the centre of London every single day. They are horrible, nasty places and extremely dangerous for people on bikes and on foot.

Boris Johnson has been challenged about them - and in particular about Elephant & Castle, the same junction that Nicole Cooke describes - in the London Assembly. What does Boris Johnson say?

Boris Johnson on Elephant & Castle junction:

"Elephant & Castle ..is fine. If you keep your wits about you, Elephant & Castle is perfectly negotiable. I want people to feel confident. The cycle superhighways are about building confidence."

The Times - Commits to campaign for cities safe for cycling

People who have cycled in London have been saying that Boris Johnson's 'cycling revolution' is just whitewash - some blue paint on some newly resurfaced roads and not much else. I can think of no better riposte than that made by Nicole Cooke. If it's too challenging for one of our Olympic cyclists, then I am proud to say, it's too challenging for me. And for my niece, my little cousins, my mum, most of my friends. In fact, it's too challenging for most Londoners.

Boris Johnson is currently preventing Southwark Council from sorting out this junction and making it a safer place for everyone. Why? Because he thinks it is more important that 'traffic' flows smoothly through London's squares and high streets.

What Johnson forgets is that we are all traffic. Bicycles, pedestrians and drivers. And that we want to 'be' in these places not just 'whizz through' them.

Johnson is putting fast and efficient motoring ahead of every other transport policy. And I think that is wrong. And immoral.

Southwark Council undertook some very detailed research recently. Sufficient numbers of Southwark residents would like to cycle - sufficient in fact for 47% of all road trips that start in the borough to be by bicycle. But they don't cycle. I think they don't cycle because the Mayor of London - Boris Johnson - is trying to convince them that cycling around places like the Elephant & Castle roundabout is a sensible thing to do. It isn't. And they're voting with their pedals.

The Times is way more articulate on all these topics than I am. Have a read. And sign up to their manifesto. They are calling for an eight point plan and want politicians to wake up and act rather than spout the sorts of insane bumblings we are hearing from London's Mayor.

If you live in London and want to do something about this, you can. In May, we choose who runs Transport for London. The title is Mayor, but the job is transport:

"On 3 May, I will vote for the candidate who has promised the most to make London streets safe for bikes.”

OR

If you're outside London or if you're a Londoner, then push at a national level and get behind the 8-point plan that The Times wants politicians, councils and transport authorities to sign up to.

Southwark Labour council sets out a strategy to shrink current growth in cycling, that also runs counter to Ken Livingstone's cycling policy.

2012-01-30T21:30:00.002Z

Above: The roads in purple need stage 3 cycle training (ie more training than most driving licences) before you should cycle them, says Southwark. I'd argue some of them might need even more.

I posted at the weekend how Southwark councillors are looking to make the borough’s roads safer for people to cycle on. What I didn’trealise was that in doing so, I had stepped into a political rift betweendifferent political parties within the council.

The Labour controlled council seems to be getting its cycling plans rather mixed up. And LibDem councillors are attacking the council (quite justifiably, in my view) for being 'anti-cyclist'. Earlier in the year, the local newspaper Southwark News commented that the Labour council has transport 'plans that will see cycle lanes in the borough removed'.

The Labour leader of Southwark Council Peter John was in touch straight away after I posted about his cycling strategy at the weekend and has offered to meet and discuss his views. I look forward to meeting him. All the more so now that Ken Livingstone has come out and stated definitively that he believes there is space in London for proper bike infrastructure. He told the Guardian yesterday: "In some places you can put in separation. Most of our roads are wide enough to do that". Southwark now seems seriously out of step.

Southwark recently published its investment plan for transportin the borough. There is a lot that is worthy in that plan. For example, it isadmirable that Southwark is standing up to Boris Johnson’s number one roadpolicy, which is to allow more car traffic to travel through London as quicklyas possible. Southwark states that the Mayor’s policy may increase the share of motor vehicles on London’s roads and ‘therefore reduce cycling levels’. It proposes to challenge Johnson’s policy by ‘prioritising cycling’ when it designs street improvement schemes.

Reading the detail of the Southwark plan, however, I wassurprised that the council’s strategy targets a significant reduction in thegrowth rate of cycling. In 2006/7, cycling accounted for 2.9% of all journeysstarting in Southwark and is expected to increase to 4.0% by 2013/4. For someodd reason, the plan is for that rate of growth to collapse after 2014 and toonly shuffle towards a piffling 5% by 2025/6. In other words, the rate at whichmore people take up cycling is expected to slump in 2015 and continue to slumpthereafter. This seems like a serious lack of vision from the council.

Cycle Super Highway in Southwark

What’s more, the Southwark plan suggests the council hassignificantly lower expectations than its northern neighbour, the City ofLondon. The City authorities anticipate 10% of all people working in the SquareMile to bike to work by 2020. That compares with Southwark’s plan for only 5%of its residents to cycle by 2025.

Furthermore, the City of London has committed very clearlyto the creation of high-quality routes through the Square Mile where peoplewill be given greater priority if they travel by bicycle.

The Southwark plan is commendable for making clear that itintends to prioritise cycling. However, close reading of the Southwarkinvestment plan is that ‘prioritisation’ will consist primarily of training andeducational events. In other words, it neglects to commit the council tocreating clear and meaningful routes where people are given greater priority ifthey travel by bicycle.

Southwark believes that 47% of trips on its roads could bemade by bicycle. I don’t believe that a commitment to education and a generalstatement about investment priorities is anywhere near enough to generate theconditions that would amount to 47% of trips being made by bicycle.

It seems that, deep down, Southwark’s politicians know thistoo. The Southwark plan asks itself this killer question (I hope not literally):

“Although there was a marked increase in cyclist training inschools between 2007 and 2010, cycling as a percentage modal split of those travelling to school, has remained static. This raises the question of whether we need to do more to allay parent’s fears of perceived danger and vulnerability before they allow their children to cycle to school.”

To me the answer is very clear. I wouldn’t send my child outon Southwark’s roads and nor would most head teachers want me to (see this excellent post by Kennington People on Bikes for more on that). They feel toodangerous.

And we can see just how dangerous. Although cycling accountsfor only 2.9% of all trips originating in the borough, 20% of the people killedor seriously injured on Southwark’s roads are cycling. What’s more, Southwarkknows how risky its roads are:

Southwark has been true to its word and has published a map of all the roads in the borough according to what level of training you require to safely cycle them. You can look at the map here.

What this map shows is that to get pretty much anywhere inSouthwark, you need to be trained to bikeability level 3 (and personally, Iwould question some of these ratings. Some of these roads are considerablytougher than that.). In my view, this is like asking your kids to pass exams equivalent to theAdvanced Institute of Motorists just to get to school.

I'm exaggerating slightly but to make this point: Southwark is asking children and their parents to flingthemselves around multiple-lane gyratories, to have confidence tackling righthand turns, often against four lanes of motor traffic. Southwark is alsoimplying that, in order to cycle from one neighbourhood to the other, peoplemust be trained to a significantly higher degree than to do the same journey by car.

The fact is that Southwark’s pro-cycling rhetoric iscompletely and utterly undone by the facts on the ground. The council wants toencourage cycling. It believes 47% of all trips could be made by bicycle on itsroads. It believes there would be huge benefits for its residents and businessin the borough were that to happen. But it has very little on offer in order tomake that a reality.

I don’t believe that should be the case.

Karl Cracken does an excellent job here of describing, very succinctly, the three basic essentials that might genuinely encourage people to opt for a bicycle trip instead of a car trip. He says that people need safe, convenient and direct routes. If their bike routes meet these three criteria, they will more likely cycle than drive. I don't see any of these three must-haves in the Southwark transport plan.

It is a crying shame to see a council that has been, in thepast a true leader in cycling, set itself on a trajectory that will do verylittle to encourage more people to cycling and that, I believe, will do equallylittle to bring down the borough’s poor record on cycling safety.

'My ward has been the scene of too much tragedy. Four cyclists have died in the last two years within a two-minute walk of my home'. The response to this situation in Southwark by its Labour council is utterly irresponsible

2012-01-29T18:03:00.000Z

Welcome to Southwark. Four lanes for motors. Err, none for cycling

Last week, a LibDem councillor in Southwark council stood up and said this:

"My ward has been the scene of too much tragedy. Four cyclists have died in the last two years within a two-minute walk of my home"

That councillor is Mark Gettleson of Bermondsey. The debate was about the environment and talked specifically about cycling safety.

Gettleston added this point: "This is not a party issue, but it does require political bravery, responsibility and vision." He was highly critical of the fact that Hackney borough has cycling rates of 10 per cent and called Southwark 'utterly pathetic' for having a vision of increasing cycling from 3 to only 4% of road trips by 2016.

In fact, that puts Southwark behind even the City of London which expects 10% of people to cycle to work by 2020.

I think that the 'bravery' he is referring to, is the bravery that our councillors need if they ever hope to change the way London's streets work. I have spent much of my free time over the last year meeting politicians all across inner London. All of them feel that cycling is a good thing, that it can solve all sorts of transport and health issues. But my opinion is that the politicians are scared of calling for safe cycling and for safer streets. It's a kind of weird we-know-that-you-know-that-we-know situation. The politicians I have met - and that includes London Assembly Members, Westminster MPs and local politicians from four political parties - have all backed safer cycling and proper bike infrastructure. But only one or two has been prepared to call publicly for radical change to the way people get about London. So far. (I can think of one huge exception to this statement and he's a politician in Newham.)

In that context, I wasn't at all surprised by the backward-looking and feeble response of Peter John, Labour leader of Southwark council who defended his council's extremely poor cycling targets and by Councillor Barry Hargrove, saying that rather than build proper bike infrastructure the council will focus on "equipping cyclists with the skills to interact with other traffic rather than building a network of segregated routes."

Cycling training is good and sensible. But it won't encourage mums, dads, kids, grandparents, workers, doctors and the public in general to get out on their bikes.

Councillor Peter John - will your policies encourage these kids
to bike to school? No chance. Will it increase road deaths? Quite possibly.

In what other walk of life is it acceptable to close your mind and say, oh well, let's just get the cyclists to wear helmets, wear hi-viz, have more training, make the HGVs have warning alarms, add HGV mirrors at traffic lights. At what point do we stop adding ridiculous sticking plaster to the problems? The problems are many - congested streets, polluted air, children who can't walk or bike to school, old people can't cross the street, shops give up on our high streets because they've been turned into traffic corridors. I'm not suggesting cycling is the sole solution to these issues but it certainly has a large part to play in inner London.

I have one message to say to Southwark council. And it's very simple. Rather astonishingly, this is a message that was carried by columnist Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday a couple of weeks ago.

"I think our roads are statistically safer largely because soft targets, particularly child cyclists, have almost entirely retreated from them. But the roads are not really safer. It’s just that people have learned to avoid them unless they themselves go out in armour, and have narrowed their lives as a result."

Labour councillors in Southwark: you are preparing your borough for more car-ownership, for more pollution, for more congestion, for an increase in the number of road deaths. And you worsen all of our lives as a result. You are preparing a Southwark in which the roads will be safer because you are making people retreat from them. Harsh but, I think, true.

As Councillor Gettleson implies, I fear that the Labour councillors in Southwark lack political bravery, responsibility and vision.

It's not the cyclists cutting out motor traffic lanes at Tottenham Court Road. It's Boris's plan. But he's not offering you any alternatives either. Want to cycle down from Camden instead of driving? Forget it.

2012-01-26T21:30:00.000Z

Pictured above. the junction at the top of Tottenham Court Road. Transport for London is about to spend £10million redesigning this junction.

The plan above, is the version designed by a bunch of people with bicycles over at Camden Cyclists.

What TfL wants to do is something completely different. Something that will look amazing to designers but will be pretty much useless and downright inconvenient for most people. And probably downright dangerous for people on bikes.

TfL wants to spend lots of money here to make less space for cars and buses. It will reduce 5-6 lanes at the top of Tottenham Court Road down to three. And it will squeeze in an advisory bike lane (in one direction only). You can see the detailed TfL plan here on this page.

Not only do motor vehicles get less room but there's also nothing here for people on bikes. How on earth are you supposed to encourage people to cycle instead of paying for the bus or to park their cars in the centre of London, if you constantly 'forget' to include the cycling infrastructure? It's not even as if you'd need to spend any more money. Or as if you'd need to restrict any more lanes for cars. You're doing that already. You just need to actually add the bike lane bit.

But here we go again. No bike infrastructure whatsoever.

Transport for London has issued a consultation (good, at least there is a consultation this time) on its website which shows its own plan. You can add your comments on that plan and I'd encourage you to spend two minutes filling out the form.

Tfl will narrow the road and make cycling conditions that look like
this. Fabulous. What a waste of effort.

Once again, it's taken some keen cycling folk to point out what a complete waste of time and effort this latest TfL scheme is.

The scheme proposed by the Camden Cyclists folk is actually designed for the people who live, work, walk, cycle and take the bus or drive here. It is designed to benefit people by making things work better so they can choose to use a bike rather than the bus (saves them time and money) or they can choose to bike rather than drive (also saves them time and money). But this scheme does nothing for anyone.

I'm sure the TfL plan looks lovely on the desk of an architect. But it's no good if you're on the bus. And it's not going to encourage you to swap a short car trip (51% of London car journeys under two miles, remember) down from Camden or Kentish Town. They're just shafting (pardon my French) the motorist and doing pretty much nothing to allow you to cycle instead.

I'm fed up of poring over Transport for London plans. That's not my job. It's their job to design London for Londoners. But what they're doing is designing Londoners out of London in favour of drawings that look lovely on paper and are a right pig for everyone who has to use them.

Thanks Boris. We all pay for Transport for London through the top-up tax you charge us on our council tax. Time you started telling your team (who report directly to you, remember) to start taking Londoners seriously when it comes to the roads you control.

If all of this groaning hasn't put you off, comments please to the poor folk at Transport for London who are going to get caught in the middle of this. Click here to open the online comment form.

Tottenham Court Road - Boris announces a 'world class cycling city' in Davos today and builds a 'worst class' cycling city on the ground. Send in your comments now. Six motor lanes reduced to three and still 'there's no room' for cycle path. Even Boris Johnson's 'fiddly thing' is cut off at its tip

2012-01-25T22:41:00.001Z

TfL's plans for Euston Circus - top of Tottenham Court Road/Warren Street

Today, Boris Johnson told world leaders at Davos that London will host a 'world class two day festival of cycling next year'.While Boris makes London sound like a world-class cycling city, his officials are busy getting on with designing a worst-class cycling city on the ground. One that alienates cyclists and manages to wind up drivers simultaneously. Here's how:

Talking about the bizarre bike paths at the top of Tottenham Court Road Boris Johnson said this: "You get to that bit where you come to the underpass, and then the cycle route takes you on a sort of fiddly thing, where you go over… there’s a path, and you’ve got lots of oncoming pedestrians, and then you’re invited to cross at a traffic light, and so on and so forth."

He's kind of right. There is a sort of fiddly thing. It's that green squiggle that is the bike lane (shown above) which you can use to come off the Euston Road, then cross two lanes of motor traffic and then hop into an advance stop box at the top of Tottenham Court Road.

And pictured above is the new plan that TfL proposes here. Keeping Boris Johnson's 'fiddly thing' in pride of place. Although they chop off the end of it and dump you in that bicycle box at the end of Tottenham Court road so you can't cycle westbound any more. So, they've chopped off the end of Boris's 'fiddly thing' and made it look and feel an awful lot worse.

What's really happening here is that five lanes (six if you include the slip roads) are being reduced to three. And there's still apparently 'no room' for a decent bike route through here. Which is complete bunk and they know it.

Plenty of space for this sort of thing at Warren St junction.
Clearly no space for a bike lane though?!

Head south and the slip road that turns left towards Euston Road is going. But there's no bike path to get you past the queues of stinking buses and motor vehicles clogging up the road, waiting for the traffic lights. There's plenty of space for a bike path all the way up to the junction here but the road space is used for white lines instead that take up the middle of the road. Similar to these white lines down the middle of the road here. Lots of room to create a bike lane. But no, let's just put some hatchings down the middle of the street instead.

Want to head south from Camden? Take the two lane dual carriageway into Gower Street with its gentle race track curves and then pace for what your worth down this charming urban race track - Another 1960s gyratory but with wider pavements and cycling infrastructure benefits from some, err, advanced stop boxes.

There are some merits. Less slip road and simpler paths through the junction. That is probably going to calm the place down a bit. The removal of the slip roads is good. But why not make this a space you could cycle through with your kids to the shops or into the West End? Not going to happen. Oh well.

What's happening is that the roads are being made narrower for all vehicles - motor cars, buses, HGVs and bicycles ALL get to share less space. Pavements get made wider. And there is suddenly 'no space for a bike lane'.

This is exactly what's happened on streets like Cheapside in the City of London. As I said a few months ago, I can think of no better way to simultaneously wind up car andd bus drivers AND make cycling less pleasant and more dangerous in one sweep.

It's deeply depressing. Boris Johnson has announced a complete review of cycling and safety in London (to replace the one he has been ignorning since 2005, in fact) The point is people have to feel that it's safe enough for them to opt to take a bicycle. Those of us who already cycle kind of put up with it. But even Transport for London admits that very significant numbers of people would cycle instead of driving or packing on the bus if they felt safe enough (depends on the question but numbers vary between 27% and 51% of all Londoners saying they would cycle here and would like to cycle more if they felt safe enough). This sort of scheme will do nothing to achieve that. And that's my problem with it.

Cycling will always be a minority activity if it looks and
feels like this. More of the same coming to Tottenham Ct Road

There's one difference this time. Transport for London is actually consulting on the plans. TfL completely ignored 650+ letters asking it to change its design at Blackfriars and ignored two London Assembly votes as well as three mass flash mob protests attracting 2,500 people to protest. But I can just about summon up the energy to write a strong response.

My tone will be broadly: It's better than it is now. But it falls very short of what I think would encourage me to cycle here with a 12 year old. Or with my mum.

There is a page on the Transport for London website for your comments. Enter your comments on this page here.

For more background, see this TfL page here.

Add your comment: Missing east-west bike link could connect Holborn Circus to Threadneedle Street - neat route that avoids Bank junction congestion and danger spot

2012-01-19T14:39:00.002Z

New east-west bike link opening at St Paul's - avoids Bank junction eastbound

I received an email early this week from the City of London asking for comments on a proposed experimental cycle scheme, that would allow cyclists coming from Holborn Circus to access a fairly direct east-west route from St Paul's gyratory towards Moorgate or the north of Bank. What's neat about it is that it opens up a parallel route to Cheapside that would allow people to avoid Bank junction and cycle to the north of the Bank before carrying on east-wards. I've drawn the new route in the map above (thank you bikeroutetoaster.com)

If you're not too familiar with the area, here's a link to the google map.

You'd cycle through the bus/taxi/bike-only Angel Street which skirts the north side of the BT building at St Paul's, hop on to the extremely wide pavement via a new dropped kerb, head north for a few metres and then into Gresham Street.

So, on the positive side, a cheap, quick win for cyclists that opens up a new west-to-east route that avoids Bank junction.

However, there's a number of negatives in my view. I'd be very grateful if other people familiar with these junctions could add their thoughts and comments by emailing either me directly at Cyclistsinthecity@gmail.com or commenting below.

Pictured below is a detailed technical drawing of the link as planned. Basically, by opening up the pavement area to cycling, the City can fill a missing link for cyclists who want to head from the St Paul's gyratory into the quieter streets north of Cheapside. Importantly this allows you to avoid Bank junction which is often extremely clogged up and is the scene of more car-on-bike collisions than any other junction in the Square Mile.

Here are some issues that stand out to me:

The hop onto / off of pavement bit: It's really badly signposted. Lots of people walking along here will wonder why the hell a bike is hurtling at them. At the very least, some bike logos should be painted on the ground as you enter and exit the paved area.
Unless you're hyper-familiar with this junction you won't know where you're supposed to head to when you cycle on to the pavement area, so those bike logos are important for cyclist navigation as well. I also feel there should be some marking across
Gresham Street itself is a challenge. Until very recently, the entrance into Gresham Street was bicycle-only. There's a cafe on the corner, much loved by black taxi drivers. For some reason, the bike entry was converted a few months ago into a temporary all vehicle entry. This scheme would formalise that two-way working at this junction. So, yes, bikes get a new access route. But so do the dozens and dozens of taxis that want to use this as a rat-run and avoid Cheapside and Bank. What this means is a) cyclists get a quieter, alternative route along Gresham Street that avoids Cheapside and Bank but b) the new two-way working means that Gresham Street - which has always been a quiet local access road - will become a fairly busy rat-run.
The fact that Gresham Street will be a busy two-way junction means that the bike crossing (which is after all directly across a fairly fast two-lane gyratory) will be a fairly tricky manoeuvre. At the very least, bike footprints should go across the road here.

What's slightly irksome about this experimental scheme is that it sort of matches the City's recent and very positive rhetoric about cycling. But then undermines it completely. The City of London published its local transport plan last week. In the plan, it states its intention to:

"The continued creation of more pedestrian and cyclist shared routes and more pedestrian zones that permit access for cyclists, i.e., the selective exclusion of motor vehicles from some local access streets, at all times or only at some times of day."

This scheme is definitely a case where the City is adding new and meaningful access for cyclists. Good.

But it's failing to exclude or limit the number of motor vehicles in this particular local access street. Bad.

It's also debatable whether this is a 'quality' cycle route (something else in the City's recent rhetoric. After all, it's not at all clear whether people will even realise this is a legitimate bike route or not, there doesn't look to be any signposting, any obvious markers that tell you where to go. I know my way around the City's back streets but plenty of other people wouldn't have a clue where this heads to.

The cycle crossing needs more detailed thinking about to make it a) findable b) safer c) clear what you're supposed to do and where you're supposed to go when you're perched on your bike on the pavement.

As I mentioned earlier in this post, this scheme is experimental. But I fear it means Gresham Street will switch permanently from being a quiet local access road with one-way for motor vehicles (two way for bikes) to a busy two-way rat-run.

If this experiment were ultimately to lead to a proper, clearly-marked cycle track (one that also lead north of here so that you could come west along Gresham Street and then head north towards Islington), then great.

But there's no indication whether or not that's part of the plan yet.

So, on the plus side, hooray, the City of London is looking at ways to give more people better options for cycling through the City. On the negative side, err, it means shared space on the pavement and shared space in Gresham Street which will no longer be a local access road but becomes a rat run instead. However, if this is the start of a proper cycle track that allows you to enter and exit Gresham Street in either direction and becomes something that people want to use as an alternative bike route and want to make better over the next year or two (more money to be found for that), then it's a good start. What do you think?

Do send me your thoughts to cyclistsinthecity@gmail.com or comment below email subject 'Gresham Street Consultation' by 29 January please.

Evening Standard: 'It is hoped pedestrians will hurry' out of the way of motor vehicles in London. The cyclists are going out again at Kings Cross on 23 January to protest. This time, it's not just about cycling.

2012-01-17T10:08:00.000Z

Boris Johnson: is suggesting something like this:
'Assume there will be more traffic, fewer crossings and you will
have to hurry across the road and not upset the motorists'

At a recent residents' meeting I attended, the talk was about the new housing development around the corner - a development of several hundred apartments and terraced houses.

That specific development is mentioned in a strategy document by Transport for London here:

"A proposal for a new pedestrian crossing was dropped by the developer after being persuaded by TfL that pedestrian demand was more than adequately met at two nearby junctions."

The road in question is Clapham Road - four lanes between Stockwell and Oval. Everyone at the meeting disagreed with TfL: there isn't a safe way to cross the road here unless you take a 400 metre detour via the traffic lights. Transport for London says the road lacks pedestrian demand. In the eyes of the people that live and work there, it is by no means clear how TfL measures 'demand'.

Last week, I spotted something similar in Kidbrooke: Developers are building a new residential 'village'. According to the local blog KidbrookeKite, Kidbrooke Park Road will continue to be a 'formidable divide running through the centre of the community'. A crossing is a 'fundamental' requirement, say the developers. No, says Transport for London. That would compromise motor traffic. Once again - a new residential development, designed so that people who don't live there can get through the area by car. Not designed so that the people who do live there can walk to the shops.

New houses going up on the right. TfL is not going to

build any crossings for pedestrians on this road.
Source KidrookeKite

The policy of removing or reducing pedestrian crossings has been going on since Boris Johnson took office. Back in 2009 the Evening Standard reported that pedestrian crossing times would be made shorter. Why? 'To cope with increased traffic when the Mayor abolishe[d] the western extension of the congestion zone'. We now know that motor traffic has increased 8% in the area since the congestion charge was removed. The Evening Standard headline at the time was: "Hurry up and cross..." Says it all really.

Two years on, Boris's anti-pedestrian policy is growing. There are 58 pedestrian crossings for the chop in the next couple of months. They will be replaced with nothing - not a zebra crossing, just nothing.

Let's take a few examples. Curtain Road in Hackney is losing its traffic lights. There is a new east-west cycle link along Rivington Street that crosses Curtain Road right here. You'll have to wait for a gap in the traffic and hop across. Older or infirm? Want to get from the shops on one side of Rivington Street to the other? Zebra crossing? No can do. Take a detour.

At the top of London Bridge, another crossing is for the chop. Several more in Westminster, Richmond, Croydon, Barnet. You name it.

This is all part of a deliberate policy by the Mayor to favour the motorist over everyone else in London. At any cost, it seems.

The thing is, Londoners either haven't noticed or simply don't care. My reckoning is that Boris Johnson will still be Mayor in 2013. And I suspect most people think he's doing a good job. They think about how he is fighting off roadwork congestion, how he is removing congestion charge 'taxes', how he has battled Westminster council's parking charges. What they don't seem to have noticed is that comes with a cost. The cost is higher road casualties; more congestion as more people drive; the fact that it's more difficult and more dangerous to cross the road; the fact that pedestrian crossing times are being made shorter. As someone who cycles more than he drives, I'm particularly irked that cycling seems to be getting shunted out the way of schemes that favour motoring instead and that people are being refused the option not to drive.

But my sense is that the Mayor thinks he's on the right course. Because he is pandering to a populist agenda - I want or need to drive, I want to do so cheaply and to park where and when I want. That agenda seems to be trumping alternatives. And when you look at other cities (New York, Paris, Berlin, Copenhagen), you'll see the exact opposite. Mayors in those cities are making it easier and cheaper to cycle or walk or take public transport. Our Mayor is making as easy and cheap to drive as his powers allow him. The alternatives are being shrunk not expanded. It's very strange that we are the only place busy going backwards.

When 2,500 people took to the streets to protest against exactly these sorts of policies at Blackfriars last year, the Mayor ignored them. Even when people are killed - for example at Bow roundabout - as a direct consequence of these road policies, the solution is to offer up something to the cyclists but nothing whatsoever for pedestrians. Two people were killed on their bikes at Bow in late 2011. Three people have been killed crossing the road near Bow in the last three years. What does the Mayor want? A half-hearted facility for cyclists. And nothing for the pedestrians. Why? They might get in the way of motor traffic.

It seems to me that being polite and lobbying for change to these policies isn't working very fast. The letter-writing and the polite protests are shifting the debate a little bit. But Boris isn't really listening. His agenda is about making it easier for Londoners to drive around London. Not about reducing pollution or about offering Londoners cheaper and more convenient alternatives to the car, such as cycling. And I sense that the Mayor thinks road collisions are just one of those things that happen to people 'who don't have their wits about them' (to quote the Mayor talking about cycling London's most dangerous junctions).

Blackfriars - Boris has removed the pedestrian crossing. The pedestrians are still here:

It is in that context that I am quietly encouraged by the presence of a new group called BikesAlive! The group - over 100 people on bikes - cycled slowly around the junctions at Kings Cross last week - scene of yet more pedestrian and cyclist carnage - to make the point that it is "time to rebalance priorities on London's roads in favour of people"

A report in the Guardian noted that the event was "potentially significant as a further sign that urban cyclists are taking a leaf from the book of their motorised cousins and lobbying furiously for better treatment.".

What the Guardian didn't spot was the number of pedestrians also taking part. And it also failed to notice the very mainstream charitable organisations and lobbyist groups that were there on foot - watching, listening and learning about the Mayor's anti-people road agenda.

BikesAlive is going out again on Monday 23rd. Once again, it will be making the point that the Mayor's policies are unbalancing London's streets, that the policies are not equitable. To some extent, that the Mayor's road policies are immoral.

And this time, I sense the pedestrians will be there in greater numbers as well. And I imagine it won't be too long before some very big names start to join in with the protests.

Old people, young children, disabled people can't just hurry across the road, the way the Mayor wants them to. And nor should they.

I wasn't sure about BikesAlive last time it went out. I'm absolutely convinced now that it's doing the right thing. I will try to be there after work on 23 January, Kings Cross, 6pm. You can read more about it here.

Why can't we have a 'turbo roundabout' at Bow? Not only sounds amazing but it's better for drivers, better for people on bikes, better for people on foot. Puts Mayor's plan in the shade.

2012-01-16T10:59:00.002Z

Last week, the Mayor announced plans to make Bow roundabout - a key junction on the cycle route to the Olympics - safer for cycling. The announcement follows the tragic deaths of two people killed cycling across this horrible junction late last year.

My initial reaction last week was to welcome the change of heart and the extremely encouraging noises coming from Transport for London. For the first time, there was a sense that TfL might implement a scheme that gives safe and sensible cycling equal importance to safe and sensible driving choices.

I fear I spoke too soon.

This is a place that is supposed to be setting the standards for a new future-proof London. It is a place where a world-class urban design firm is working on a massive residential neighbourhood right next door. The only problem is those residents won't be able to cross the road.

As the local blogger Diamond Geezer puts it in a comment on this blog: "And there's *absolutely nothing* here for pedestrians. We continue to have no safe way across the roundabout whatsoever, which isn't just an opportunity missed, it's criminal neglect."

What happened last week was interesting: TfL announced its plans via an embargoed press release on Wednesday night. Someone had clearly put a lot of thought and time into the scheme. Videos, diagrams, all sorts of things have been added to Transport for London's website to make this scheme look like there is something really fundamentally different going on. For the first time, proper infrastructure for people on bikes looked like it was getting the same sort of attention that is given to other forms of transport - the sort of attention that cycling deserves, in my view. My initial reading of the press release I wrote about it on Wednesday night was one of cautious optimism.

During Thursday and Friday, TfL added more information to its website, including a number of videos that make it crystal clear how they see this junction working. You can see one of those videos above.

Seeing those extra details, my optimism turned into something much more critical.

I think TfL is presenting Bow as a real benefit to people on foot and on bikes, when in reality all that's happening is they are making people on bikes fit around the priorities of motor vehicles and doing nothing whatsoever for pedestrians. As another blogger puts it: "Correct me if I’m wrong, but this really doesn’t look like a dedicated green phase for cyclists that allows them to travel ahead of other traffic. It just looks like a dedicated green light that lets them into the advance stop box, where they’re held on red and then cyclists and other traffic just go for it like usual. "

It's a farce. It's tick box road safety that does nothing for pedestrians and, as Pedestrianise London blog points out, will be ignored by people on bikes too because it simply doesn't represent the reality of what happens on the ground.

Dozens of people commented on my initial post. Dozens more have emailed me directly. The general view is that TfL has presented a scheme which has no disruption on motor traffic but slots a few rudimentary but utterly unrealistic devices into the road layout that will make things seem safer. But it is very much a motorist-designed scheme.

Bow - plenty of capacity for motors and people on bikes & on foot
This is what it should look like. Courtesy: Pedestrianise London blog

Pretty much anyone who has ever ridden a bike or walked here is saying the same thing. As another blogger puts it: "You’ve gone for the grand gesture which, on first sight, pays lip-service to the idea of cyclist safety but doesn’t actually do anything, and still makes no provision for pedestrians to get safely across the junction."

The Mayor's big fear is upsetting the 'motorist'. He simply can't be seen to suggest that people should come first. He thinks tackling congestion should come first. And his way of dealing with that is to pump more cars through the junction faster and more efficiently.

The result? Nasty urban spaces that are not only unpleasant but downright lethal for pedestrians and people on bikes.

Interestingly, even Transport for London suggests that if it could get more people cycling (and it reckons that 23% of all journeys in London could be made by bicycle, not so different to Holland or Denmark), then more cyclists would 'relieve pressure on the road network'. TfL's words, not mine.

But, whether we like it or not, we have to face the fact that sort of thinking is a long way off and that the Mayor simply doesn't see bicycles as a genuine way of solving congestion. Not yet. And nor, frankly, do most Londoners.

If there is no political will from the Mayor to reduce capacity for motor traffic (in fact, the political will in London at the moment is to INCREASE the capacity for motor traffic and reduce it for everyone else), then how do you put in safe cycle facilities and places for people to cross the road?

Well, in my view, one man has summed it up perfectly on his website here. His is a suggestion that could actually increase the capacity for motor traffic at the junction AND install proper, segregated facilities for people to cycle through and for people to cross the road. You can see some of what he's suggesting in the diagram higher up this page.

The Dutch call it a 'turbo-roundabout'. We know it works, in fact. It could give people on bikes and on foot equal priority to motor traffic without reducing capacity for motor vehicles. It could possibly even increase capacity for motor vehicles. There's a full description of what a turbo roundabout is and how it works here.

What I want to know is why the Mayor and Transport for London can't imagine a junction that works like this, rather than a junction designed for motor traffic that entirely excludes pedestrians and that pretends to make things safer for cycling but simply makes people on bikes wait for the people in cars. It even sounds marketable. Who wouldn't want a turbo roundabout? Turbo for cars, turbo for bikes, turbo for people on foot. Yes please, I'll have one of those.

TfL needs to stop building London around motor vehicles and excluding people on bikes and on foot. We're all 'traffic' and we all have equal right to safe, convenient access across London.

-------

If you want chapter and verse on what a Turbo roundabout is and how it works, there's a detailed technical document here with plenty of examples.

Boris Johnson says London's roads are fine for cycling as they are. City of London says cycling standards will 'not be adequate' as they are and commits to safer streets for all; to cyclable streets. It's not perfect but I doff my cap to the politicians of the City of London.

2012-01-14T11:24:00.000Z

City of London rush hour - welcome to the bicycle

It's taken a year. But something quite monumental has just happened in the City of London.

A year ago, the City issued its draft Local Implementation Plan. Some of you, reading this blog at the time, took the time to read the background and got stuck in. You sent letters, petitions and intelligent comments to the City's politicians and told them their plan just wasn't good enough.

Some fairly hefty names got behind this initiative. People who work for big City of London firms all put pen to paper. Some companies sent official corporate responses. Even the London Diocese got involved. All saying the same thing:

You argued in particular, that the Square Mile's worsening road safety record was no longer acceptable. You argued that conditions for cycling were inadequate and you pointed out that it was not right to spend money for cycling on squeezing in a few scraps for cycling on the condition that this was 'designed with the needs of all road users in mind'. In short, you agreed with the article in last week's Local Transport Today that: "Cyclists' inclusion in carriageway design should start from the basis of expecting equal rights to personal safety for all road users. If this has an effect on other users then that must be accepted".

And then, last Friday, the City of London announced that Boris Johnson and Transport for London had signed off on revisions to that Plan. The City of London has committed to change how it thinks about its streets. Specifically, it has revised its local implementation plan to include these commitments:

(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, including both the London Cycle Network (LCN) routes on City Corporation streets and several north–south and east–west quieter back-street routes through the City.

(3) A proposal to formally investigate the desirability of a 20 mph speed limit or a 20 mph zone covering the whole of the City, with a preference for a speed limit or zone that incorporates the Transport for London road network (red routes)

I think this an amazing result and a serious 'chapeau' to the City of London's politicians. The process has been slow and cumbersome. But it has been debated, discussed, argued about and consensus reached.

The City of London expects that by 2020, 10% of all people travelling into or through the Square Mile will do so by bicycle (Boris Johnson, Mayor of London is planning on only 5% of all trips and not until 2030 - handily). And then it makes this astonishing statement:

"Standards that were possibly acceptable when cycling was a minority activity, such as narrow cycle lanes, shallow or non-existent advanced stop lines and minimal levels of employee and visitor cycle parking provision will not be adequate. Cycling will continue to increase in popularity and become an even more important City mode of travel."

In this one statement alone, I think the City of London sets itself ahead of London's Mayor Boris Johnson. Here is the very heart of 'old' London saying that people on bikes deserve more of a place in London's future.

The Times: 20 December 2011, comment by the Sports Editor

In December (December 20 2011), the sports editor of The Times wrote an opinion piece. He declared Boris Johnson's efforts to promote cycling 'a pathetically little measure'.

By contrast, the City of London has recognised there is a need for real change. In doing so, I think the City has set a statement that the future is a different place, arguably that the future aspires to less pollution, to safer roads, to less congestion and to include people on bikes as a serious part of that future. By contrast, London's Mayor is singularly bad at making such bold commitments for fear he might upset a hardcore of voters, perhaps. He is at least consistent in claiming that London's streets are just fine for cycling as they are. The thing is, Boris Johnson's wrong. And the fact that the City of London is prepared to say that current cycling standards will not be adequate for long is a sign that things are beginning to turn against the Mayor on this point.

I'll be reviewing the City of London documents in more detail over coming weeks. But for now, my thanks to everyone (and there are many of you) who wrote, who petitioned and who talked with the City of London. And above all, my thanks to the politicians and the officers of the City of London who listened, who argued, who often disagreed. But who found enough consensus to move things forward.

If you're a Londoner, you pay directly for London's roads. Yet if you’re a Londoner who cycles, you don't have much of a place at the Mayor’s table. Sign up and help send a message that cycling wants its place at that table.

2012-01-13T05:00:00.000Z

Yesterday I spoke with a friend of mine. He is a colleague of Mary Bowers, knocked from her bicycle by an HGV in Wapping late last year. From what I understand, Mary is not in a good way. And I don't mean she has a broken leg. It's far, far worse.

Meanwhile, early this week, another HGV collided with a man cycling near Victoria. The HGV driver was working for Crossrail. Crossrail has taken cycling awareness seriously and makes sure its HGV drivers are fully trained.

Boris Johnson's solution to these sorts of things is this: "The answer is very often to educate HGV (heavy goods vehicle) drivers and cyclists." But you see, these people are trained. And still they maim and kill.

I don't blame HGV drivers. I do think there's something very wrong about the fact that HGV drivers are paid according to how quickly they make their deliveries. It's the same with minicabs. Flat fare equals fast driving equals higher road deaths. So I think the Mayor may have a point in asking Transport for London for an 'independent review of the design, operation and driving of construction industry vehicles'.

But this really isn't enough.

As the Dutch road safety institute points out to English-speakers: ""The ultimate solution for the blind spot problem is a structural separation of trucks and cyclists." It is the solution that New York has opted for, that Paris has opted for, that Copenhagen applies, Amsterdam, Berlin...the list goes on. But not London.

We are seeing some signs of change over at Bow roundabout. But in general, Boris Johnson doesn't seem to believe that structural separation is the way to go. Back in 2009, he stated very clearly: "road space restrictions on London's roads preclude the possibility of segregated provision for cyclists in many cases"

The thing is, it's not true. There is plenty of space. But if you make your priority the "smooth flow of traffic", that means as much room as possible for cars, and forget about bikes, pedestrians, old people, disabled people, children and their safety. We just eat the crumbs left by the juggernauts.

There's a fascinating picture-piece here about how Boris Johnson thinks that people should cycle through underpasses and around gyratories. My mum wouldn't. My sister wouldn't. My dad wouldn't. My niece wouldn't. My partner wouldn't. They'd drive instead.

A piece in this week's Local Tranport Today (a thrilling read normally) spells it out exactly right: "Cyclists' inclusion in carriageway design should start from the basis of expecting equal rights to personal safety for all road users. If this has an effect on other users then that must be accepted". The comment is spot-on, in my opinion. And it's particularly important that the people who design our roads start to see and think about this sort of message.

Now, what strikes me about London is that when you look at your council tax bill, you notice a good chunk of your taxes go directly into paying the Mayor and Transport for London. In other words, if you're a Londoner, you pay for these roads and the people who plan them not only through your income taxes but also more directly through the additional council taxes you pay straight to the Mayor.

A typical car park in the City of London. These people
deserve more from London's Mayor

Londoners on bikes are paying for road and transport infrastructure no less than car drivers or tube and rail commuters. It is time we demand a real seat at the table where priorities are set and where the social contract for transport is hammered out.

The Guardian's Peter Walker spotted this last week when he said: "This is significant enough to make the treatment of cyclists – something I've never heard mentioned in the national political debate – a genuine issue in the upcoming mayoral election." Exactly right.

And that's why I'd encourage you to sign up to Londoners on Bikes. It's a test site at the moment that will launch properly in February, but you can take a look at the soft launch and can sign up for email alerts. The point behind this site is very simple:

On the 3rd May 2012 we Londoners choose a new Mayor. Transport is the one thing the Mayor really controls:

"We believe Londoners on bikes have the potential to make a significant political impact by coming together as a block vote - the cycling vote. We want to make the Mayoral candidates take our concerns seriously and make electoral commitments to a safer future for London cyclists."

This isn't party political. It's not 'anti-Boris' or 'pro-Ken' or pro-Green or pro LibDem. It applies equally to any Mayoral candidate. But it is about making cycling a political issue. One that won't go away.

As I said, the site is still in development. But go, take a look and add your name via twitter, facebook or email. I think these folk are up to something very interesting indeed and I look forward to seeing how this develops.

And if, like me, this is something that really bothers you day in, day out, then do offer to support and help spread the word. It's time that people found a voice to lobby politically. After all, there are enough lobbies ranged against safe, practical bicycling.

Mayor announces two options at killer Bow roundabout. Some signs of positive change. Is this the start of something new or a one-off?

2012-01-12T01:00:00.000Z

TfL still can't decide if this is the right option
Courtesy London Cycling Campaign

Transport for London last night issued a press statement saying:

"TfL has announced proposals to improve the safety of cyclists using the busy Bow roundabout in east London."

This being the main cycling route to the London Olympics and the scene, tragically, of two cyclist deaths late last year.

Massive hats off to London Cycling Campaign (cautious welcome given to the announcement which you can see here) and in particular to Tower Hamlets Wheelers for pushing things this far but also to the very many people and organisations who have worked with like-mind folk to make the Mayor wake up. The press release is a a good start but it is, in my view, no more than a start at this stage. It's also utterly useless for pedestrians and contains one option that is downright bizarre.

Most important. TfL wants to hear your views. You have one week (I understand). Go to this page, click contact us at the bottom and let TfL know your thoughts (feel free to add here too)

Let's look at the detail

The proposals are defined as being one of TWO options, namely -

"1) Creating an innovative cycle “early-start” phase at the traffic signals on the eastbound and westbound entrance to the Bow roundabout, which would provide cyclists with a dedicated green light phase to allow them to travel around the roundabout ahead of other traffic."

This bit of the press release is encouraging. And so is this: "Transport for London also proposes to install new dedicated cycle lanes on the east and westbound approaches of the roundabout, allowing cyclists to approach the advance stop lines at the junctions without the need to filter through traffic."

All extremely good news. I've never seen cyclist-specific traffic lights in the UK that let bikes get away safely at junctions. They're normal in most other countries but this could be something of a first for London if it's done right. I remain slightly sceptical, though. I have seen plenty of bike traffic lights that force cyclists to wait three minutes and then let them sprint off for 10 seconds before they have to give way to all the motor traffic again. Something along those lines would simply reinforce the sense that motor vehicles must always be given priority over everyone else.

The TfL release then peels off into an alternative that could work but could well be completely insane:

"Option 2) Reducing the existing flyover across Bow roundabout from two traffic lanes to one in both directions, with new dedicated cycle lanes. Traffic signals could also be installed at either end of the flyover to make safe access easier for cyclists."

TfL is preparing to tell cyclists this is where they should cycle
Courtesy London Cycling Campaign

I can't quite believe it. Even with a cycle lane, would you want to zip up this incline with your kids? Cycle up here on a Boris bike? I'm not so sure.

The note to editors released last night goes on to say that traffic signals and dedicated cycle lanes might be installed to open the flyover up to cyclists 'helping to create a safer cycling environment'. Here's the flyover pictured left.

Overall, my reading of this release:

Proper cycle lanes will lead to the Bow roundabout whatever happens, keeping motor vehicles and people on bikes slightly apart from each other. Good. And traffic lights *might* be installed to get cyclists onto the flyover. Frankly, there would need to be traffic lights here, otherwise you'll have to cross one or two lanes of extremely fast-moving traffic to get on the flyover and back off it in the first place.

Personally I would like a Dutch/Danish/New York option, which would see the flyover kept for motor (or bike) traffic and one lane taken out on the roundabout (or some of the vast pavement space removed and turned into cycling space) with decent cycle space in the approaches plus traffic lights at the junction. That is the sort of solution proposed by the London Cycling Campaign and which you can see at the top of this post. It was discussed and agreed with TfL inspectors when they first reviewed this junction. According to the London Cycling Campaign, the Cycle Superhighway Implementation Plan acknowledged from the outset that: "traffic signals specifically for cyclists and pedestrians (toucan crossings) and separate cycle tracks should be installed."

Yet there's absolutely nothing in this plan for pedestrians. As Diamond Geezer blog points out: "As a very local pedestrian, I remain amazed by how incredibly life-threatening the Bow Flyover roundabout is....I give thanks that I'm not elderly, because I probably wouldn't dare risk it, and were I in a wheelchair I'd have absolutely no hope whatsoever. "

Fancy crossing the road here? Courtesy
DiamondGeezer blog

Why do you think pedestrians can't be included in the scheme? It's because of this, rather ominous statement: "Initial traffic modelling showed that the knock-on disruption to all road users, including cyclists". In other words, pedestrians, you'll have to wait for the bus to get across this junction.

The fact that there are two options is because Transport for London says it wants to consult. And it wants to do so quickly.

Whatever people might think of the relative merits of both options, this does seem like a genuine change of tone. It is the first time that I've seen Transport for London even dare to discuss concepts that Londoners deserve at major road junctions like this, and at other junctions such as Kings Cross and Blackfriars.

The fact that the press release commits to proper consultation with local and cycling groups is good news. In the past, TfL has paid lip service to consultation. It claimed, for example, to have consulted at length with cyclists at Blackfriars. The reality was that some plans were sneaked out on a Friday for consultation by the Monday. And despite several thousand people protesting on the Bridge, despite hundreds of letters and despite numerous motions passed - unanimously - in the London Assembly, Transport for London just charged on regardless.

We've seen TfL leap into action once before to make cycling safer at one junction. At Blackfriars Bridge in fact, in 2004. It took a matter of weeks after a series of deaths there and the subsequent public outrage to force a semi-decent bike lane back in 2004. And then everything fell silent again. TfL went back to its bad old ways and, if anything, things got much much worse.

Transport for London must get Bow right. But it must get London as a whole right for people when they're not in their cars, not just this one junction. After all, everyone who lives in London pays for TfL directly. Not just through our income tax but also through the levy the Mayor puts on all of our council tax.

We all have a right to request that those funds are spent properly, on the basis of equal rights to personal safety for all road users. As an article in this week's Local Tranport Today (a thrilling read normally) puts it: "Cyclists' inclusion in carriageway design should start from the basis of expecting equal rights to personal safety for all road users. If this has an effect on other users then that must be accepted". The comment is spot-on, in my opinion.

This is a very welcome announcement. But what London needs is systemic change. One junction could be the start of that. Let's see what happens next.

Swept under the carpet - TfL promised minimum safety standards for cycling in 2005. So why has it ignored those standards ever since? Is the Mayor negligent?

2012-01-09T12:01:00.000Z

Peter Hendy, TfL commissioner
commits to cycling standards he
then erased from reality
Credit: Camden Cyclists

Last month, Andrew Boff, Conservative Assembly Member explained via a comment on the Evening Standard's website that he wants TfL to; "Prepare and publish a design guide to inform and instruct all future [road] schemes." His idea is that TfL should apply minimum cycle safety standards.

The thing is, London already has minimum cycle safety standards. And in 2005, Peter Hendy (then managing director of surface transport, ie head of London's roads and now TfL commissioner, ie the big cheese) wrote a letter about those cycle standards.

In that 2005 letter Peter Hendy said this: "all new TfL-funded schemes will comply with these cycling standards."

I am hugely grateful to the hard work of the people at Camden Cyclists (and if you live in Camden or work there, get involved with them) for keeping an original version of that letter, which you can see at the top of this post.

'These cycling standards' are the snappily-named London Cycling Design Standards, the result of several years work and a vast amount of money. They're not amazing and they are inferior to current American or European standards but they are London's own standards all the same. They're still there, lurking in a dark and dusty corner on TfL's website and you can have a peek at them here. But they've never been applied. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that since Boris Johnson came to power, TfL has built schemes that consistently contravene its own cycling safety standards.

But ever since he committed to these minimum cycle safety standards, the man who is now in charge of TfL day-to-day has, in my view, completely ignored them. And my belief is the current Mayor has encouraged that to be the case.

Kings Cross website shows how TfL is breaking
its own safety rules

Take Kings Cross, for example. The website Kings Cross Local Environment has been out with a tape measure and looked at the roads here. What the website found is pretty damning:

"TfL with the vast resources available to it has been managing a junction for years that does not comply with its own design guidelines, despite stark warnings about safety in reports TfL itself commissioned. This reinforces my calls for a proper investigation of TfL under the Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act"

Or let's take a look at a brand new TfL junction in Barnet. Take a look at this excellent before and after video of this brand new junction. You can see that slip roads have been added and that they make this junction considerably more dangerous to cycle through. What do the London Cycle Design Standards say about this? "To reduce the distance where cyclists are vulnerable, the slip lanes should be removed completely by re-configuring the junction or, where this is not feasible, reduced..." In other words, the brand new, hugely costly TfL scheme shown in this video blatantly ignores the London Cycling Design Standards.

Let's look at a few more.

"If a junction is to remain of the priority type then the choice of which movements have priority should be reviewed to optimise cycling movement, both in terms of waiting times and safety". In other words, at any newly-designed major TfL junction (say, Blackfriars for example), cycling should be given safe and convenient routes through the junction. Someone, somewhere has decided to ignore this part of the document as well. In fact, the Mayor's re-election team consistently boast how he is rephasing traffic lights in favour of more and more cars on the road, not in favour in pedestrians, old people, children or people on bikes.

"Where appropriate and feasible priorities at cross roads should be changed so that cyclists on a cycle route do not have to give way" In other words, you should be able to cycle without giving way to small side roads. If can think of only one tiny side street where that's actually happened, I'd love to know of another one. I can't think of any at all.

None of this has happened. Someone, whether it is the Mayor or whether it is someone senior at Transport for London, will have taken the decision to ignore the cycle safety standards and just swept them under the carpet.

Which leaves the obvious question - Who took that decision and when?

What is clear is that since the current Mayor came into power the minimum London cycle safety standards have simply not been applied.

I find it very hard indeed to trust the Mayor will really deliver on his cycle safety review. It appears to me that he had a perfectly usable cycle safety document in his hands when he took office that he not only ignored but he failed to replace with anything else. The Mayor's office has now belatedly promised a review of London's roads to make them safer for children, older people, office workers, mums, dads, grandparents to consider cycling as a sensible option. His Director of Environment, Kulveer Ranger says this:

"The Mayor’s desire is that reviewing these junctions leads to a step change in the way engineers think when planning road layouts. Historically our roads have been designed with motorists in mind. But that must change and the Mayor intends that with thousands more Londoners taking to two wheels their needs be given greater consideration than ever before."

We've had one set of standards to make cycling a safe and sensible alternative for Londoners already. I'll believe Boris's standards if and when he ever builds them. For the time being, I think cyclists would have a good case to claim Boris Johnson has been negligent with their lives.

UPDATE - A lot of people will be gathering tonight at Kings Cross to protest about the Mayor's intransigence on cycling safety. You can read about what's happening in today's copy of The Independent here. 6pm Kings Cross, supported by Green party candidate Jenny Jones.

------------

You can sign up for email alerts about the Mayor's cycling safety plan on this page here.

"Communities of color like East Harlem have needed these bike lanes too. - my constituents want to bike to work and for recreation, too" - not just wealthier Manhattan residents

2012-01-07T12:11:00.001Z

An unusually pointed post this morning. I wanted to highlight just how far London is falling behind New York. And just how New York's politicians now 'get' bicycling in a way that London's Mayor and our local politicians don't.

The video below shows the state of things in New York.

I travel to New York a lot. Every time I go, there's more bike lane. And it's real. Not like in London. The video below shows the sort of thinking, the sort of pride in its achievements that London deserves.

And when you've had a chance to see what's happening in New York, just compare that with this video - an interview with Kulveer Ranger, the man tasked by the Mayor of London with looking after bicycling. It is a snivelling defence of debating-hall politics that talks about great things happening in cycling while failing to actually demonstrate anything good on the ground. I gave a detailed critique of this interview in a blog post here earlier this week. Watching Ranger again, after seeing the excitement and enthusiasm of New York's genuine bicycle revolution, I realised just how pitiful this interview is. Ranger keeps talking about 'the cyclist' as if she's some mythical being from another planet.

'It can be road design' that needs looking at says Ranger. But he seems to think people just 'need a better understanding of how to be more aware of each other'. To 'reinforce safety, we wanted to define where other road users could expect cyclists to be', he says. Compare and contrast with New York. They also talk about creating a 'defined place' on the street for cycling. But they add 'buffers' or 'a physical barrier' where they can - ie they intervene and put space between bikes and motor vehicles. Better for everyone and something the Mayor is opposed to doing in London (see this quote from 2010). Watch the bit in New York about 'class one' bike lanes. Can you even imagine London implementing something like this? Tragically, I can't. And here's the Mayor saying exactly that: "road space restrictions on London’s roads preclude the possibility of segregated provision for cyclists" Rubbish. There's plenty of space. All those hatches down the middle of London's wide main roads for starters could be used to open up the roads for safe cycling.

What's lacking is Boris Johnson's political will not road space restrictions.

The amazing thing that's happening in New York is that politicians of all backgrounds are getting behind bicycling.

Over in East Harlem last week, Melissa Mark-Viverito - councilwoman who represents parts of Harlem and the South Bronx wrote this in the NY Daily News:

"The addition of protected bike lanes — which have barriers to make riding safer for cyclists and drivers alike — is nothing short of a social and environmental justice issue. Until recently, nearly all of the proposed locations for these lanes were in primarily white and higher-income neighborhoods — from the East Village to Chelsea to the upper East Side to Park Slope.

But all along, communities of color like El Barrio/East Harlem have needed these lanes too. Despite the stereotype that bikes are mainly used by wealthier Manhattan residents and Brooklynites, my constituents want to bike to work and for recreation, too. They ought to be able to do so safely. And even those who don’t currently do so ought to be encouraged."

London politicians - read this and think just how out of date you all are. Most of you, at least.

Why do London's Cycle Superhighways cost at least 10x more per mile than the considerably superior Chicago cycle superhighway?

2012-01-04T08:52:00.001Z

£2-4 million per mile for some blue paint. Chicago's done miles better than
this for 1/10th of the cost

If you click on this link, you can hear Kulveer Ranger , the Mayor's Environment Director talking about London's Cycle Super Highways.

Among other things, he identifies that the biggest danger to cyclists in London comes from HGVs. His solution? Training for cyclists and HGV drivers. As I pointed out yesterday, Holland's Road Safety Institute feels that's not really the answer: "The ultimate solution for the blind spot problem is a structural separation of trucks and cyclists."

Ranger also describes how the Cycle Super Highways 'were actually designed with input from cyclists'. Yes, that's correct. Input that was consistently ignored. Such as at Bow roundabout where the London Cycling Campaign and TfL super highway teams on the ground agreed a design that would have ensured a structural separation of trucks and cyclists. You can see the scheme that the London Cycling Campaign thought had been agreed here. Someone at TfL overrode that original plan. Two people were killed cycling here on the revised layout last year. But the same is true of all the super highways. Yes, cyclists were asked for input. Again and again, though, that input has been ignored or overriden.

Ranger continues and says that cyclists asked for 'continuous, direct routes on the main roads' and that the blue paint 'isn't just blue paint'. Apparently, the paint is designed to tell motorists 'where they could expect those cyclists to be'. Pictured above, cycle super highway 7 in Clapham. Cyclists are meant to be following the blue paint. I'd argue that the blue paint here isn't much help to either people in cars or on bikes.

And here comes the clincher. How much have these things cost? Kulveer Ranger proudly says the routes have cost between £10-20 million each. The four routes are, respectively, 2.7, 5.1, 5.7 and 7.2 miles long. At a rough average of 5 miles each then, London's cycle super highways cost between £2 - 4 million per mile. And they are either pieces of infrastructure that were already there five years ago or, just when you actually need them to keep you safe, nothing more than blue paint, like the picture above.

Interestingly, Chicago recently launched one of its new cycle super highways. According to the Chicago Tribune: Cyclists are buffered from traffic along the half-mile stretch by plastic posts and a car parking lane. The project cost about $140,000.

In other words, Chicgo's cycle super highway costs around £175,000 per mile. Why on earth do London's Cycle Super Highways cost at least 10x that, between £2-4 million per mile, if Kulveer Ranger's statement is correct?

And what's more, just look at the superior quality of the Chicago bike lane. In London, you get blue paint that leads you directly into a car parking space. In Chicago, they've moved the car parking over to give space to people on bikes, separated bikes from the main traffic flow, provided separate lights so there is minimal conflict between motor drivers and people on bikes at junctions. Look at the enthusiam displayed by Chicago bike users for their new cycle super highway and compare with the sheer anger and incredulity felt by Londoners at the way Boris Johnson's 'cycling revolution' is being mismanaged by Transport for London. The only revolution we're seeing in London is that Londoners are revolting against Transport for London.

What a wasted opportunity to get this right the first time and at a ridiculously high cost.

Kings Cross & HGV deaths. TfL suggests trixi mirrors and bike stop boxes - Dutch road safety institute suggests these solutions should be rejected. Why can't TfL implement real solution NOW?

2011-12-31T16:21:00.000Z

TfL: No space for a safe bike lane here. because 'it would cause delays for road users'
Space for car parking on the right though... Courtesy Camden Cyclists

Last week, LibDem London Assembly Member Caroline Pidgeon popped up on ITV news. She has been pushing Whitehall to change the rules and allow Transport for London to put ‘trixi’ mirrors on more junctions. These are the mirrors that allow HGV drivers to more easily see people on bikes around them.

Caroline Pidgeon strikes me as someone who ‘gets’ cycling. A year ago, she quite rightly slammed Boris Johnson’s mayoral pledge to ‘smooth the traffic flow’ saying that he was prioritising speed for car drivers at the expense of inconveniencing and endangering everyone else.

However, I can’t help but think that trixi mirrors are just sticking plaster. Holland's Institute for Road Safety Research published a report last week showing that when these mirrors were introduced, there was a small decrease in HGV drivers colliding with cyclists but this was due largely to promotional activity. In 2008, the Institute ran an extensive study into these mirrors and concluded: "The visual field is still insufficient...Truck drivers do not make the best possible use of the different mirrors [and] Cyclists insufficiently take account of the fact that trucks have a limited visual field."

The Dutch Institute concludes: "The ultimate solution for the blind spot problem is a structural separation of trucks and cyclists."

This is exactly NOT what Transport for London proposes at Kings Cross. It has told Camden Cyclists (the hyper-active team that got you the proper Dutch-style bike lanes along Torrington Place. You know, the one that turns into a car park as soon as you enter Westminster's roads) that the creation of a cycle lane here 'would cause delays for road users'.

Several cyclists have been killed at Kings Cross. As local resident Caroline Russell points out, the father of a friend was killed cycling here by an HGV in exactly the same spot as Deep Lee. Several more people pedestrians and cyclists - have been killed here in recent years.

TfL is belatedly proposing to review the junction and make it safer for cycling. It claims "the study will consider how all road users, especially vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists, travel along the TfL and local borough road network around Kings Cross." TfL will also review whether it's possible to remove the whole gyratory system around Kings Cross.

Caroline Pidgeon in purple - LibDem Assembly Member who 'gets'
cycling at Blackfriars Bridge with politicians Brian Paddick (Lib),
Val Shawcross (Lab), Jenny Jones (Green), courtesy LCC

In reality, though, that review is at least a year off and no-one has any idea if anything might actually happen here. Aldgate gyratory was 'reviewed' five years ago with a mind to removing the gyratory. A couple of months ago, the City of London told me that TfL has announced another review of Aldgate next year. Nothing's happened in seven years. So why believe TfL at Kings Cross?

In the meantime, TfL's proposal? Some advance stop boxes for cyclists and some trixi mirrors. You can read about the proposals and a very good critique of the scheme that TfL is going ahead with on Camden Cyclists’ site here. Essentially, the 'improvements' won't make things any easier or safer for cycling here. They are largely cosmetic changes and include all the things the Dutch rejected back in 1980 because they weren't good enough for the job.

What's so galling is that there are routes all around Kings Cross that would allow cyclists to avoid much of the junction by implementing two-way working of one-way streets, some cyclist traffic lights to get through some of the hairy parts and decent signage. Has TfL considered them? No. Could they be implemented within a few months? Yes. Will anything happen? No. Why not? TfL has the Olympics to worry about. Everything is already set in stone for 2012. A few more deaths won't matter.

Camden Cyclists is pushing for proper, Dutch-quality cycle infrastructure through this junction. And I support them. But they also recognise that - given it may be 10 years before TfL pulls its finger out - the opportunity to create alternative routes around the horrible gyratory is a possible interim solution. Frankly, I think Camden Cyclists are being incredibly pragmatic, flexible and just want to get things done. They're faced with a Mayor and with TfL who are starting to make at least some of the right noises but are promising jam tomorrow without even offering bread today. It's a pretty poor sales pitch, in my view.

---------

You can contact Camden Cyclists here

'Four cyclists have died in the last two years within a two-minute walk of my house'. Labour's response to this situation in Southwark is utterly irresponsible.

2011-12-30T10:11:00.001Z

Welcome to Southwark. Four lanes for motors. Err, none for cycling

Last week, a LibDem councillor in Southwark council stood up and said this:

"My ward has been the scene of too much tragedy. Four cyclists have died in the last two years within a two-minute walk of my home"

That councillor is Mark Gettleson of Bermondsey. The debate was about the environment and talked specifically about cycling safety.

Gettleston added this point: "This is not a party issue, but it does require political bravery, responsibility and vision." He was highly critical of the fact that Hackney borough has cycling rates of 10 per cent and called Southwark 'utterly pathetic' for having a vision of increasing cycling from 3 to 4% of road trips by 2016.

In fact, that even puts Southwark behind the City of London which expects 10% of people to cycle to work by 2020.

I think that the 'bravery' he is referring to, is the bravery that our councillors need if they ever hope to change the way London's streets work. I have spent much of my free time over the last year meeting politicians all across inner London. All of them feel that cycling is a good thing, that it can solve all sorts of transport and health issues. But my opinion is that the politicians are scared of calling for safe cycling and for safer streets. It's a kind of weird we-know-that-you-know-that-we-know situation. The politicians I have met - and that includes London Assembly Members, Westminster MPs and local politicians from four political parties - have all backed safer cycling and proper bike infrastructure. But only one or two has been prepared to call publicly for radical change to the way people get about London. So far. (I can think of one huge exception to this statement and he's a politician in Newham.)

In that context, I wasn't at all surprised by the backward-looking and feeble response of Peter John, Labour leader of Southwark council who defended his council's extremely poor cycling targets and by Councillor Barry Hargrove, saying that rather than build proper bike infrastructure the council will focus on "equipping cyclists with the skills to interact with other traffic rather than building a network of segregated routes."

Cycling training is good and sensible. But it won't encourage mums, dads, kids, grandparents, workers, doctors and the public in general to get out on their bikes.

Councillor Peter John - will your policies encourage these kids
to bike to school? No chance. Will it increase road deaths? Quite possibly.

Please sign our letter to the Women's Institute to reject its call for compulsory helmet laws and to focus instead on creating conditions in which all members of society will feel safe and comfortable riding a bicycle

2011-12-22T14:48:00.003Z

"The health and environmental benefits of cycling are very much in line with past and current Women's Institute mandates and compulsory helmet wearing may encourage more people to take up cycling, whilst improving the overall safety of cyclists." So says the Women's Institute.

The following is the text of a motion being discussed by WI members which, if passed, will form the basis of the organisation’s campaigning and awareness-raising activities in the future: "The Women's Institute urges Her Majesty’s Government to make the wearing of helmets when cycling a legal requirement."

Do you want to have to dress like this to cycle to the pub, to church
to the cinema, to work, to school? Women's Institute motion wants this
to be so.

The WI appears to have worked closely with the brain injury charity Headway whose position on cycle helmets is: "To initiate activities and campaigns to reduce the incidence of brain injury." And who could disagree with that? Well, I don't disagree with the overall ambition. I strongly disagree, however, with the means by which Headway is trying to go about this.

I do not believe that the Women's Institute should pass this motion.

I say this not because I think helmets are in any way 'wrong'. Although I note Norman Baker, Transport minister has stated publicly: "I don't wear a helmet when I cycle." Boris Johnson and David Cameron didn't used to wear helmets but Boris has suggested an element of bullying forced him to put a helmet on.

I'm opposed to this motion because I feel it focuses debate on the wrong issues and because it would be a dreadful way for the WI to attempt to support the 'health and environmental benefits of cycling'. Along with the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, with Mark of ibikelondon blog and with the good people behind This Big City blog, we have set out our thinking in the letter posted below. The nub of our argument is this point, repeated below:

The motion could imply that the WI objects to people who
look like this on their bikes

"We believe that safe areas for people to walk and cycle should be created, particularly in populated areas where people live and go to school or work or the shops. At present approximately 75% of all regular cyclists in the UK are men; we believe that focusing on creating attractive and safe conditions for riding a bicycle have a much larger possibility of enacting positive change within society - most especially for women and families - with all the wider benefits that increased riding will bring (less congestion, less pollution, fitter population etc)..."

I would ask you to join us by adding your name to this letter which we will send to the Women's Institute. Please click on this link and sign your name on this page. It will take 20 seconds of your time. By adding your voice, you are signing up to the text of the letter below and to this final pargraph in particular:

"The undersigned call on the Women's Institute to reject Resolution 6 calling for compulsory helmet laws and to focus instead on creating conditions in which all members of society will feel safe and comfortable riding a bicycle"

I think the WI is a fantastic organisation and does an awful lot of positive things. But this is a pernicious motion, one that could do a lot of harm, much as means to do a lot of good.

Please join with us by adding your name to the letter which you can do by signing this online form here.

------------------

"Dear Womens Institute"
We are writing to you today with regards to the 2012 proposed resolution (6) which the Women's Institute is current considering regarding bicycle helmet compulsion.

We at the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain welcome the fact that the Women’s Institute is taking an interest in the safety of cyclists. Far too many bicycle riders, young and old, are killed and injured on the UK's roads every year.

Many more will never even contemplate something so simple as riding a bicycle - or have tried and given up - through being too scared to mix with heavy and fast traffic on Britain's main roads. We do not believe that the way to remedy this situation, and to increase cyclist's safety, is through compulsory helmet laws.

As is stated in the summary of your resolution in the pros and cons, the focus of the resolution as it stands is currently very narrow and is likely to put people off cycling; something we have already seen happen in Australia and New Zealand. Both countries adopted compulsory bicycle helmet laws in the 1990s and both now see almost a third less cyclists on their roads. Recent research published by the Health Promotion Journal of Australia found that 1 in 5 adults would start cycling, or cycle more, if such laws weren’t in place. In 2008, the New Zealand Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven publicly acknowledged that such laws are putting people off cycling. Urban cycle hire schemes in Melbourne and Brisbane have struggled to find an audience, with Auckland’s equivalent folding after failing to cover its costs. This whilst equivalent schemes in Paris, Barcelona, Montreal, Toronto, Washington DC, Mexico City and London (to name but a few) have seen huge success with hardly any accidents. London’s accident rate is a minute 0.002%. It can be argued that the consequence of a compulsory helmet law is a greater risk to public health than making cycling safer in other ways.

With fewer people engaging in everyday exercise like cycling, as in Australia and New Zealand, the risk of obesity and the many associated health problems increases. Even if cycle helmets protect against head injuries - and it is imperative that the Women's Institute is made aware that there is no conclusive evidence or academic consensus that they do - compulsory cycle helmet laws bring with them their own negative health repercussions. Obesity cost the NHS an estimated £4.2 billion pounds in England alone in 2007, with the NHS themselves expecting a £50 billion annual cost by 2050 should current trends continue. Any motion which encourages easy, everyday exercise like cycling should be applauded, but there is not one single example of a compulsory helmet law increasing rates of cycling.

We at the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain believe in prevention rather than cure. Cycle helmets do not prevent accidents from occurring the first place and we believe it is more effective to reduce cyclist's exposure to danger rather than try and mitigate against being exposed to it.

Whilst there are opportunities to improve training for cyclists and drivers, too often it is the design of our roads, particularly our junctions, which bring bikes into conflict with larger, heavier vehicles. Many of the high-profile deaths of cyclists, particularly in London, have been women riders who were wearing a helmet, and who were experienced - neither factors which saved them when they got hit by an HGV. We believe that safe areas for people to walk and cycle should be created, particularly in populated areas where people live and go to school or work or the shops. At present approximately 75% of all regular cyclists in the UK are men; we believe that focusing on creating attractive and safe conditions for riding a bicycle have a much larger possibility of enacting positive change within society - most especially for women and families - with all the wider benefits that increased riding will bring (less congestion, less pollution, fitter population etc)

Mandating helmet use for those who are comfortable cycling in our present road conditions, whilst not considering those who would like to cycle but are too afraid is not the way forwards for a safe, successful and equitable society.

A lot of us are able to remember that when we were children, our bikes were our passports to freedom and independence. There is no reason why this cannot be the case for current generations. There are cities and countries who already achieve safe mass cycling rates; we should look to their successful examples rather than countries, like Australia, where mandatory helmet laws have been disastrous. In the Netherlands, children are still free to go to school unaccompanied, on their bikes, on average from the age of eight. That is because their roads and towns are designed to make cycling safe for all ages, from children with stabilisers all the way up to grandparents and great grandparents. The result is civilised streets and happy children. In a 2007 UNICEF study, the Netherlands came top for safest roads and child wellbeing. The UK came 21st.

Whilst levels of cycling dropped by almost a third in Australia, obesity increased dramatically. Australia now has the fastest growing obesity rates of any developed country, with 1 in 2 people overweight. Additionally, since introducing mandatory cycle helmet laws, neither Australia nor New Zealand has seen a reduction in head injuries beyond the general trend for the population at large.

Traffic safety in the Netherlands is the best in Europe, and obesity is among the lowest of any developed country in the world. We believe that with pragmatic problem solving at the root cause, and hopefully a bit of imagination, the UK could achieve the same.

The Cycling Embassy of Great Britain is a newly formed organisation campaigning for just that. We'd be thrilled to have the WI on our side on this. Your resolution shows that you've the interests of cyclists and their safety at heart but we hope that you'll be able to think wider than just helmets and training to infrastructure based on the Netherlands model that has had proven success giving freedom of movement and empowerment to all. We'd be delighted to give you more information, or come and talk to your groups in person about the wider issues at stake. Above all, we would be honoured for you to join us in a proper cycling revolution

This letter is from the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain. It comes to you with the support of the campaigning group Cyclists in the City of London and the websites This Big City and ibikelondon. The undersigned call on the Women's Institute to reject Resolution 6 calling for compulsory helmet laws and to focus instead on creating conditions in which all members of society will feel safe and comfortable riding a bicycle

The undersigned call on the Women's Institute to reject Resolution 6 calling for compulsory helmet laws and to focus instead on creating conditions in which all members of society will feel safe and comfortable riding a bicycle:"

Mayor of London's office confirms a 'step change' is coming that will make our streets safer for cycling. More 'computer says no', or will cycling safety finally get some teeth?

2011-12-17T18:24:00.000Z

Tottenham Court Road will soon look like this. Awful for
cycling. Almost impossible in fact. Courtesy: AsEasyAsRidingABikeblog

Over at Euston Circus (top of Tottenham Court Road), Transport for London is planning some junction changes (click here to see the StreetView image of the junction as you approach it)

There is much wrong with the new scheme. Tottenham Court Road and Gower Street will both go from one-way to two-way. There will be a strip down the centre. This will turn both into roads like Pall Mall or the Strand - where it is almost impossible to cycle unless there is no motor traffic.

AsEasyAsRidingABike blog has a very detailed critique that explains how this sort of layout makes cycling significantly more difficult and less safe.

TfL is also planning changes to the junction over the Euston underpass. Basically, nothing much will change there. Six+ lanes of motorway-style conditions over the junction with a couple of Advanced Stop Lines for bikes.

At a site visit with Transport for London, a representative of Camden Cyclists, pointed out that TfL's own design requirements mean that proper and separate bike facilities must be installed through this junction.

Guess what the Transport for London officer at the site visit had to say about that point?

The TfL officer told Camden Cyclists that inserting any sort of cycle lanes at the Tottenham Court Road junction would require the loss of one of four vehicle lanes 'and that if the modelling does not allow that, cyclists won't have any cycle lanes'.

Transport for London knows that its own cycle safety standards mean it must install proper, safe cycle infrastructure at this junction. Unless it has been in hiding in recent weeks, TfL knows that London politicians agreed a unanimous and firmly-worded motion last week that makes the same point on a more general level. And yet, Transport for London's officers are refusing to consider installing the bare minimum cycle requirements at this junction. Because the computer says no?!

This is the cycle stop box at Bank Junction - the most
dangerous spot for pedestrians and people on bikes
in the City. Feel that taxi is a bit close? That's normal.

The following day, Kulveer Ranger, the Mayor's Director of Environment issued a blog post on the Greater London Authority website, confirming that the Mayor is undertaking a full review of the way that Transport for London designs major road junctions to make them safer for cycling. Ranger states that: "The Mayor’s desire is that reviewing these junctions leads to a step change in the way engineers think when planning road layouts."

Specifically (in this related letter to Jenny Jones, Green mayoral candidate), Ranger commits that the junction review will include these actions:

He also points out that, quite correctly, that it is important the process has appropriate governance and management processes. Quite right.

I think the review deserves a cautious welcome. The risk, of course, is that the junction review is just that. A review and nothing more. There's no mention of whether these designs will ever be implemented. They will be recommended but who knows if they will ever be implemented.

My sense is that some very good people at Transport for London have drawn up decent minimum standards for cycle safety already. The issue is that no-one's paying any attention to them.

So, I welcome this review. But it needs to hurry up. And it needs to have teeth. Otherwise, Mr Mayor, please don't bother. You'll just end up building things like the junction at Tottenham Court Road - downright bad for cycling.

-------

There will be Christmas vigil on Tuesday at Kings Cross. Relatives and friends of many of the cyclists and pedestrians killed - we think unnecessarily - on London's streets in 2011 will lead a vigil supported by the London Cycling Campaign, RoadPeace and Living Streets. Please join us from 6pm, Kings Cross, Tuesday 20th December. It seems a fitting way to let 2011 go and to wish for a better 2012.

Xmas Vigil on Tuesday: Why should it be made harder for older and disabled Londoners to cross the street? Why should Londoners accept they are more than 2x more likely to be killed cycling in London than Amsterdam? Join us next Tuesday after work to protest Mayor's street policies

2011-12-15T22:48:00.001Z

A bicycle lane on a road controlled by the Mayor in the City
of London. Would you let your kids cycle here?

On Tuesday 20 December 2011, from 6pm, cyclists, pedestrians, and friends and family of recent crash victims will gather outside Kings Cross station to remember loved ones and highlight the unacceptable death toll on the capital’s roads.

We're calling it the Xmas Vigil.

Click here for more details.

Please join me, Mark of ibikelondon, The London Cycling Campaign, RoadPeace, London Living Streets (formerly the Pedestrian Association), and other prominent bloggers. We are joining with the friends and families of several of the far too many pedestrians and cyclists who have been killed on London's roads this year.

We are inviting all Londoners to join us beside one of the city's most dangerous junctions where one cyclist has been killed this year. A spot where several others have been killed in the last three years and where large numbers of pedestrians and cyclists have been seriously injured.

The point of the protest is to make the Mayor realise it is not acceptable to:

a) Simply tell cyclists it is safe to cycle around some of London's most dangerous roads and expect them to get on with it. It is even less acceptable to claim London's roads are suitable for his 'cycling revolution' - one of his only two Mayoral promises from the last election that relate to the roads. He has blithely told Londoners they just need to 'keep their wits about [them]' and they could easily cycle around the Elephant & Castle roundabout - a place where 89 people have been injured in 24 months and one cyclist killed. Would you cycle there unless you didn't have a choice? Would you cycle there with your children? Would you let your kids cycle to school through the roundabout?

b) When the cyclists protest, he tells Londoners that it's all the fault of drivers, HGV drivers in particular. Let's just get this straight for once. London's cyclists are not blaming drivers. Boris is blaming drivers. London's cyclists are blaming the Mayor - not drivers - for the increase in deaths on London's roads. You are more than twice as likely to be killed cycling in London as Amsterdam. The number of people killed cycling is increasing, the number of people being seriously injured cycling is increasing. The number of pedestrians being killed outstrips the number of cyclists being killed.

c) It is not acceptable for the Mayor to have an election campaign that boasts about removing traffic lights and pedestrian crossings and shortening the amount of time that people have to cross the road. At Blackfriars, he's removed the main pedestrian crossing. You can see what's happening at that crossing here since he removed the crossing last week - people are now reduced to running over the road at this massively busy spot. Hardly fair if you're older, younger or at all infirm. This, and schemes like this, are about to roll out all over London.

Why should it be acceptable that a bike lane should look like this?
Millions were spent to make it this awful

We're calling for the Mayor to make changes; To realise that there is plenty of space to give pedestrians time to cross the road safely; To allow young, elderly and disabled Londoners enough time to get from place to place and to cross the road; To allow cyclists to get through junctions safely and along main streets without having to weave in and out of cars. Cycling shouldn't be like that. It should be something that is safe, normal and pleasant to do. Even on some of our busier High Streets.

Please join us on Tuesday 20 December from 6pm outside Kings Cross with the relatives of many who's loved-ones have died as a direct result of the Mayor's street policies and to hope the Mayor will make it his resolution to shake up his thinking and to shake up Transport for London and start to change things in 2012.

Exact location will be announced Monday. For more details, see this page here.

Bloody cyclists! Tough luck if you get killed. Essentially, today's Conservative position on cycle safety. Do we want political party that supports laissez-faire on the roads? Your fault if you get killed?

2011-12-14T17:03:00.002Z

Why's that bloody cyclist in my way? Boris's 'smoothing the traffic flow'
policy is why that bloody cyclist is in your way. Totally insane.

Pictured left, a cyclist in the middle of the road. The road in question is Queen Victoria Street, just off the Blackfriars northern junction.

Bloody cyclist! Why's he in the middle of the road?

Well, that's because the junction has been designed that way. Just ahead of the cyclist, the road narrows significantly. So he has no other choice.

The taxi driver right behind him must be getting royally pi88ed off that he can't get past. That's because he's also had to sit behind the bike all the way through the junction. Again, because of the way the junction is designed. Understandable, frankly.

I wrote yesterday about the removal of the key pedestrian crossing at Blackfriars (an issue I first addressed in February 2011 here) Earlier today, Labour Assembly Member John Biggs issued a press release saying he would write to TfL to ask why they had committed such a 'monumental error' in removing the crossing. Transport for All, a charity that campaigns on behalf of older and disabled Londoners has also chipped in, stating on twitter: "Disabled ppl esp visually impaired ppl will be put in danger by Blackfriars pedestrian crossing removal"

What gets me about all of this is that the politicians are siding in two completely opposing camps. After one of their Assembly Members (Brian Coleman) walked out, the Conservatives did actually stick around today for a debate at the London Assembly that agreed a motion (introduced by Jenny Jones of the Green Party with strong support from Labour and LibDems) to review dangerous junctions for cycling in London. While that's all well and good, I don't feel too confident it means very much. The Conservatives actually helped structure a very strong motion last summer with the Green Party about Blackfriars Bridge. Six months on, nothing whatsoever has happened.

The Big Smoke website summarises today's motion incredibly succinctly:

"The conservative line appeared to be that focusing on junctions where people had lost their lives risked was “arbitrary” (Cleverly) relying on “coincidences” (Boff). They felt that the focus should be on “tipper trucks” vehicle design and driver training as they appeared to be responsible for a disproportionate number of cyclist deaths.

There seemed to be little explanation as to why reviewing junction safety was incompatible with looking at dangerous heavy vehicles."

And that's essentially the problem.

The London Conservatives don't seem to think that road design has anything whatsoever to do with London becoming more dangerous for cycling (see Green Party candidate Jenny Jones's excellent analysis on that topic here). They seem to think it's just tough luck.

This week, I've now had a number of black cab drivers contact me on twitter saying it's time to make space for cyclists, that we shouldn't be shoved between two HGVs or buses. They probably also want us out their way at junctions like Blackfriars above. And good on them, frankly. The road has been designed to wind up that cab driver as much as possible by using the cyclist as a kind of rolling speed hump. It's a travesty of road design.

Another 'bike lane' designed under Mayor's 'smoothing traffic' policy.
Conservatives implied today this is good
design as it makes you safer on a bike. How exactly?

But the London Conservatives are sticking with the line that the Mayor's 'smoothing the traffic flow' policy is a good thing. Andrew Boff, who has otherwise been quite sensible on this stuff, even stood up to state (with no evidence) that it actually made cycling safer. He tweeted later 'smoothing isn't speeding'. No-one's talking about speeding. We're talking about road designs. Like this one on the left. This is a bike lane designed to maximise traffic flow. Problem is the only place to cycle is between the HGVs. Or just not at all, to get off and walk.

Smoothing is about stacking traffic into giant queues like this. It's about trying to shove cyclists into the queue along with everyone else. That's the exact same situation at Bow roundabout. It's the same at Kings Cross. There's plenty of space for a bike lane but it's not going to happen, it seems.

Transport for London is still safe saying it will only ever look at incremental improvements to junctions where people keep getting killed and not create safe space for cycling. Because it might get in the way of the smoother traffic flow. It's also why TfL is removing pedestrian crossings at Blackfriars and all across London (it hasn't happened yet but I promise you, hundreds are on their way out soon). Pedestrians get in the way of the smooth traffic flow you see.

So, the Blackfriars design has now alienated a) cyclists b) pedestrians c) a charity representing older and disabled Londoners d) is starting to get on the nerves of cab drivers too.

You start to wonder why the Mayor and his party are sticking to the Blackfriars design, let alone the overall policy. Do most Londoners want to vote for someone who thinks that old people shouldn't be able to cross the road? Or that people who get killed on the streets brought it on themselves, possibly because they didn't have their 'wits about them' (quoting Boris's suggestion that you just need to keep your wits about you and suggesting it's fine to take your kids through Elephant & Castle on a bike, let alone to cross the road here).

I've met several of the Conservative London Assembly Members. They're mostly (not all) smart, switched on, and wanting to do good. But they're painting themselves into a corner. Not as the 'nasty party'. It's more like laissez-faire gone mad. Your fault if you get killed. Nothing to do with us.

I disagree with laissez-faire on the roads. It kills people. I think deep-down they do too. I hope so.

Main pedestrian crossing at Blackfriars removed. Mayor sold this scheme as being all about pedestrians. Doesn't look like it now his press team is boasting about removing pedestrian crossings

2011-12-12T08:02:00.001Z

Blackfriars - this was a pedestrian crossing until last
week. TfL has removed it. Ostensibly to 'improve'
conditions for pedestrians

Both the Mayor and Transport for London have insisted again and again that the main reason they are building the death-trap junction at the end of Blackfriars Bridge is to accommodate higher pedestrian numbers.

Pictured left, some of those pedestrians pictured today at lunchtime. These pedestrians are crossing New Bridge Street towards Unilever House.

As you can see, a lot of people cross the road here. And, until last week, there was a pedestrian crossing here. Then, over the weekend, TfL removed the crossings. You now have to take a circuitous loop and wait three times at separate traffic lights to cross New Bridge Street.

Either that, or you take your chances and you cross in a straight line and just hope there's no traffic coming round the gyratory (you can't see it and it can't see you) and run across the now wider (extra lanes) and faster (TfL has raised the speed limit) road.

Transport for London has removed the most obvious route for people to cross the road - a route that is clearly very popular. I don't think that's been done to make life easier for pedestrians. I think it has been done to make life easier for 'traffic'. The Mayor bangs on and on about 'smoothing traffic flow'. This is smoothing traffic flow in action. It's not just bad for cyclists, it's pretty crap if you're a pedestrian too.

At a very basic level, Boris Johnson has encouraged Transport for London to make it harder, more dangerous and less pleasant for everyone to get around. Unless they're in a car. To the extent that the Mayor's press team now regularly boast in their pre-election pledges about how many pedestrian crossings they are removing to make it easier to drive your car instead.

Boris Johnson's campaign team is proud of talking about the Mayor 'reducing congestion'. It pops up all the time in BackBoris2012 tweets and campaigns. Things like this:

'Traffic lights have been re-phased, I have noticed a great improvement, allowing quicker, better journeys in between the main roads.' ie, it's easier for me to go faster down rat-runs which are the streets where other people live and have to put up with more and more motor traffic?

I think this is a Mayor who wants to claim 'I have made London less congested' as a major campaigning point.

Firstly, it's a bit of a moot point whether he has or hasn't. But what he certainly is doing, is making London's roads faster, nastier and more dangerous - with increases in cycling and pedestrian deaths and serious injuries starting to show in the statistics.

As Brian Paddick - LibDem mayoral candidate - pointed out in an interview with London SE1 website week: One of Boris Johnson's first acts at City Hall was to tear up the old road user hierarchy which placed the needs of those on foot or bike above those of motorists. Paddick is unambiguous about what his approach would be....you cannot have a roads policy that puts people's lives at risk. We are seeing a significant increase in fatalities, particularly of cyclists".

After yet another woman was killed on a bike at Kings Cross recently, Leon Daniels of Transport for London told the Evening Standard that TfL would change the road junction here to make 'appropriate improvements for all road users'. That language is code for saying that TfL is going to add some advanced stop lines and not a lot else. AsEasyAsRidingABike blog completely and utterly demolishes the plans for Kings Cross on his site here and points out "Transport for London have chosen minimizing queueing times for motor vehicles over the safety – indeed, the lives – of vulnerable road users on their network." TfL has done that because the Mayor has told them to reduce congestion by making roads more efficient for motors.

Now, he could have reduced congestion by getting more people feeling safe enough to cycle. The majority of car trips in London are under two miles (TfL stats). There's no reason some of that couldn't switch to cycling instead. But that will never happen on roads where people feel threatened by increasing volumes of faster and faster motor vehicles. Compare that with Utretcht in the Netherlands which actually removing an urban dual carriageway and turning it into a canal. Because they don't need as much road space any more. The traffic's still there. But it consists of people walking and cycling instead of driving.

I think that Boris Johnson's policies are killing and maiming more people. And I seriously doubt they will make much difference to congestion at all.

Leon Daniels is quoted in another Evening Standard article, talking about the site where Ellie Carey was killed on her bike a couple of weeks ago: "we will examine whether there are measures which could be incorporated to address any cycling issues highlighted by this incident". You couldn't be more weasel-tongued if you tried. What this says is that the Mayor and his transport authority know this is a danger spot but will do absolutely nothing about it other than tweak a few little 'appropriate' interventions here and there. Little tweaks that may or may not have any impact but will make it look like TfL is doing something. When in reality it's doing nothing. Nothing must come in the way of reducing congestion.

A couple of weeks ago, the Mayor announced he would conduct a formal review and consider how he could change London's road infrastructure to make our city a safer and more convenient place to walk and cycle. He announced an immediate review of cycling facilities at all major schemes planned (ie future plans not existing junctions) and all junctions on Super Highways (ie on a handful of roads).

What I can't understand is why that review is so complicated. In my mind, it's quite simple. Create safe space for people on bikes, keep them away from lorries and buses, especially (but not exclusively) at junctions. Make it easy to navigate through big junctions in particular. I've mentioned previously how TfL knows all this stuff already. They've studied it for years. They're just choosing to ignore it at the moment.

While the Mayor faffs about his new review, look at what's happened at Bow, where two people have already been killed cycling this year. As DiamondGeezer blog points out, a nice sign has gone up. He rightly says: "there's a heck of a lot still to be done to make this interchange safe for cyclists and pedestrians alike. Erecting signs at a death trap doesn't actually improve anything, it merely highlights how bloody dangerous the design was in the first place."

Once again, here's a Mayor who is sticking two fingers up at Londoners. If you're killed because the Mayor thinks it's important to remove pedestrian crossings or because he doesn't have the balls to install proper, safe cycling crossings, then all you'll get is some big words from Transport for London. A few weeks later, a couple of signs will pop up. And hey ho, everyone will continue as if nothing's changed. Because the Mayor must be seen to make it easier to drive around town.

The fact is that I think the Mayor doesn't give a toss about Londoners on his roads unless they are suffering from motor congestion. His sole policy is to make it easier for Londoners to get around in their cars faster. And to then throw a few scraps in the direction of everyone else (incidentally, in the direction of the majority of Londoners who don't own cars)

Which is why we're seeing more people who are cycling or walking being killed and seriously injured on London's roads.

As one black cab driver put it to me on twitter earlier this week:

"Unilever circus (ie Blackfriars), how long before a major [road traffic accident] happens Who designed the new layout, stevie wonder". Bit crass but it makes the point. He carried on: "reckon tfl have a sweepstake on what day the first [road traffic accident], be careful out there". Cab drivers get it, cyclists get it, pedestrians are starting to get it. Anyone else needed before the Mayor rejoins the rest of the planet?

This review of the Cycle Super Highways had better be good. Because it is going to have to make a massive break with what's being done in the Mayor's name at the moment. Otherwise, he might as well not bother.

Tories and former British National Party Assembly Members walk-out again and delay discussion about what London's roads should look like. The real issue is that the Mayor is letting Transport for London carry on with policies that are killing people

2011-12-07T13:41:00.001Z

Safe road design for cycling, London-style. Spot
the cyclist?

Almost unbelievably, London's Conservative Assembly Members have once again walked out on a motion to express the point that dangerously-designed road infrastructure is killing Londoners on bikes. The Conservatives were joined by former British National Party (now independent) Assembly Member Richard Barnbrook.

The motion stated that: "some cyclist deaths and injuries could have been avoided if the road network designs for the locations where these deaths and injuries occurred had been safer".

The walk-out has brought a withering attack from Ross Lydall in The Evening Standard: '16 cyclists dead but Tories refuse to debate road safety' and from cycling website road.cc.

From what I understand, the Tory walk-out was related to their belief they are under-represented on various London Assembly Committees. There was a similar walk-out, ostensibly for similar reasons, in June when the Tories walked out and prevented a debate about Transport for London's plans for Blackfriars Bridge.

Jenny Jones tweeted earlier today that she has some sympathy with the Conservative position on under-representation. And they may well have a point. But the fact is that they, and the ex-BNP Assembly Member - have now stalled issues relating to road safety twice in a row.

It is galling that the Tories keep doing this. 16 people have been killed on their bikes so far this year, double the number killed in 2008. And I suspect more of us will be killed before the end of the year.

However, what is even more galling is the total failure of London's politicians to work out what to do about London's roads.

All of them.

Montreal - home of the original Boris bike.
A Mayor that makes space for cycling. Very
different to London's Mayor

After the Blackfriars walk-out, something quite amazing happened. The Conservatives came back to the issue and worked with the Green party to table a revised motion that secured all-party support to make Blackfriars Bridge safer for cycling.

The thing is, absolutely nothing has happened since. In fact, Transport for London has simply stuck two fingers up to London's politicians, declaring last week that a safer scheme for Blackfriars couldn't possibly work. Because it might impede 'traffic flow'. Yes, that's right. It might encourage people to actually take up cycling instead.

According to Andrew Boff, the Tories did also table an amendment to this second London Assembly motion. He writes on Ross Lydall's blog that the Conservatives proposed the following motion and that Jenny Jones may have rejected the revision to this new motion to:

Publicly engage with cyclists and the London Cycling Campaign on a review of all future major schemes on the TLRN (main roads)
Review the design of the major junctions on the Cycle Superhighways and publish the findings;
Ensure that raw accident data is made publicly available;
Prepare and publish a design guide to inform and instruct all future schemes.

London Assembly did vote against this.
Transport for London has told them to sod off

That's all well and good. But the fact is, as I pointed out here, Transport for London has already consulted publicly with tens of thousands of cyclists and the London Cycling Campaign. It spent years doing so. The Mayor scrapped the work that was being done at the time and has utterly ignored the findings.

The one and only thing that will make any use in London is to publish Boff's suggestion of a design guide for all future schemes. But even that will work only if Transport for London is told to change its obsession with 'traffic flow'. And the only way that will ever happen is if the Mayor steps in. So far, he's made clear he's not going to. Hence, Transport for London can do what the hell it likes and screw the London Assembly.

Earlier this week, Transport for London sent a letter to Conservative Assembly Member, Richard Tracey. Andrew Miles, TfL Government Relationship Manager said this:

"Dealing with the competing demands on our road network is not straightforward, but we believe it is possible to improve road safety and to provide enhanced facilities for cyclists or pedestrians, whilst maintaining traffic flow. The reality is that we must ensure both objectives are accommodated within our scheme designs across London. While we are not complacent and recognise that there is more to do, the reality is that significant progress has been made to improve facilities for pedestrians and cyclists over the last few years, as demonstrated by the growth in walking and cycling and the improving safety picture."

In other words, Transport for London is trying to have its cake and eat it.

London Cycling Campaign design for Bow
roundabout cycle tracks

It wants maximum motor traffic on the roads. And it wants safer cycling and walking facilities. The fact is that this contradiction means we will never ever have safer cycling and walking facilities in London. Pictured left, is design by the London Cycling Campaign for a safer junction at Bow roundabout that is to international standards. This sort of design is impossible if you maintain that you can provide enhanced facilities for cyclists AND maintain traffic flow.

No, Mr Miles. The 'reality' is not that you must ensure 'both objectives are accommodated'. At some point you need to actually encourage people to cycle and walk. And to achieve that, you need to make the roads work properly and safely for people on bikes. You can't do that if you're busy designing schemes to maximise fast motor traffic.

I've given up feeling that the London Assembly can do anything. Transport for London is simply ignoring them because the Mayor seems to be ignoring them too.

Sadly, our Mayor hasn't got the balls to act on this. He thinks we should all just man up, keep our wits about us, and feel more confident cycling on the roads. I think he's wrong. And I think that his duplicity with TfL on this topic is killing people.

Transport for London letter last week rejects safer Blackfriars scheme, claims killer roundabout at Bow is not a risk for cycling & walking. Mayor now completely out of step with most other cities?

2011-12-03T12:42:00.001Z

The Mayor promised to review the junction here in
March. Still hasn't happened. Courtesy
London Cycling Campaign

Yesterday, another woman was killed by an HGV driver while cycling her bike. At another junction identified as dangerous for cycling. The same day another serious injury occurred in the same street. And, as I understand it, a woman journalist who works for The Times is still fighting for her own life, weeks after she was knocked from her bike by an HGV driver. If this goes on, the Mayor will have presided over a doubling of the number of people killed cycling since 2010. Something has got to change.

Yesterday the Labour Assembly Member John Biggs issued a press release: "Boris Johnson agreed to report back on what immediate actions they intend to take [at Bow roundabout - where two people have been killed on their bikes in the last couple of months]..and to report back within a week".

Three weeks later, he points out, the Mayor still hasn't agreed any actions whatsoever at Bow roundabout.

In the meantime, John Biggs has also been in correspondence with Transport for London about Blackfriars Bridge. The results of that correspondence are extremely depressing.

Talking about Bow junction - a place where pedestrians have to sprint across multiple lanes of a motorway exit road to get across the junction and where two cyclists were killed recently Transport for London has responded with the following letter to John Biggs. The author's name has been removed but here's what TfL has to say:

TfL seems to have rejected this in a letter
to John Biggs, Assembly Member

"[The] suggestion that TfL has deliberately created dangerous cycling conditions at Bow…is not acceptable: prior to the collisions there was no indication within the collision history of the roundabout to suggest cyclists or pedestrians were more at risk using it." So says TfL.

I don't know what this makes you feel, but it makes my blood boil. Who gives a sod about TfL's 'collision history' models? The point is these are bloody horrible places for anyone unless they're in a car. People feel scared crossing the road or cycling here. Transport for London doesn't think that matters.

Talking about Blackfriars Bridge, TfL makes a statement about the London Cycling Campaign's suggestion that TfL re-design Blackfriars junction as a double T junction. Let's just remember, that it was Transport for London's own safety auditors that recommended this design several years ago. They explicitly stated that a double T junction was the way to make this a place where pedestrians and people on bikes could most safely cross the road and get through the junction

TfL under the Mayor's current strategy no longer seems to think that is the case: "The suggestion for a Double T [junction] at Blackfriars is not workable in TfL's professional opinion". Ah yes, what professional opinion is that? The same paragraph reveals it all. It is only sensible in TfL's 'professional opinion' to make Blackfriars a safe and usable place for pedestrians and people on bikes 'where we test the impacts of a scheme on traffic flow'.

There you have it. TfL's own people recommend a double T junction to make the area safe and easy for people to use on bike and to cross the road. TfL agrees to go ahead with that design several years ago. TfL then scotches all such talk because it now feels that traffic flow of motor vehicles is more important. It backs that change of heart up by some film flam about its 'professional opinion'. I don't know about you but when people write letters that assert their 'professional opinion', I tend to feel they're using that wording to hide the truth.

I think the Mayor and his senior staff at TfL should be hanging their heads in shame. And yet I still don't think they take any of this seriously.

When the Mayor announced a full review of the cycle superhighway scheme, it came tucked in as a sort of after-thought. Most of the Mayor's comments to date have been about blaming everyone other than himself or Transport for London.

First, he told people they should just 'have their wits about them' when they cycle across junctions like Elephant & Castle. This is precisely why most people don't cycle. They understand that their wits aren't enough to keep them feeling safe against four or five lanes of HGVs and buses all bombing it at 40mph.

Second, he had the temerity to say it grieved him how people blamed Transport for London for what's happening on London's roads (i.e. he seemed to blame cyclists for having the temerity to criticise TfL and his own policies)

Then he told Londoners that it's all the fault of the HGV drivers. They need better educating he said. There is certainly an issue around skip lorries - lorry drivers are paid on results. They need to drive fast to make good money. This is wrong. But the Mayor is wrong to blame the education of HGV drivers. That particular issue is about how the construction industry pays its workers. And it is about a health & safety culture that is focussed entirely on people on construction sites, that completely ignores what those people do when they're not on site.

Another blogger puts it incredibly well: "TfL are currently reviewing the superhighways, something which has been marketed as super and safe to use. Unfortunately two cyclists have found out that they aren't safer than other roads, RIP".

He goes on to contrast the London Mayor's Cycle superhighways with new Cycle Superhighways in Chicago. Unsurprisingly, he finds the London scheme hugely lacking. And there's one thing he focuses on: "[In Chicago], the space for cyclists is clearly laid out and is 'protected' from other traffic.'

Just listen to this video and compare and contrast how Chicago is talking about bike lanes with the language coming out of the Mayor and TfL: "We wanted to pay a lot of attention to where motorists and cyclists interact at intersections". Hear that, Boris?

And that's exactly the point that the Mayor misses again and again. The Mayor has singularly failed to admit that London needs 'space for cyclists that is clearly laid out and is protected from other traffic'.

There are no excuses.

But the Mayor is refusing to change the debate. He's refusing, so far, to tell his transport people to make London a place where people can cycle and walk safely.

The truth is that Boris Johnson is still failing to identify what the Mayors of every other cycling city have identified. Chicago, New York, Utrecht, Berlin, Paris, Frankfurt - you name the city. All of them understand the need for 'space for cyclists that is clearly laid out and is protected from other traffic'. Except for our Mayor who is going it alone by implying that cyclists who are killed or injured don't have their wits about them and by blaming HGV drivers for their lack of road education.

I'm not saying that Ken Livingstone is any better on this topic (see the Camden New Journal for the only utterances I've so far seen from Ken on cycling during this campaign). But I am saying this. There are upwards of 500,000 cycle journeys in London every day, according to TfL. That's an awful lot of us when it comes to the Mayoral election. I think it's time everyone who cycles thinks carefully about how they exercise their vote at the election next year.

City of London and TfL - winding up motor drivers by turning you into a speed hump on your bike. New schemes designed to 'benefit' people on bikes fail drivers and cyclists

2011-11-30T10:01:00.001Z

Going to school - One reason cycling infrastructure
needs space (although note car parked
in bike lane in distance)

Last week, I met with some people at the City of London to see what they're up to in terms of things cycling-related.

What struck me during that meeting was just how little is going on.

First the good news. As I posted last week, budget has been found to open up some streets to two-way cycling. There will also be some new on-street cycle parking which should be announced soon.

One very big piece of news is that the City has secured commitment from Transport for London (again) to review (also again) whether it's possible to remove Aldgate gyratory and make this a two-way environment (again). Let's see what happens.

Less encouragingly, we talked about Cheapside - the street that runs from Bank to St Paul's and about St Paul's Churchyard which runs east from Fleet Street and along the southern side of the cathedral.

A year ago, the City embarked on schemes to make these better places to walk. It has widened the pavements and removed a lot of space from the road.

Police biker stuck in the motor traffic flow.
The problem? The motor traffic doesn't flow. You're
basically stuck surrounded by belching buses

In October 2010, the City also claimed this would "greatly benefit cyclists, the largest single user group of Cheapside...Given this high number, confining them to a narrow cycle lane does not accommodate them well nor does it address their occasional need to overtake each other. This proposal would limit cycle lanes to the approaches to traffic signals as these help facilitate movement past queuing motor vehicles and is considered to be of high value to people who cycle."

My own view is that the schemes are a disaster for cycling. Anecdotally, I sense that cycling numbers along these roads have also decreased since the changes. I asked people on twitter what they felt about the new Cheapside. Here's what people said:

"It's meant to slow down cars. But the taxis don't slow down or stop for pedestrians"
"Better for pedestrians, worse for cyclists. Narrow & pinchpoints. See few cyclists here now!"
"Worse. Traffic moves slowly. You have to hold primary [road position] which aggravates motorists"
"It's deluded. For pedestrians much better. For cycling - a nightmare"
"Endured months of diversions assuming it would be better when finished & now it's almost unridable"

£3million pounds+ spent on this road scheme and it's clearly failed to 'greatly benefit cyclists'

Why's that?

Firstly, the roads are now so narrow, that motor vehicles can't really get past people on bikes. And vice versa.

That means you're either stuck between buses or you have to overtake by crossing the middle of the road. Which is also largely impossible, because the motor traffic on the other side is stuck in a queue as well. Scenes like this one (above) are typical. Person on bike stuck in the middle of motor traffic going nowhere. Fabulous.

New Cheapside exta narrow road layout
Note how close the van is to the guy on his bike

The other clincher is the addition of new pinch points, particularly on Cheapside. Motor vehicles try to overtake you between the pinch-points, then realise there's not enough room, then slam in behind you or literally scrape past you. Just like the bloke driving this van is doing as he buzzes the guy cycling in this picture on the left.

What really gets me is that several people at the City of London told me quite proudly how all of this would work so well for cycling, how it would make people's journeys quicker on buses, how it would be a much nicer street to walk along. Why? They were certain that the re-design of the junction at the St Paul's end of Cheapside would encourage motor drivers to avoid using Cheapside as they are now directed away from the street. That junction is certainly far nicer to cross on foot now than it was. But it's had absolutely no effect in terms of intervening to reduce the numbers of motor vehicles using the street.

Revealingly, the Department for Transport issued a report by the consultancy TRL this week that looked at ways to make the road infrastructure safer for people on bikes.

Much of the bicycling press seized on the report's conclusion that reducing posted speed limits is the primary way to reduce cycle collisions. And one of the key aims of both the Cheapside and St Paul's schemes was to slow motor traffic. But what's happened is that you now have even bigger queues of belching traffic going nowhere. And, yes, I suspect collisions with cyclists will decrease. But that's only because people are avoiding having to try and squeeze down these narrow roads, especially when they're stacked with buses and lorries just idling there and there's no way to get past them.

Now for the really gloomy news.

There's even more of this road-narrowing planned. I haven't seen the detailed concepts yet but both Cannon Street and Fleet Street are under review.

In other words, it will be almost entirely impossible to cycle from east to west through the City during the day when the high motor traffic volumes mean nothing is moving. You'll just have to sit there soaking up the exhaust fumes and looking at the extra wide pavements. Would you fancy cycling with your five-year old along those sorts of roads on your way to or through the City? No? I thought not.

As one commentator has added below, this is coming all over London. You can see the plans for Tottenham Court Road on this site here. Same terrifying use-people-on-bikes-to-wind-up-people-in-motor-vehicles road design. In essence, see that picture of a five-year old at the top of the page? The current fad in urban road design is to place that five year old on a newly-narrowed road; have buses overtake her giving a few centimetres of space (because that's all the space that's left); encourage her to get to the front of the queue in a bike lane and advanced stop line; wind up the bus and taxi drivers behind her (quite understandably); who then overtake her even more closely because they (quite fairly) feel just as frustrated by the whole thing as the person on the bike. It's not only dangerous, it defies common sense.

That report I mentioned by the Department of Transport is a very confused piece of thinking. However, it gets one thing right. Road infrastructure should be designed 'using a behavioural-based approach'.

I think the behaviour that has been applied by the designers of Cheapside, Tottenham Court Road and St Paul's Churchyard is unbelievably poor. Their understanding of road user behaviour is to use children, old people, commuters on bikes as devices to slow down other people in motor vehicles. This is wrong for people on bikes and it's just as wrong for people in cars. It's like a trick - wind up the motorist by putting the cyclist in a sort of dodgems game. It slows down the road, yes. But it massively winds up motorists and makes cycling dangerous and difficult when it shouldn't be. Frankly, I don't see why I should be a dodgem car when I'm on a bike.

More streets going two-way for cycling in the City of London. Shame about the main routes, though

2011-11-25T17:23:00.000Z

The City of London people confirmed today that a batch of new streets will be going two-way for cycling from late January. I've mapped them to give more of an idea where the are. You can scroll around the map above to see the locations of the new two-way streets.

Essentially, some of these will open up handy new routes to avoid a few nasty junctions.

Carter Lane will now be two-way for cycling along its entire length. This allows people to avoid a nasty and congested stretch along St Paul's Churchyard / Ludgate Hill and to get to and from Blackfriars Bridge avoiding Farringdon Street.

Opening up Watergate means you can head towards the north west as soon as you get off the Blackfriars northern junction and slip through back roads up to Fleet Street.

Probably best of all is Stoney Lane near Aldgate which allows a (slightly convoluted) route through the back streets from Fenchurch Street up towards Spitalfields, avoiding Aldgate gyratory.

Also news (to me at least) is Bunhill Row. Not in the City of London itself but in Islington. This streets is an obvious north-south route for people coming from north of Old Street. According to people in the City, this will be going two-way for cycling some time in early 2012.

A further five City streets have been approved to become two-way, subject to funding.

That's all good news. But doesn't take away from the fact that several main routes have been made considerably worse for cycling in recent months. The newly-narrowed carriageway in Cheapside and along St Paul's Churchyard makes for fairly nasty and dangerous cycling conditions. During the day, these are rammed with motor traffic crawling along. And the only way to get through this on a bike is to either just sit there in the middle of the fumes or to overtake, essentially on the opposite side of the street.

I think Cheapside has been a disaster for cycling. It was billed as being all about improving conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. It has been a boon for pedestrians. It's considerably worse for cycling. More to follow.

In 2008, the Mayor promised 'a London where children & adults cycle and walk to school or work and feel safe to do so'. Today he announced a review of his cycle strategy. Can London's cyclists trust him?

2011-11-22T22:18:00.001Z

Can cyclists trust Boris Johnson to
make this sort of thing normal?

"The Mayor of London has met with the family of Brian Dorling, a cyclist killed in east London on October 24, and expressed his condolences for their loss."

So starts today's press release from the Mayor's office which continues to announce the following initiatives:

a) Immediate review of all major schemes planned on TfL roads and all junctions on the existing Cycle Superhighways. That review will look at all options for ensuring that the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and all road users remains paramount. Bow roundabout will be studied first with results available 'within weeks' - remaining junctions by the spring.

b) Reviews of construction industry vehicles and various marketing campaigns focussing on road safety.

c) The development of these initiatives will seek the input of a wide range of stakeholders, including the construction and haulage industries, cycling groups and local representatives from across the capital.

Hmm, say I.

There's lots of promise in this release. But as I mentioned last week, so much of this 'review' has already happened. For over six years, Transport for London consulted - through a number of expensive consulting firms - with thousands of cyclists and other 'stakeholders' about every single main junction in London. There's a massive database of the stuff. You can go and look at it yourself here.

However, as I mentioned last week, Transport for London has so far ignored that vast amount of research and there's very little evidence of it being taken into account at any of London's major junctions.

Fancy joining this cycling here with your kids?
Cycle Superhighway coming right here soon!

It is significant that the Mayor acknowledges something needs to be done. And good on him for putting this on the agenda. This being politics, I can't help but notice the 'review' won't finish until the spring - ie just in time for the Mayoral elections.

In other words, I sense that London cyclists are at last on the political map. And staying there.

However what really isn't clear to me is what any of this means. What is a 'review' exactly? Who does the 'reviewing'? Will it be the same people who designed many of these schemes in the first place or will it be people with any empathy at all for cycling and walking? Will it be people who might actually ever cycle through these junctions? When I met one of the TfL officials responsible for the original (slightly modified since) Blackfriars, she was genuinely stunned that I felt her scheme was a complete betrayal of pedestrians and people on bikes.

In other words, I'm not sure if we can trust this development.

What I will be watching is Bow roundabout. Bow is the first junction to undergo review and something is supposed to happen 'within weeks'. I think Transport for London needs to show it is prepared to implement radical changes at Bow. That junction must not simply be 'reviewed' but the changes must be implemented. And fast.

I believe that cyclists are looking for a watershed from Transport for London and the Mayor.

A few weeks ago, the Mayor described Elephant & Castle roundabout as a place that anyone could cycle through provided they 'kept their wits about them'. Frankly, that isn't good enough.

A TfL board member and an LBC radio presenter told the Mayor quite publicly that his attitude to cycling at Elephant was wrong

What I feel needs to change is an attitude from the Mayor's office and from Transport for London that assumes normal, everyday people are happy to fling themselves on bicycles across multiple lanes of fast-moving motor traffic. They need to feel they are able to use Cycle Superhighways safely not just from 7-10am when the bus lanes operate but at night, on the way home from shifts at the hospital. They need junctions that look and feel sensible to cycle through. And they need to be able to feel they can cycle with their kids. So many people have contacted me saying they wish they could have joined the recent Tour du Danger but were worried about cycling in London with children. I think it's terribly sad London has evolved into a place where you can't feel safe on the street with your kids.

Green Party mayoral candidate Jenny Jones has made some extremely clear points about the way the Mayor is designing London's roads:

"If I was in charge of the transport system and I told my engineers to design roads that speed motorists along at the expense of pedestrians or cyclists, then that is different. People can die and do." She hits the nail on the head. This is exactly what local bloggers in Bow like DiamondGeezer are quite rightly furious with the Mayor for rendering it impossible to safely cross the road at Bow roundabout.

Jenny Jones continues by pointing out elsewhere: "The Mayor...wants roads that are safe for him to cycle around. In contrast, I am an experienced cyclist who wants roads that are safe for a twelve year old to cycle on. That is the gulf between us."

Please no more of this. It's insulting. It's a
death trap. It's not necessary.

And that's the thing. This could and should be a debate about what sort of London we want to live in. Do we want a London where people are designed out of the streets so that more and more motor traffic can pump through the network? Or do we want people to feel they can choose quite happily to just get on a bike or walk. Remember that TfL admits roughly 50% of all car journeys in outer London are under two miles. People are driving because it's just easier and feels safer. We have to choose if we want to go on with crap air quality, crap congestion, crap petrol costs. Or if we want the Mayor to give us a choice.

Remember, this is the Mayor who scrapped the pedestrian and cyclist bridge over the Thames. This is also the Mayor that scrapped plans to turn Whitechapel High Street (part of the Olympic Cycle Superhighway) into a calmer High Street with space for cycling. The same Mayor that scrapped plans to make Parliament Square calmer and safer by closing one side to motor vehicles. The same Mayor that allowed Transport for London to ignore its own long-standing commitment to making Blackfriars junction safer.

And even more importantly, this is the Mayor who first launched the Cycle Superhighway scheme shortly after he sold Londoners a vision of: "a London where children and adults cycle and walk to school or work and feel safe to do so." Sounds similar to the language of Jenny Jones, doesn't it? Except in reality, when he had to nail his colours to the mast, Boris Johnson actually told those children to man up and just fling themselves around Elephant roundabout. Err, I think not.

This is the Mayor who completely ignored the early warning signs. Back in summer 2010, The Telegraph's Andrew Gilligan was saying this about Cycle Superhighway 7: "the route is pointless, verging at some places on the dangerous". Same story repeated all over again.

What this comes down to is whether or not you can trust the Mayor to come good on this review. Bow is his first chance to get it right and to undo the massive amount of damage I think he has done in recent weeks. It had better be a bloody good review. And an even better commitment to deliver. And there needs to be tangible evidence of more to come. At Blackfriars, for example. And at Oval. All places where cyclists have been killed in the name of faster motor traffic.

He promised last time. And he massively under-delivered. This time, his review will be complete by the spring. But he has to show delivery at Bow and elsewhere in London before the spring. Otherwise it's just more empty promises.

Bow roundabout deaths of people on bikes: Is another major London property developer going to come out against the Mayor's transport plans? Time for big business to start making itself heard

2011-11-21T08:25:00.001Z

Cycling to London Olympics? - this is end of the route

Last week, hundreds of people including the local London Assembly Member John Biggs congregated at the Bow Roundabout to pay their respects to two people killed, in my view, entirely needlessly by poor road engineering schemes. Cycle Superhighway schemes that entice cyclists into feeling they have a safe cycle lane but are in fact, nothing of the sort.

The site of these latest deaths is immediately next to an area scheduled for redevelopment - Strand East - announced with much funfare last month.

Pictured left, an image taken from Gehl Architects - the firm that will design the master plan for Strand East, a redevelopment owned by LandProp - a division of Ikea Group. Gehl is well-known to many people who use bikes. He is a passionate advocate of improving the quality of urban living by 'orienting city design towards the pedestrian and cyclist' and his thinking is absolutely spot-on.

Ikea has hired Gehl here to create an urban master plan that will 'open up non-motorised transport infrastructure'.

Various sources have told me that LandProp (the company that is building the site) is less than pleased with the Mayor about Bow roundabout. For several months, apparently, the developers have been trying to shake Transport for London into doing something about the lack of safe cycling facilities, the utter lack of pedestrian crossings and the insane motorway-like conditions of the High Street along here. In other words, here is a developer preparing to put massive investment into the area immediately next to Bow roundabout and to make this a decent, liveable urban environment. Yet, from what I can tell, the Mayor's insane 'smoothing the traffic flow' strategy means their requests are all in vain and this simply won't ever be a safe place for people to live, for people to cross the road or cycle into town or into Stratford.

Is the Mayor encouraging good urban property development here and then undermining it with a transport strategy that will completely undo the cycling and pedestrian-friendly nature of the Strand East development? I think so.

Bow roundabout is a disgrace.

Following two completely unnecessary deaths in the last few weeks, the Mayor has finally been prodded into action. He has insisted on a review of the roundabout scheme and on all the Cycle Superhighway junctions to report back this week.

Spot the bike lane? Under the lorry!

The fact is that he doesn't need a review. The issue is very simple. The Mayor has two transport strategies. a) 'Smoothing the traffic flow' and b) the 'cycling revolution'. Almost all the money is spent on the former and should the two strategies ever come into conflict, then 'smoothing the traffic flow' always wins. His conflicting strategies mean that people on bikes or pedestrians are shoed into major road schemes as a kind of after-thought. This explains why the Mayor is allowing Transport for London to build Cycle Superhighways with death-trap junctions like Bow, or like this one at Southwark Bridge Road.

This also explains why the Mayor's road engineers consistently ignore recommendations from their consultants to make junctions safer. They ignored the road engineers completely at Blackfriars, they ignored the recommendations to make cycling safer at Kings Cross, and they ignored the consultants who recommended schemes to make Bow roundabout safer. They are about to embark on insanely dangerous road schemes at Vauxhall, Victoria, Peckham and all over London along new and utterly compromised Cycle Superhighway schemes.

I think it's time that some of London's property developers came out in public and criticised the Mayor's road policies more openly.

I wrote a few months ago about another property developer - in the City of London. This company owns some of the most iconic real estate in the world. This is what that developer had to say about the seven lane-wide section of Farringdon Road where it has recently finished a new office development.

Letter from significant global real estate developer to Transport for London about Farringdon Road:

"Any cyclists find this red route an intimidating and unpleasant environment along which to cycle as the wider-than-average street and multiple lanes encourage drivers to drive at high speeds....We consider that a redesign of Farringdon Street is necessary to order to provide a more attractive cycle friendly environment".

But the Mayor isn't listening. Last week, after Mayor's Question Time, the BackBoris2012 team continued to put out press releases via email and twitter about how great it is that the Mayor is both re-phasing and removing traffic lights so that motor vehicles can get about more easily. That policy is just one reason that people are being killed at places like Bow and Kings Cross.

It is a policy shared entirely with Transport for London. In TfL's Draft Network Operating Strategy, the road authority is very proud that it is removing safe places to cross the road. Directly opposite one new development of several hundred flats, TfL is delighted that "A proposal for a new pedestrian crossing was dropped by the developer after being persuaded by TfL that pedestrian demand was more than adequately met at two nearby junctions". In other words, build hundreds of new homes but don't provide anywhere for those new people to cross the road. They'll have to drive.

The Mayor is letting Transport for London design people out of London.

The roads are being designed for maximum throughput of motor vehicles. He's not listening to cyclists. He's not listening to pedestrians. He's not even listening to massive global real estate developers.

Jan Gehl and Ikea Group are going to have to shout very loudly to get their masterplan to work in London. Because it seems the Mayor is encouraging developers to build a city where people walk and cycle. But he's allowing his transport strategy to build completely the opposite - a city of motorways, where you can't cross the road, where you can't cycle with your kids.

This week's review of the Cycle Superhighway junctions had better be bloody good. And it had better have teeth. Otherwise it might not just be people who bike who start revolting.

Result! Mayor tells TfL to review ALL cycle super highways and major cycle routes on its roads and report back. Now the work really begins

2011-11-18T17:03:00.001Z

Cycle Super Highway or car park?

Word hot off the press according to BBC journalist Tom Edwards - author of several hard-hitting reports about the rapid increase in people being killed out on bikes - is that the Mayor has said Transport for London will 'review all major schemes on Tfl roads and review safety on all superhighways Inc bow & report back as matter of urgency'.

About bloody time.

I am writing this before we've seen the Mayor's statement.

Several of the junctions on Boris's Cycle Superhighways and the roads that link them are a bloody disgrace. You shouldn't have to try and bomb down an A-road on a 1.5metre wide strip of 'advisory cycle lane' (ie some dotted white lines) between three lanes of fast-moving motor traffic. It's just plain wrong and is a situation that doesn't exist in any other civilised city.

As the London Cycling Campaign rightly points out, the Mayor needs to force Transport for London to actually look at its roads and think how would cyclists use this. For too long, cyclists have been fobbed off with transport engineers talking to them about the models or the traffic flow strategy don't support safe places for cycling. It's not about traffic flow. It's about how individuals act when they cycle (or how they are too afraid to cycle in the first place).

If the Mayor's call for a full review by Transport for London focusses exclusively on traffic flows and on computer models and does not take into account the behaviour of people on bikes, it's as good as pointless.

Transport for London already knows what people on bikes think about its roads. For years, it asked hundreds of people to spend their days working with it to create a massive database of each and every main route. It dragged hundreds of cycling people along those main roads and wrote everything down, paying consultants millions of pounds to write reports about how cyclists look at every junction and every bit of street.

One such report is this one dating from 2004 - a report close to my heart. It is the report on Blackfriars junction that recommends either a) modify the layout to enchance cycle provision and provide better pedestrian crossings or b) significant realignment of the road. Seven years later when that scheme came to be funded as part of the scheme for a new station at Blackfriars, no one looked at these reports. There are hundreds of such reports covering all parts of TfL's road network and you can download them here. In other words, millions spent and everyone knew the problems, everyone knew how to solve them. And despite that fact, Transport for London still went ahead and is now implementing a scheme at Blackfriars that marginalises people on bikes or people who want to cross the road.

Transport for London has already engaged with people about biking around London. And from what I can tell it has ignored those findings.

Spot the cycle super highway. This is what it looks
like at Chelsea Bridge most of the time

The London Cycling Campaign points out that Transport for London ignored recommendations from its own advisors Jacobs Consultancy at Bow roundabout that recommended traffic signals specifically for cyclists and pedestrians (toucan crossings) and separate cycle tracks should be installed.

Tonight there is a vigil taking place at Bow roundabout to mourn the loss of two people on bikes. Two people killed - in my view - by negligent engineering.

The Mayor has stated again and again in the last couple of weeks that he believes road engineering is not the answer to making London's streets safer or to making London a place where every day people just get on bikes and get about doing normal things on bikes.

I fundamentally disagree with almost everything the Mayor has uttered on this topic in recent weeks.

We have yet to see what the wording of this review will contain. But it must distance itself from the Mayor's recent comments and must show that the Mayor really does take his responsibilities seriously. He wants a cycling revolution. He needs to tell Transport for London to make junctions and main TfL roads safe to cycle through and he needs that to be achieved from the perspective of people on bikes.

The evidence is all around him. TfL knows what it has to do. The question is whether TfL's review will just be a sop to the Mayor or whether they Mayor is really going to give TfL enough direction to make safe space for cycling and that he will insist on a minimum set of principles.

The London Cycling Campaign is completely bang on the message here: Everyone who cycles on London's roads should expect their journey to be safe, enjoyable and convenient .

No-one expects magic to happen overnight. But we need the Mayor to tell Transport for London to lay down some absolutel minimum standards - such as not having to cycle across five lanes of motor traffic to reach the Super Highway lane and not having to weave between multiple lanes to turn right at Blackfriars. And he should ask the Met to back that up by policing the menace of speeding, driving on mobiles and driving without licences.

This review is a crucial chance for London to get it right. It is also a crucial chance for the Mayor to show he means business. And I, for one, hope he pulls his punches. If he fails, his reputation will be mud.