Cyclists urge Waltham Forest Council to reduce road space for cars in Boris 'mini-Holland' cycling haven bid

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: L-R, Richard Vincent, Gerhard Weiss, Jan Kartun, Charlotte May and Simon Munk, Waltham Forest Cycling Campaign L-R, Richard Vincent, Gerhard Weiss, Jan Kartun, Charlotte May and Simon Munk, Waltham Forest Cycling Campaign

Cycling campaigners are urging Waltham Forest Council to include proposals to reduce cars' road space and replace a busy roundabout with a cycle-friendly T-junction in its bid to become one of Boris Johnson’s ‘mini-Hollands’.

The authority yesterday announced it is drawing up a bid to become one of up to three London boroughs which could benefit from the Mayor of London’s £100 million pot to turn them into cycling havens.

Waltham Forest Cycling Campaign is being consulted on the bid, and member Simon Munk outlined a range of measures that could be implemented with the funding to transform the nature of transport in the borough.

He said: “It’s very good news they’re applying. Now we need to grasp the opportunity with both hands. There’s not a better chance to boost cycling in Waltham Forest than this.

“The borough has done an awful lot of good in the last year and the bid should expand on those changes. It’s great work but now we have to start looking at the bigger picture.”

The council passed a three-year plan last April to adopt a 20mph speed limit on all residential roads as well as allowing cyclists to travel both ways on one-way streets and tackling dangerous roads.

But Mr Munk said the new speed limit must be introduced more quickly, with only Leyton, Leytonstone and parts of Walthamstow having been affected so far in the 2012-2015 scheme.

He added that the Whipps Cross Roundabout in Leytonstone should be replaced with a T-junction he believes will be safer for cyclists, while more radical measures would reduce danger on streets like Lea Bridge Road and would encourage more people to travel by bike.

He said: “Lea Bridge Road is the most dangerous road for cycling by a mile. It’s the most used road for cycling as well but there’s no infrastructure.

“We need to reduce the amount of road space for cars. We’ve got to stop thinking it’s acceptable to take our kids to school half a mile down the road in the car.

“It’s unpopular but the only way to do that will be take road space away from motorists.”

Upon hearing of the suggestions from the campaigners, Cllr Clyde Loakes, cabinet member for the environment, said: “We will be meeting with Waltham Forest Cycling Campaign members and other stakeholders next week to discuss the shape of our bid to the Mayor’s office.

"The meeting we held last week with Andrew Gilligan was extremely encouraging and he was obviously impressed not only with our Cycling Action Plan, but with the working relationship we have built with WFCC.

"I think it will be a real asset to go forward together and pitch the very best case we can for a significant investment in improving cycling in the borough.”

The funding offer is just one part of Mr Johnson’s plans for London over the next seven years.

A ‘Crossrail for cyclists’ reaching from the western suburbs to Canary Wharf and Barking will be at the heart of the mayor’s proposals to make London the city of the bicycle, and he also plans to establish a new series of bike routes throughout London to mirror the Tube and road networks.

The ‘Crossrail’ project will be built by 2016, according to the Mayor.

Comments (50)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:10pm Fri 3 May 13

PsiMonk says...

Ahem, Joe - couple of things with this piece:

1. I listed road space reallocation as third after 20mph and segregated safe routes in a list of stuff (also permeability and more). But that's OK - if road space reallocation gets the headline and comments, I don't mind.

2. More importantly, I suggested Whipps X roundabout could become a Dutch-style roundabout as currently being trialled by TRL (and liked by Andrew Milligan). The plans for it being a t-junction were mooted and rejected years back. And I merely used Whipps X as one of many examples of hostile road layouts for cyclists where we could use "proper" Dutch-style layouts to good effect. Lea Bridge Road is another area - there's the space for a solution, and it has plenty of problems right now.
Ahem, Joe - couple of things with this piece: 1. I listed road space reallocation as third after 20mph and segregated safe routes in a list of stuff (also permeability and more). But that's OK - if road space reallocation gets the headline and comments, I don't mind. 2. More importantly, I suggested Whipps X roundabout could become a Dutch-style roundabout as currently being trialled by TRL (and liked by Andrew Milligan). The plans for it being a t-junction were mooted and rejected years back. And I merely used Whipps X as one of many examples of hostile road layouts for cyclists where we could use "proper" Dutch-style layouts to good effect. Lea Bridge Road is another area - there's the space for a solution, and it has plenty of problems right now. PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

12:20pm Fri 3 May 13

Cornbeefur says...

You cannot carry a sheet of 8 by 4 on a bike, what about the workers?
You cannot carry a sheet of 8 by 4 on a bike, what about the workers? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Fri 3 May 13

PsiMonk says...

Fairly obviously, not everything can be carried by bike. No one suggested it should be!
Fairly obviously, not everything can be carried by bike. No one suggested it should be! PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Fri 3 May 13

stupidperson says...

Stop the world I am Peter Pan and I want to play with my bike on the road , and I could not care less about others trying to get the job done .
Stop the world I am Peter Pan and I want to play with my bike on the road , and I could not care less about others trying to get the job done . stupidperson
  • Score: 0

3:50pm Fri 3 May 13

PsiMonk says...

Wow, what a fitting name "stupidperson".

a) You seem to imply that everyone on the road on a bike is having a play, rather than say, riding to work to get their "job done".

b) It hardly seems to me to be a lack of care for others that cyclists are suggesting it might be nice for car drivers to stop killing quite so many cyclists, pedestrians and, well, other car drivers. Or I could put it this way "grind the world to a halt, I am Peter Pan and I want to drive my car half a mile to drop my child off in heavy traffic, adding fumes and congestion to an already overstretched road network, and I could not care less about others trying to get the job done."

c) What future for London, Walthamstow, Waltham Forest and the planet do you exactly envisage? Peak oil and climate change means its long gone time we started moving away from cars. Your alternative is what precisely? More M11 link roads? More congestion? More pollution? More rat running? More obesity? More climate change? That hardly seems a recipe for sanity. But hey, I'm all ears if you've got an alternative plan that makes sense...
Wow, what a fitting name "stupidperson". a) You seem to imply that everyone on the road on a bike is having a play, rather than say, riding to work to get their "job done". b) It hardly seems to me to be a lack of care for others that cyclists are suggesting it might be nice for car drivers to stop killing quite so many cyclists, pedestrians and, well, other car drivers. Or I could put it this way "grind the world to a halt, I am Peter Pan and I want to drive my car half a mile to drop my child off in heavy traffic, adding fumes and congestion to an already overstretched road network, and I could not care less about others trying to get the job done." c) What future for London, Walthamstow, Waltham Forest and the planet do you exactly envisage? Peak oil and climate change means its long gone time we started moving away from cars. Your alternative is what precisely? More M11 link roads? More congestion? More pollution? More rat running? More obesity? More climate change? That hardly seems a recipe for sanity. But hey, I'm all ears if you've got an alternative plan that makes sense... PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Fri 3 May 13

billwillc says...

by all means reduce space for cars and make the cyclist pay the road tax and insurance bills
by all means reduce space for cars and make the cyclist pay the road tax and insurance bills billwillc
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Fri 3 May 13

PsiMonk says...

billwillc see http://ipayroadtax.c
om/ for an exhaustive take-down of the whole road tax thing (and insurance for that matter). But in short:

1. Cyclists are more likely to also be car drivers than the average member of the population - in other words most cyclists already pay VED for their car.

2. VED is based on vehicle emissions. Electric cars don't pay it. Nor do bicycles. There is no such thing as road tax - hasn't been since Churchill got rid of it a while back.

3. Most current cyclists do have insurance. But hey, while we're at it, I'd like to point out that TRL, the government's independent traffic labs, found that in the vast majority of car-cycle collisions it's the driver that's at fault.

4. Finally, what exactly does road space reallocation (which isn't just to cyclists - buses and pedestrians would win out too) have to do with VED and insurance? In fact, calming traffic - which is what this is all about really - is likely to lead to less race/rev/brake cycles at lights, fewer collisions and less road wear - and ultimately fewer cars on the roads will mean less congestion and again, fewer collisions, less road wear. It seems to work just fine on the continent...
billwillc see http://ipayroadtax.c om/ for an exhaustive take-down of the whole road tax thing (and insurance for that matter). But in short: 1. Cyclists are more likely to also be car drivers than the average member of the population - in other words most cyclists already pay VED for their car. 2. VED is based on vehicle emissions. Electric cars don't pay it. Nor do bicycles. There is no such thing as road tax - hasn't been since Churchill got rid of it a while back. 3. Most current cyclists do have insurance. But hey, while we're at it, I'd like to point out that TRL, the government's independent traffic labs, found that in the vast majority of car-cycle collisions it's the driver that's at fault. 4. Finally, what exactly does road space reallocation (which isn't just to cyclists - buses and pedestrians would win out too) have to do with VED and insurance? In fact, calming traffic - which is what this is all about really - is likely to lead to less race/rev/brake cycles at lights, fewer collisions and less road wear - and ultimately fewer cars on the roads will mean less congestion and again, fewer collisions, less road wear. It seems to work just fine on the continent... PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Fri 3 May 13

NDevoto says...

billwillc wrote:
by all means reduce space for cars and make the cyclist pay the road tax and insurance bills
And the Award for the first ignorant mention of "road tax" goes to ........
[quote][p][bold]billwillc[/bold] wrote: by all means reduce space for cars and make the cyclist pay the road tax and insurance bills[/p][/quote]And the Award for the first ignorant mention of "road tax" goes to ........ NDevoto
  • Score: 0

12:09am Sat 4 May 13

HottRedMan says...

What annother crackpot idea from the usual cyling lobby anti car haters.
Sick of these low lifes, they wont be pleased until everyone is gone back to the stone age. Just like horses, bicycles are the transport mode of the past.

LBWF are only excited at this money to spend as they want to channel it into other projects and boost their wages, dont trust any of those councillors.
What annother crackpot idea from the usual cyling lobby anti car haters. Sick of these low lifes, they wont be pleased until everyone is gone back to the stone age. Just like horses, bicycles are the transport mode of the past. LBWF are only excited at this money to spend as they want to channel it into other projects and boost their wages, dont trust any of those councillors. HottRedMan
  • Score: 0

10:34am Sat 4 May 13

stickmanny says...

HottRedMan wrote:
What annother crackpot idea from the usual cyling lobby anti car haters.
Sick of these low lifes, they wont be pleased until everyone is gone back to the stone age. Just like horses, bicycles are the transport mode of the past.

LBWF are only excited at this money to spend as they want to channel it into other projects and boost their wages, dont trust any of those councillors.
What a moaner. If you don't like it this has got to be a good idea.
[quote][p][bold]HottRedMan[/bold] wrote: What annother crackpot idea from the usual cyling lobby anti car haters. Sick of these low lifes, they wont be pleased until everyone is gone back to the stone age. Just like horses, bicycles are the transport mode of the past. LBWF are only excited at this money to spend as they want to channel it into other projects and boost their wages, dont trust any of those councillors.[/p][/quote]What a moaner. If you don't like it this has got to be a good idea. stickmanny
  • Score: 0

10:52am Sat 4 May 13

PsiMonk says...

Stickmanny, LOL!

HottRedMan as per my earlier comment, cyclists are more likely to also drive than most. So we are hardly anti-car. Some of us are even petrol heads. But most cyclists see firsthand the reality of prioritising private motor traffic above all other forms of transport in a tightly packed urban environment.

Want more congestion, pollution, obesity and road casualties? Keep on driving everywhere. In a borough where nearly half of households don't own a car, its the car drivers who flat refuse to consider other modes of transport that seem to me like "low life's".
Stickmanny, LOL! HottRedMan as per my earlier comment, cyclists are more likely to also drive than most. So we are hardly anti-car. Some of us are even petrol heads. But most cyclists see firsthand the reality of prioritising private motor traffic above all other forms of transport in a tightly packed urban environment. Want more congestion, pollution, obesity and road casualties? Keep on driving everywhere. In a borough where nearly half of households don't own a car, its the car drivers who flat refuse to consider other modes of transport that seem to me like "low life's". PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

9:55am Sun 5 May 13

Leytonstonia says...

... and not many of those car owners in WF drive to work in central London, preferring to commute by packed public transport.

More cycling = better for everyone. Less pollution, less congestion on the roads, more space on public transport.

Hottredbore:

In my life I've owned eight motorcycles, four scooters, and nine cars - including an AC Cobra. It's possible to own a motor vehicle and ride a bike to get to work, you know.
... and not many of those car owners in WF drive to work in central London, preferring to commute by packed public transport. More cycling = better for everyone. Less pollution, less congestion on the roads, more space on public transport. Hottredbore: In my life I've owned eight motorcycles, four scooters, and nine cars - including an AC Cobra. It's possible to own a motor vehicle and ride a bike to get to work, you know. Leytonstonia
  • Score: 0

10:54am Sun 5 May 13

Stevo98 says...

Trials that saw school kids being escorted to school on bikes resulted in the children being more wide awake and alert, ready for a day's learning! It's also a truism that more cyclists = safer roads. It makes sense when you think about it, drivers get used to cyclists and learn how to overtake properly (in most vehicle/cyclist collisions it is THE DRIVER who is at fault.

So, what do LBWF do? They paint stupid cycle lanes slap bang in the door zone. That's right, the council splash paint about that suggests cyclists ride where the danger is. Farcical. They allow on street parking, blocking pavements and forcing the blind and mums with pushchairs into the road. Insane.

Cycling is booming in London, cycling rates have doubled in the last ten years and the accident rate has halved, but there's a long way to go, especially in WF.
Trials that saw school kids being escorted to school on bikes resulted in the children being more wide awake and alert, ready for a day's learning! It's also a truism that more cyclists = safer roads. It makes sense when you think about it, drivers get used to cyclists and learn how to overtake properly (in most vehicle/cyclist collisions it is THE DRIVER who is at fault. So, what do LBWF do? They paint stupid cycle lanes slap bang in the door zone. That's right, the council splash paint about that suggests cyclists ride where the danger is. Farcical. They allow on street parking, blocking pavements and forcing the blind and mums with pushchairs into the road. Insane. Cycling is booming in London, cycling rates have doubled in the last ten years and the accident rate has halved, but there's a long way to go, especially in WF. Stevo98
  • Score: 0

9:13am Mon 6 May 13

Clear Thinking says...

I think that the way this article has been presented might be responsible for some of the comments.

I use a bike for going to work on those days where I don't need to drive during the day and carry a folding electric bike in the boot for times when traffic makes using the car impractical. I have seen some truly appalling driving AND cycling so no party should be claiming that they're any better than the other (I have a video camera mounted on my bike which has caught examples of this)

The roads are busy and we all need to share them otherwise we're looking at total gridlock (ignoring the fossil fuel global warming debate which normally ends up hijacking any discussion).

A sensible transport plan should involve all users (I hate the term "stakeholder") so that compromise can be reached, but there is the main sticking point, compromise requires maturity.

Until I got" back in the saddle" last September I detested cyclists, now I've cycled for a few months I can appreciate what they put up with (I've even noticed that bus drivers are courteous to cyclists when you're cycling sensibly - and I never thought I'd say that publicly)
I think that the way this article has been presented might be responsible for some of the comments. I use a bike for going to work on those days where I don't need to drive during the day and carry a folding electric bike in the boot for times when traffic makes using the car impractical. I have seen some truly appalling driving AND cycling so no party should be claiming that they're any better than the other (I have a video camera mounted on my bike which has caught examples of this) The roads are busy and we all need to share them otherwise we're looking at total gridlock (ignoring the fossil fuel global warming debate which normally ends up hijacking any discussion). A sensible transport plan should involve all users (I hate the term "stakeholder") so that compromise can be reached, but there is the main sticking point, compromise requires maturity. Until I got" back in the saddle" last September I detested cyclists, now I've cycled for a few months I can appreciate what they put up with (I've even noticed that bus drivers are courteous to cyclists when you're cycling sensibly - and I never thought I'd say that publicly) Clear Thinking
  • Score: 0

10:22am Mon 6 May 13

PsiMonk says...

Clear Thinking, mostly agree w what you said, but...

A. Sadly, get this kind of anti-cycling ranting, no matter how meekly worded the piece.

B. Agree on bad behaviour on all sides. But remember a) TRL reckoned 74 percent cycle-car collisions driver's fault and b) who is likely to be injured, and who is likely to be unharmed in such a collision, c) I believe there are also different reasons why bad behaviour appears w different road users. Ultimately though, most cyclists are drivers too. And we all do need to share road responsibly.

C. As to compromise, I think issue for cycle campaigners is we have had decades of road and town design pretty much solely for cars. A sensible compromise solution between needs of drivers and cyclists from that perspective looks fairly radical. The Dutch, for instance, manage tightly populated urban areas with very high cycle share and car use. But saying we want Dutch solutions in London until very recently has been considered loony tunes talk.
Clear Thinking, mostly agree w what you said, but... A. Sadly, get this kind of anti-cycling ranting, no matter how meekly worded the piece. B. Agree on bad behaviour on all sides. But remember a) TRL reckoned 74 percent cycle-car collisions driver's fault and b) who is likely to be injured, and who is likely to be unharmed in such a collision, c) I believe there are also different reasons why bad behaviour appears w different road users. Ultimately though, most cyclists are drivers too. And we all do need to share road responsibly. C. As to compromise, I think issue for cycle campaigners is we have had decades of road and town design pretty much solely for cars. A sensible compromise solution between needs of drivers and cyclists from that perspective looks fairly radical. The Dutch, for instance, manage tightly populated urban areas with very high cycle share and car use. But saying we want Dutch solutions in London until very recently has been considered loony tunes talk. PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

11:22am Mon 6 May 13

Clear Thinking says...

The anti cycle ranting is probably more due to the Jeremy Clarkson "wannabes" who haven't realised that this is his media persona (which has earned him a fair amount - I don't have any problem with that) and I've no wish to get into a war of words with someone who can't understand that.

Whilst drivers may be responsible for the majority of cycle injuries/deaths I don't believe that cyclists can't do more to protect themselves.

I wear hi-viz, I don't like it but if it gives me a chance I'll use it, same with my skid lid but it gets more use when I'm off road. I assume that the drivers near me are incompetent (the majority aren't) but I ride accordingly and acknowledge/thank those that pass me safely.

The Dutch model is the ideal, but being perceived as attacking drivers, doesn't do anyone any favours and looking at the headline of the article might give that impression which opens up the whole "make them pay tax, insurance etc" which has already started earlier on in the replies
The anti cycle ranting is probably more due to the Jeremy Clarkson "wannabes" who haven't realised that this is his media persona (which has earned him a fair amount - I don't have any problem with that) and I've no wish to get into a war of words with someone who can't understand that. Whilst drivers may be responsible for the majority of cycle injuries/deaths I don't believe that cyclists can't do more to protect themselves. I wear hi-viz, I don't like it but if it gives me a chance I'll use it, same with my skid lid but it gets more use when I'm off road. I assume that the drivers near me are incompetent (the majority aren't) but I ride accordingly and acknowledge/thank those that pass me safely. The Dutch model is the ideal, but being perceived as attacking drivers, doesn't do anyone any favours and looking at the headline of the article might give that impression which opens up the whole "make them pay tax, insurance etc" which has already started earlier on in the replies Clear Thinking
  • Score: 0

11:51am Mon 6 May 13

PsiMonk says...

Again, agreed. Although you get those road tax comments even without n inflammatory headline!
Again, agreed. Although you get those road tax comments even without n inflammatory headline! PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Mon 6 May 13

Cornbeefur says...

You cannot carry a jumbo bag of sand on a bike or 20 bowls of fruit and veg from Hoe Street on a bike.
You cannot carry a jumbo bag of sand on a bike or 20 bowls of fruit and veg from Hoe Street on a bike. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

5:36pm Mon 6 May 13

PsiMonk says...

But apparently, Cornbeefur, you can carry a chip on your shoulder. And you can carry both with a trailer. And you clearly haven't paid any attention to other people's comments.
But apparently, Cornbeefur, you can carry a chip on your shoulder. And you can carry both with a trailer. And you clearly haven't paid any attention to other people's comments. PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Mon 6 May 13

Cornbeefur says...

PsiMonk wrote:
But apparently, Cornbeefur, you can carry a chip on your shoulder. And you can carry both with a trailer. And you clearly haven't paid any attention to other people's comments.
Cyclists are fools wearing cranberry tinted spectacles wishing they were still in the Stone Age.

If you like it so muck go to Holland?

They meander along, go through red lights when it suits and ride on the pavement, whilst being cheap skates, no tax, no insurance or MOT.

Ultimate penalty is being wiped up by Juggernaut as a result of their recklessness, simple as that.
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: But apparently, Cornbeefur, you can carry a chip on your shoulder. And you can carry both with a trailer. And you clearly haven't paid any attention to other people's comments.[/p][/quote]Cyclists are fools wearing cranberry tinted spectacles wishing they were still in the Stone Age. If you like it so muck go to Holland? They meander along, go through red lights when it suits and ride on the pavement, whilst being cheap skates, no tax, no insurance or MOT. Ultimate penalty is being wiped up by Juggernaut as a result of their recklessness, simple as that. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Mon 6 May 13

PsiMonk says...

Remember folks, don't feed the trolls.
Remember folks, don't feed the trolls. PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Tue 7 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

The council's nutty "road improvement schemes" on Hoe Street and Forest Road show how hostile it is to safe cycling. Narrowing the road by making the pavements wider just puts cyclists in the way of lorries etc. To add insult to injury Loakes then sticks parking bays on the widened pavement, putting cyclists in the door zone. The council's pretty picture of a cyclist pedalling in the middle of Forest Road followed by just one patient driver shows the fantasy world that Loakes is living in.
Not to mention the new pinch points.
Maybe the lapdogs of the local cycling group haven't noticed what the council has done to Wood Street, which makes pedalling to the Whipps Cross roundabout fit only for the brave and the suicidal. Then again the council has fudged that roundabout for donkey's years.
Driving around Waltham Forest is great. There's parking everywhere. That's why so few people cycle.
The council's nutty "road improvement schemes" on Hoe Street and Forest Road show how hostile it is to safe cycling. Narrowing the road by making the pavements wider just puts cyclists in the way of lorries etc. To add insult to injury Loakes then sticks parking bays on the widened pavement, putting cyclists in the door zone. The council's pretty picture of a cyclist pedalling in the middle of Forest Road followed by just one patient driver shows the fantasy world that Loakes is living in. Not to mention the new pinch points. Maybe the lapdogs of the local cycling group haven't noticed what the council has done to Wood Street, which makes pedalling to the Whipps Cross roundabout fit only for the brave and the suicidal. Then again the council has fudged that roundabout for donkey's years. Driving around Waltham Forest is great. There's parking everywhere. That's why so few people cycle. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

7:29pm Tue 7 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

Maybe the lapdogs haven't noticed that CPZ permits have been reduced in price yet again by the car-mad Labour council.
If you make car ownership cheap and easy don't expect people to choose cycling.
Maybe the lapdogs haven't noticed that CPZ permits have been reduced in price yet again by the car-mad Labour council. If you make car ownership cheap and easy don't expect people to choose cycling. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

7:42pm Tue 7 May 13

PsiMonk says...

Maybe the "lapdogs" would rather push, push, push for better stuff for cyclists than just moan and whine on online forums.

As I have said many times before, wfcc meets publicly and is democratically elected. If you want a more militant organisation, its really easy to get involved. Or is it all just hot air, Tom Thumb?

I personally think it is a harder but better thing to engage the council and push them in the right direction than do nothing and hold some notional moral high ground but never change anything.

And as the early comments on this post demonstrate, for every campaigning cyclist, there are many local drivers who want to rat run, who can't abide slowing down, who want to park outside their house and every shop for free or cheaply, who think cyclists should just get out of the way. And many of them are unafraid to badger the local council with their views. As do local traders who seem to view drivers as far more important to their trade than pedestrians, cyclists etc. So moan and whine away... Or join us and allow us to be louder in the council's ear.

And for the record, problems w both Wood St and Hoe St have been raised by wfcc. I personally think Hoe St is better than Wood St but yes, by no means utopian.
Maybe the "lapdogs" would rather push, push, push for better stuff for cyclists than just moan and whine on online forums. As I have said many times before, wfcc meets publicly and is democratically elected. If you want a more militant organisation, its really easy to get involved. Or is it all just hot air, Tom Thumb? I personally think it is a harder but better thing to engage the council and push them in the right direction than do nothing and hold some notional moral high ground but never change anything. And as the early comments on this post demonstrate, for every campaigning cyclist, there are many local drivers who want to rat run, who can't abide slowing down, who want to park outside their house and every shop for free or cheaply, who think cyclists should just get out of the way. And many of them are unafraid to badger the local council with their views. As do local traders who seem to view drivers as far more important to their trade than pedestrians, cyclists etc. So moan and whine away... Or join us and allow us to be louder in the council's ear. And for the record, problems w both Wood St and Hoe St have been raised by wfcc. I personally think Hoe St is better than Wood St but yes, by no means utopian. PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Wed 8 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

The problem with "the working relationship we have built with WFCC" that Loakes boasts about is that it has delivered nothing to get people cycling. The cycling rate is minimal in this borough and has been for years. To say that the local cycling group is "pushing in the right direction" masks the fact that this direction has delivered nothing that results in getting more people cycling.
To say that "problems have been raised" is pathetic. Talking behind closed doors hasn't led to anything. The council has been systematically demolishing the possibility of mass cycling in the borough by building more and more parking bays, more rubbish cycle lanes in the door zone, making car use as cheap as possible, and doing nothing at all in terms of meaningful cycling infrastructure.
To say that "Hoe Street is better than Wood Street" is very revealing. Nobody in their right mind wants to cycle on Hoe Street. But self-appointed cycle campaigners are prepared to. End of.
The problem with "the working relationship we have built with WFCC" that Loakes boasts about is that it has delivered nothing to get people cycling. The cycling rate is minimal in this borough and has been for years. To say that the local cycling group is "pushing in the right direction" masks the fact that this direction has delivered nothing that results in getting more people cycling. To say that "problems have been raised" is pathetic. Talking behind closed doors hasn't led to anything. The council has been systematically demolishing the possibility of mass cycling in the borough by building more and more parking bays, more rubbish cycle lanes in the door zone, making car use as cheap as possible, and doing nothing at all in terms of meaningful cycling infrastructure. To say that "Hoe Street is better than Wood Street" is very revealing. Nobody in their right mind wants to cycle on Hoe Street. But self-appointed cycle campaigners are prepared to. End of. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

2:34pm Wed 8 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

The photo is very revealing.
Put on your helmets and bright yellow jackets and prepare to do battle on the car-clogged streets of the borough, which is filled with drivers gabbling on phones or jumping red lights or speeding.
Not a very attractive option for normal people.
The photo is very revealing. Put on your helmets and bright yellow jackets and prepare to do battle on the car-clogged streets of the borough, which is filled with drivers gabbling on phones or jumping red lights or speeding. Not a very attractive option for normal people. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Wed 8 May 13

PsiMonk says...

Tom Thumb, you say "End of", except you neatly dodge the central issue with your rants - what are you proposing to do about it?

"The problem with "the working relationship we have built with WFCC" that Loakes boasts about is that it has delivered nothing to get people cycling."

Except cycling rates are rising quite fast according to TfL. Do I believe that's down to some slightly improved infrastructure? Nope. But the alternative is what exactly? And I do believe we are starting to see a greater understanding of cycling in the borough's officers. And a move towards better infrastructure, not worse. The fact that Hoe Street, Wood Street and soon Forest Road have raised tables on, even if some of those are far from ideal, is a massive, serious and hard-fought leap forward. It's hardly nothing. End of.

"To say that "problems have been raised" is pathetic. Talking behind closed doors hasn't led to anything. "

Sorry, I disagree. And if anything is pathetic, it's doing nothing but sitting on an online forum carping. On top of that, WFCC's minutes, campaigns and often our responses to the council can be found online. Council meetings, such as the Cycle Action Plan one, were also held in public. So it's hardly all "behind closed doors".

"To say that "Hoe Street is better than Wood Street" is very revealing. Nobody in their right mind wants to cycle on Hoe Street. But self-appointed cycle campaigners are prepared to."

Firstly, we're not "self appointed". As I said already we're democratically elected. If you want a better lot of cycle campaigners for the borough, you know what to do - get on down and vote them in.

Secondly, while we'd all love Dutch-style infrastructure for the whole borough, we're clearly some ways off that. How do we get it? By pushing and engaging. Yes, it's taken years of work, yes it'll take years more work. But those neighbouring boroughs where there isn't a strongly active LCC group are in a far worse state, and those with a bigger LCC membership are in a better state. That's not an accident.

Thirdly, whether they/we are in our right minds or not, lots of people do cycle on Wood Street, Hoe Street and Forest Road. Do you just want to ignore that fact? Or do you want to make things better not just for the people who already cycle on these key routes, but also the people who might if they weren't so scary.

Why do I think Hoe Street is better? Because the raised tables are better constructed. What do I not like? Car door zones/pavement parking. Have we raised this with the council? Yes. Did we warn the council before it happened? Yes we did.

So, get involved, or just carp from the sidelines. The choice is yours... End of.
Tom Thumb, you say "End of", except you neatly dodge the central issue with your rants - what are you proposing to do about it? "The problem with "the working relationship we have built with WFCC" that Loakes boasts about is that it has delivered nothing to get people cycling." Except cycling rates are rising quite fast according to TfL. Do I believe that's down to some slightly improved infrastructure? Nope. But the alternative is what exactly? And I do believe we are starting to see a greater understanding of cycling in the borough's officers. And a move towards better infrastructure, not worse. The fact that Hoe Street, Wood Street and soon Forest Road have raised tables on, even if some of those are far from ideal, is a massive, serious and hard-fought leap forward. It's hardly nothing. End of. "To say that "problems have been raised" is pathetic. Talking behind closed doors hasn't led to anything. " Sorry, I disagree. And if anything is pathetic, it's doing nothing but sitting on an online forum carping. On top of that, WFCC's minutes, campaigns and often our responses to the council can be found online. Council meetings, such as the Cycle Action Plan one, were also held in public. So it's hardly all "behind closed doors". "To say that "Hoe Street is better than Wood Street" is very revealing. Nobody in their right mind wants to cycle on Hoe Street. But self-appointed cycle campaigners are prepared to." Firstly, we're not "self appointed". As I said already we're democratically elected. If you want a better lot of cycle campaigners for the borough, you know what to do - get on down and vote them in. Secondly, while we'd all love Dutch-style infrastructure for the whole borough, we're clearly some ways off that. How do we get it? By pushing and engaging. Yes, it's taken years of work, yes it'll take years more work. But those neighbouring boroughs where there isn't a strongly active LCC group are in a far worse state, and those with a bigger LCC membership are in a better state. That's not an accident. Thirdly, whether they/we are in our right minds or not, lots of people do cycle on Wood Street, Hoe Street and Forest Road. Do you just want to ignore that fact? Or do you want to make things better not just for the people who already cycle on these key routes, but also the people who might if they weren't so scary. Why do I think Hoe Street is better? Because the raised tables are better constructed. What do I not like? Car door zones/pavement parking. Have we raised this with the council? Yes. Did we warn the council before it happened? Yes we did. So, get involved, or just carp from the sidelines. The choice is yours... End of. PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

2:45pm Wed 8 May 13

PsiMonk says...

Tom Thumb: "The photo is very revealing. Put on your helmets and bright yellow jackets and prepare to do battle..."

Except, out of five of us, two of us are wearing helmets and only one is wearing high-vis. So your point is what exactly? That you're just trolling now?
Tom Thumb: "The photo is very revealing. Put on your helmets and bright yellow jackets and prepare to do battle..." Except, out of five of us, two of us are wearing helmets and only one is wearing high-vis. So your point is what exactly? That you're just trolling now? PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Wed 8 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

"cycling rates are rising quite fast according to TfL"
Not in Waltham Forest they're not. And not in outer London generally.
But the cheery message that cycling is on the up and up is one that's been heard for many years.
The 1996 launch of the National Cycling Strategy was greeted with jubilation by the cycle campaign establishment. That aimed to increase cycling 400% by 2012.
Needless to say when that target wasn't met it was conveniently forgotten.
"cycling rates are rising quite fast according to TfL" Not in Waltham Forest they're not. And not in outer London generally. But the cheery message that cycling is on the up and up is one that's been heard for many years. The 1996 launch of the National Cycling Strategy was greeted with jubilation by the cycle campaign establishment. That aimed to increase cycling 400% by 2012. Needless to say when that target wasn't met it was conveniently forgotten. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Wed 8 May 13

PsiMonk says...

Yes, in Waltham Forest, they are rising. Just seen latest figures. Hardly huge figures. But rising.

Meanwhile, you still seem to want to dodge the issues I've raised - what are you going to do about it, apart from carping on?
Yes, in Waltham Forest, they are rising. Just seen latest figures. Hardly huge figures. But rising. Meanwhile, you still seem to want to dodge the issues I've raised - what are you going to do about it, apart from carping on? PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Wed 8 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

PsiMonk wrote:
Tom Thumb: "The photo is very revealing. Put on your helmets and bright yellow jackets and prepare to do battle..."

Except, out of five of us, two of us are wearing helmets and only one is wearing high-vis. So your point is what exactly? That you're just trolling now?
How touchy you are!
Helmets and yellow jackets are a symptom of fear. The fact that so many London cyclists need to dress up like this is revealing. It also demonstrates that cycling isn't a normal activity.
Have you looked at your website lately? Quite a few helmets on display there as I recall.
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Tom Thumb: "The photo is very revealing. Put on your helmets and bright yellow jackets and prepare to do battle..." Except, out of five of us, two of us are wearing helmets and only one is wearing high-vis. So your point is what exactly? That you're just trolling now?[/p][/quote]How touchy you are! Helmets and yellow jackets are a symptom of fear. The fact that so many London cyclists need to dress up like this is revealing. It also demonstrates that cycling isn't a normal activity. Have you looked at your website lately? Quite a few helmets on display there as I recall. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Wed 8 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

It's also deeply patronising of you to asume that anyone who criticises local ctcle campaigning is just sitting around doing nothing.
It's also deeply patronising of you to asume that anyone who criticises local ctcle campaigning is just sitting around doing nothing. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Wed 8 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

"lots of people do cycle on Wood Street, Hoe Street and Forest Road. Do you just want to ignore that fact?"

Let's have the facts then.
Some statistics please.
"lots of people do cycle on Wood Street, Hoe Street and Forest Road. Do you just want to ignore that fact?" Let's have the facts then. Some statistics please. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Wed 8 May 13

PsiMonk says...

Let me ask again, what are you proposing to do about making life better for cyclists?

Answer that and I might be bothered to search back through emails for the borough cycle counts on those roads. Don't answer and I certainly won't be bothered to continue to dialogue with someone as rude and trollish as you.
Let me ask again, what are you proposing to do about making life better for cyclists? Answer that and I might be bothered to search back through emails for the borough cycle counts on those roads. Don't answer and I certainly won't be bothered to continue to dialogue with someone as rude and trollish as you. PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Wed 8 May 13

Alan_1976 says...

Tom Thumb wrote:
PsiMonk wrote:
Tom Thumb: "The photo is very revealing. Put on your helmets and bright yellow jackets and prepare to do battle..."

Except, out of five of us, two of us are wearing helmets and only one is wearing high-vis. So your point is what exactly? That you're just trolling now?
How touchy you are!
Helmets and yellow jackets are a symptom of fear. The fact that so many London cyclists need to dress up like this is revealing. It also demonstrates that cycling isn't a normal activity.
Have you looked at your website lately? Quite a few helmets on display there as I recall.
I generally find that most people who dress like that do so because they cycle in early mornings or late evening when visibility is poor.

"A symptom of fear". So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear.
[quote][p][bold]Tom Thumb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Tom Thumb: "The photo is very revealing. Put on your helmets and bright yellow jackets and prepare to do battle..." Except, out of five of us, two of us are wearing helmets and only one is wearing high-vis. So your point is what exactly? That you're just trolling now?[/p][/quote]How touchy you are! Helmets and yellow jackets are a symptom of fear. The fact that so many London cyclists need to dress up like this is revealing. It also demonstrates that cycling isn't a normal activity. Have you looked at your website lately? Quite a few helmets on display there as I recall.[/p][/quote]I generally find that most people who dress like that do so because they cycle in early mornings or late evening when visibility is poor. "A symptom of fear". So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

6:35pm Wed 8 May 13

Stevo98 says...

"So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear."

Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead.

Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.
"So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear." Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead. Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer. Stevo98
  • Score: 0

7:04pm Wed 8 May 13

Alan_1976 says...

Stevo98 wrote:
"So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear."

Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead.

Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.
You do get that I was highlighting the absurdity of the "A symptom of fear" comment?
[quote][p][bold]Stevo98[/bold] wrote: "So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear." Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead. Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.[/p][/quote]You do get that I was highlighting the absurdity of the "A symptom of fear" comment? Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Thu 9 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

PsiMonk wrote:
Let me ask again, what are you proposing to do about making life better for cyclists?

Answer that and I might be bothered to search back through emails for the borough cycle counts on those roads. Don't answer and I certainly won't be bothered to continue to dialogue with someone as rude and trollish as you.
So you can't provide the facts and instead resort to abuse.

The issue isn't "making life better for cyclists" but about encouraging a mass switch to cycling among those who prefer not to cycle. Every survey ever taken shows there's a massive suppressed demand for cycling. Just making small improvements for the existing tiny fringe of cyclists isn't working. People don't want to cycle in traffic. That's why the Dutch principle of separation in space and time is so important.
Putting in speed tables on Forest Road and Hoe Street does nothing to encourage mass cycling when it still has to be done alongside lorries and buses, and when the dark side of the traffic calming is wider pavements putting cyclists closer to lorries and alongside new parking bays.
British cycle campaigning has a long history of being in denial and is always seeing a cycling revolution on the horizon, rather like the Socialist Workers Party, whose members know the revolution will happen next Tuesday.
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Let me ask again, what are you proposing to do about making life better for cyclists? Answer that and I might be bothered to search back through emails for the borough cycle counts on those roads. Don't answer and I certainly won't be bothered to continue to dialogue with someone as rude and trollish as you.[/p][/quote]So you can't provide the facts and instead resort to abuse. The issue isn't "making life better for cyclists" but about encouraging a mass switch to cycling among those who prefer not to cycle. Every survey ever taken shows there's a massive suppressed demand for cycling. Just making small improvements for the existing tiny fringe of cyclists isn't working. People don't want to cycle in traffic. That's why the Dutch principle of separation in space and time is so important. Putting in speed tables on Forest Road and Hoe Street does nothing to encourage mass cycling when it still has to be done alongside lorries and buses, and when the dark side of the traffic calming is wider pavements putting cyclists closer to lorries and alongside new parking bays. British cycle campaigning has a long history of being in denial and is always seeing a cycling revolution on the horizon, rather like the Socialist Workers Party, whose members know the revolution will happen next Tuesday. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

3:59pm Thu 9 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Tom Thumb wrote:
PsiMonk wrote:
Tom Thumb: "The photo is very revealing. Put on your helmets and bright yellow jackets and prepare to do battle..."

Except, out of five of us, two of us are wearing helmets and only one is wearing high-vis. So your point is what exactly? That you're just trolling now?
How touchy you are!
Helmets and yellow jackets are a symptom of fear. The fact that so many London cyclists need to dress up like this is revealing. It also demonstrates that cycling isn't a normal activity.
Have you looked at your website lately? Quite a few helmets on display there as I recall.
I generally find that most people who dress like that do so because they cycle in early mornings or late evening when visibility is poor.

"A symptom of fear". So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear.
There's no shortage of cyclists using yellow vests in daytime.
Helmets are also a symptom of fear. In safe cycling cultures nobody uses them.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Thumb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Tom Thumb: "The photo is very revealing. Put on your helmets and bright yellow jackets and prepare to do battle..." Except, out of five of us, two of us are wearing helmets and only one is wearing high-vis. So your point is what exactly? That you're just trolling now?[/p][/quote]How touchy you are! Helmets and yellow jackets are a symptom of fear. The fact that so many London cyclists need to dress up like this is revealing. It also demonstrates that cycling isn't a normal activity. Have you looked at your website lately? Quite a few helmets on display there as I recall.[/p][/quote]I generally find that most people who dress like that do so because they cycle in early mornings or late evening when visibility is poor. "A symptom of fear". So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear.[/p][/quote]There's no shortage of cyclists using yellow vests in daytime. Helmets are also a symptom of fear. In safe cycling cultures nobody uses them. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Thu 9 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

Stevo98 wrote:
"So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear."

Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead.

Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.
I'm afraid your comment that "Cycling in London is safe and getting safer" is very dubious. Measuring safety by official road casualty figures rather masks the reality that safety depends where you cycle. (It's also the case that the official figures indicate a rise in injuries to cyclists, whereas the figures for all other road user groups are falling.)
I feel very safe cycling on some of the wide streets of central London. I don't feel at all safe cycling on Forest Road since the council narrowed the road and put parking bays alongside the rubbish cycle lane.
[quote][p][bold]Stevo98[/bold] wrote: "So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear." Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead. Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid your comment that "Cycling in London is safe and getting safer" is very dubious. Measuring safety by official road casualty figures rather masks the reality that safety depends where you cycle. (It's also the case that the official figures indicate a rise in injuries to cyclists, whereas the figures for all other road user groups are falling.) I feel very safe cycling on some of the wide streets of central London. I don't feel at all safe cycling on Forest Road since the council narrowed the road and put parking bays alongside the rubbish cycle lane. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Thu 9 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

Stevo98 wrote:
"So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear."

Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead.

Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.
I forgot to say that the real issue is subjective safety. Non-cyclists feel that cycling is dangerous, and their fears are not unreasonable. This is what has to be addressed.
You'll never get most people cycling by quoting statistics at them.
[quote][p][bold]Stevo98[/bold] wrote: "So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear." Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead. Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.[/p][/quote]I forgot to say that the real issue is subjective safety. Non-cyclists feel that cycling is dangerous, and their fears are not unreasonable. This is what has to be addressed. You'll never get most people cycling by quoting statistics at them. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Thu 9 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Stevo98 wrote:
"So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear."

Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead.

Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.
You do get that I was highlighting the absurdity of the "A symptom of fear" comment?
It's not an absurd comment. I am not blaming people who dress up in yellow or who wear helmets. I am simply pointing out that it is a symptom of anxiety. These anxieties are not unfounded, since the roads are full of drivers who are criminally inattentive to cyclists.
If you have to ride a bicycle in London traffic among drivers who are texting it makes perfect sense to dress in yellow, or fly a flag, or wear a helmet.
The solution lies in keeping cyclists and drivers apart. This is what "a mini Holland" would supply. The proposals on offer from this council don't do that. Yet more traffic calming isn't going to bring about a surge in cycling in Waltham Forfest. If it did it would have happened years ago. This is what the local cycling group seems blind to. A speed table is no compensation for an even worse cycling environment than existed before. Waltham Forest is a worse place to cycle now than it used to be. I don't expect the likes of PsiMonk to understand this because the PsiMonks of this world are happy to cycle on Hoe Street.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevo98[/bold] wrote: "So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear." Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead. Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.[/p][/quote]You do get that I was highlighting the absurdity of the "A symptom of fear" comment?[/p][/quote]It's not an absurd comment. I am not blaming people who dress up in yellow or who wear helmets. I am simply pointing out that it is a symptom of anxiety. These anxieties are not unfounded, since the roads are full of drivers who are criminally inattentive to cyclists. If you have to ride a bicycle in London traffic among drivers who are texting it makes perfect sense to dress in yellow, or fly a flag, or wear a helmet. The solution lies in keeping cyclists and drivers apart. This is what "a mini Holland" would supply. The proposals on offer from this council don't do that. Yet more traffic calming isn't going to bring about a surge in cycling in Waltham Forfest. If it did it would have happened years ago. This is what the local cycling group seems blind to. A speed table is no compensation for an even worse cycling environment than existed before. Waltham Forest is a worse place to cycle now than it used to be. I don't expect the likes of PsiMonk to understand this because the PsiMonks of this world are happy to cycle on Hoe Street. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Thu 9 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

Another symptom of fear is people cycling on the pavement.
Another symptom of fear is people cycling on the pavement. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Thu 9 May 13

PsiMonk says...

Tom Thumb: "The issue isn't "making life better for cyclists" but about encouraging a mass switch to cycling among those who prefer not to cycle."

OK, so, same question - what are you doing about "encouraging a mass switch to cycling among those who prefer not to cycle"? If all you're doing is this, then really what are you doing? If you're doing some vital work that we can all get involved in to bring about a cycling revolution, let us know!

As to resorting to abuse, you started out calling me a "lapdog", then went for "pathetic", and "touchy". Then "in denial", "patronising" and for a finale, we have "I don't expect the likes of PsiMonk to understand this because the PsiMonks of this world are happy to cycle on Hoe Street" which makes a series of assumptions and casts me in a very negative light - as if I can't understand anyone else's viewpoint whether I cycle on a particular road or not.

I'm sorry if it upsets you for me to say this, but I find you very rude indeed throughout, and not just to me. So, in summary, if you don't want a negative tone from me and others, you might just want to moderate the way you approach debates.
Tom Thumb: "The issue isn't "making life better for cyclists" but about encouraging a mass switch to cycling among those who prefer not to cycle." OK, so, same question - what are you doing about "encouraging a mass switch to cycling among those who prefer not to cycle"? If all you're doing is this, then really what are you doing? If you're doing some vital work that we can all get involved in to bring about a cycling revolution, let us know! As to resorting to abuse, you started out calling me a "lapdog", then went for "pathetic", and "touchy". Then "in denial", "patronising" and for a finale, we have "I don't expect the likes of PsiMonk to understand this because the PsiMonks of this world are happy to cycle on Hoe Street" which makes a series of assumptions and casts me in a very negative light - as if I can't understand anyone else's viewpoint whether I cycle on a particular road or not. I'm sorry if it upsets you for me to say this, but I find you very rude indeed throughout, and not just to me. So, in summary, if you don't want a negative tone from me and others, you might just want to moderate the way you approach debates. PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Thu 9 May 13

Alan_1976 says...

Tom Thumb wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Stevo98 wrote:
"So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear."

Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead.

Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.
You do get that I was highlighting the absurdity of the "A symptom of fear" comment?
It's not an absurd comment. I am not blaming people who dress up in yellow or who wear helmets. I am simply pointing out that it is a symptom of anxiety. These anxieties are not unfounded, since the roads are full of drivers who are criminally inattentive to cyclists.
If you have to ride a bicycle in London traffic among drivers who are texting it makes perfect sense to dress in yellow, or fly a flag, or wear a helmet.
The solution lies in keeping cyclists and drivers apart. This is what "a mini Holland" would supply. The proposals on offer from this council don't do that. Yet more traffic calming isn't going to bring about a surge in cycling in Waltham Forfest. If it did it would have happened years ago. This is what the local cycling group seems blind to. A speed table is no compensation for an even worse cycling environment than existed before. Waltham Forest is a worse place to cycle now than it used to be. I don't expect the likes of PsiMonk to understand this because the PsiMonks of this world are happy to cycle on Hoe Street.
How odd that you equate wearing visibility clothing to be seen when it is dark to anxiety.

If a driver were to drive with no headlights he is not driving in an anxiety free manner. He is being an inconsiderate unsafe idiot.
[quote][p][bold]Tom Thumb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevo98[/bold] wrote: "So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear." Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead. Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.[/p][/quote]You do get that I was highlighting the absurdity of the "A symptom of fear" comment?[/p][/quote]It's not an absurd comment. I am not blaming people who dress up in yellow or who wear helmets. I am simply pointing out that it is a symptom of anxiety. These anxieties are not unfounded, since the roads are full of drivers who are criminally inattentive to cyclists. If you have to ride a bicycle in London traffic among drivers who are texting it makes perfect sense to dress in yellow, or fly a flag, or wear a helmet. The solution lies in keeping cyclists and drivers apart. This is what "a mini Holland" would supply. The proposals on offer from this council don't do that. Yet more traffic calming isn't going to bring about a surge in cycling in Waltham Forfest. If it did it would have happened years ago. This is what the local cycling group seems blind to. A speed table is no compensation for an even worse cycling environment than existed before. Waltham Forest is a worse place to cycle now than it used to be. I don't expect the likes of PsiMonk to understand this because the PsiMonks of this world are happy to cycle on Hoe Street.[/p][/quote]How odd that you equate wearing visibility clothing to be seen when it is dark to anxiety. If a driver were to drive with no headlights he is not driving in an anxiety free manner. He is being an inconsiderate unsafe idiot. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

8:05pm Fri 10 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Tom Thumb wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Stevo98 wrote:
"So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear."

Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead.

Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.
You do get that I was highlighting the absurdity of the "A symptom of fear" comment?
It's not an absurd comment. I am not blaming people who dress up in yellow or who wear helmets. I am simply pointing out that it is a symptom of anxiety. These anxieties are not unfounded, since the roads are full of drivers who are criminally inattentive to cyclists.
If you have to ride a bicycle in London traffic among drivers who are texting it makes perfect sense to dress in yellow, or fly a flag, or wear a helmet.
The solution lies in keeping cyclists and drivers apart. This is what "a mini Holland" would supply. The proposals on offer from this council don't do that. Yet more traffic calming isn't going to bring about a surge in cycling in Waltham Forfest. If it did it would have happened years ago. This is what the local cycling group seems blind to. A speed table is no compensation for an even worse cycling environment than existed before. Waltham Forest is a worse place to cycle now than it used to be. I don't expect the likes of PsiMonk to understand this because the PsiMonks of this world are happy to cycle on Hoe Street.
How odd that you equate wearing visibility clothing to be seen when it is dark to anxiety.

If a driver were to drive with no headlights he is not driving in an anxiety free manner. He is being an inconsiderate unsafe idiot.
I'm afraid you misunderstand me. I am not referring to cycling in the dark but in broad daylight.
Yellow vests, helmets and cycling on the pavement are all expressions of fear and anxiety. These are not unreasonable as cycling is dangerous and risky.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Thumb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevo98[/bold] wrote: "So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear." Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead. Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.[/p][/quote]You do get that I was highlighting the absurdity of the "A symptom of fear" comment?[/p][/quote]It's not an absurd comment. I am not blaming people who dress up in yellow or who wear helmets. I am simply pointing out that it is a symptom of anxiety. These anxieties are not unfounded, since the roads are full of drivers who are criminally inattentive to cyclists. If you have to ride a bicycle in London traffic among drivers who are texting it makes perfect sense to dress in yellow, or fly a flag, or wear a helmet. The solution lies in keeping cyclists and drivers apart. This is what "a mini Holland" would supply. The proposals on offer from this council don't do that. Yet more traffic calming isn't going to bring about a surge in cycling in Waltham Forfest. If it did it would have happened years ago. This is what the local cycling group seems blind to. A speed table is no compensation for an even worse cycling environment than existed before. Waltham Forest is a worse place to cycle now than it used to be. I don't expect the likes of PsiMonk to understand this because the PsiMonks of this world are happy to cycle on Hoe Street.[/p][/quote]How odd that you equate wearing visibility clothing to be seen when it is dark to anxiety. If a driver were to drive with no headlights he is not driving in an anxiety free manner. He is being an inconsiderate unsafe idiot.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid you misunderstand me. I am not referring to cycling in the dark but in broad daylight. Yellow vests, helmets and cycling on the pavement are all expressions of fear and anxiety. These are not unreasonable as cycling is dangerous and risky. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

8:15pm Fri 10 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

I challenged PsiMunk to supply statistics for his fantasy that large numbers of people cycle on Hoe Street etc.
He has now once again failed to do so, because of course these statistics don't exist.
Calling the local cycling group "lapdogs" is not unreasonable as they have had a cosy relationship with the council for years, while failing to deliver anything in the way of infrastructure that will get people cycling.
Things are getting more and more horrible for cycling in this borough, and the council continues to expand the number of cycle lanes which create the threat of "dooring".
The idea that this council can produce a cycling "mini Holland" is laughable.
Lastly, calling critics of this strategy trolls is desperate stuff.
The real issue is not the comments posted here but the continuing marginalisation of cycling in this borough, where the numbers simply haven't changed for decades.
Sadly the local cycling group remains in complete denial about its history of failure and its history of enthusiasm for infrastructure which is a deterrent to anyone except a cycling campaigner and a tiny minority of brave and mostly male cyclists.
I challenged PsiMunk to supply statistics for his fantasy that large numbers of people cycle on Hoe Street etc. He has now once again failed to do so, because of course these statistics don't exist. Calling the local cycling group "lapdogs" is not unreasonable as they have had a cosy relationship with the council for years, while failing to deliver anything in the way of infrastructure that will get people cycling. Things are getting more and more horrible for cycling in this borough, and the council continues to expand the number of cycle lanes which create the threat of "dooring". The idea that this council can produce a cycling "mini Holland" is laughable. Lastly, calling critics of this strategy trolls is desperate stuff. The real issue is not the comments posted here but the continuing marginalisation of cycling in this borough, where the numbers simply haven't changed for decades. Sadly the local cycling group remains in complete denial about its history of failure and its history of enthusiasm for infrastructure which is a deterrent to anyone except a cycling campaigner and a tiny minority of brave and mostly male cyclists. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

8:17pm Fri 10 May 13

Tom Thumb says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Tom Thumb wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Stevo98 wrote:
"So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear."

Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead.

Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.
You do get that I was highlighting the absurdity of the "A symptom of fear" comment?
It's not an absurd comment. I am not blaming people who dress up in yellow or who wear helmets. I am simply pointing out that it is a symptom of anxiety. These anxieties are not unfounded, since the roads are full of drivers who are criminally inattentive to cyclists.
If you have to ride a bicycle in London traffic among drivers who are texting it makes perfect sense to dress in yellow, or fly a flag, or wear a helmet.
The solution lies in keeping cyclists and drivers apart. This is what "a mini Holland" would supply. The proposals on offer from this council don't do that. Yet more traffic calming isn't going to bring about a surge in cycling in Waltham Forfest. If it did it would have happened years ago. This is what the local cycling group seems blind to. A speed table is no compensation for an even worse cycling environment than existed before. Waltham Forest is a worse place to cycle now than it used to be. I don't expect the likes of PsiMonk to understand this because the PsiMonks of this world are happy to cycle on Hoe Street.
How odd that you equate wearing visibility clothing to be seen when it is dark to anxiety.

If a driver were to drive with no headlights he is not driving in an anxiety free manner. He is being an inconsiderate unsafe idiot.
Is it night time in the photograph above?

Nah, thought not.

So why the yellow vest, Alan?
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Thumb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevo98[/bold] wrote: "So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear." Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead. Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.[/p][/quote]You do get that I was highlighting the absurdity of the "A symptom of fear" comment?[/p][/quote]It's not an absurd comment. I am not blaming people who dress up in yellow or who wear helmets. I am simply pointing out that it is a symptom of anxiety. These anxieties are not unfounded, since the roads are full of drivers who are criminally inattentive to cyclists. If you have to ride a bicycle in London traffic among drivers who are texting it makes perfect sense to dress in yellow, or fly a flag, or wear a helmet. The solution lies in keeping cyclists and drivers apart. This is what "a mini Holland" would supply. The proposals on offer from this council don't do that. Yet more traffic calming isn't going to bring about a surge in cycling in Waltham Forfest. If it did it would have happened years ago. This is what the local cycling group seems blind to. A speed table is no compensation for an even worse cycling environment than existed before. Waltham Forest is a worse place to cycle now than it used to be. I don't expect the likes of PsiMonk to understand this because the PsiMonks of this world are happy to cycle on Hoe Street.[/p][/quote]How odd that you equate wearing visibility clothing to be seen when it is dark to anxiety. If a driver were to drive with no headlights he is not driving in an anxiety free manner. He is being an inconsiderate unsafe idiot.[/p][/quote]Is it night time in the photograph above? Nah, thought not. So why the yellow vest, Alan? Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

8:24pm Fri 10 May 13

Alan_1976 says...

Tom Thumb wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Tom Thumb wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Stevo98 wrote:
"So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear."

Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead.

Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.
You do get that I was highlighting the absurdity of the "A symptom of fear" comment?
It's not an absurd comment. I am not blaming people who dress up in yellow or who wear helmets. I am simply pointing out that it is a symptom of anxiety. These anxieties are not unfounded, since the roads are full of drivers who are criminally inattentive to cyclists.
If you have to ride a bicycle in London traffic among drivers who are texting it makes perfect sense to dress in yellow, or fly a flag, or wear a helmet.
The solution lies in keeping cyclists and drivers apart. This is what "a mini Holland" would supply. The proposals on offer from this council don't do that. Yet more traffic calming isn't going to bring about a surge in cycling in Waltham Forfest. If it did it would have happened years ago. This is what the local cycling group seems blind to. A speed table is no compensation for an even worse cycling environment than existed before. Waltham Forest is a worse place to cycle now than it used to be. I don't expect the likes of PsiMonk to understand this because the PsiMonks of this world are happy to cycle on Hoe Street.
How odd that you equate wearing visibility clothing to be seen when it is dark to anxiety.

If a driver were to drive with no headlights he is not driving in an anxiety free manner. He is being an inconsiderate unsafe idiot.
Is it night time in the photograph above?

Nah, thought not.

So why the yellow vest, Alan?
How many times are you intending to reply to the same comment?

You're asking me why someone I have never met is wearing a yellow vest.

Ok I'll tell you why I would be wearing a yellow vest. I own a jacket for cycling during times when it's cold. It's yellow because it serves to make me visible when its dark which usually coincides with when its cold and I need a jacket.

Saves on owning two jackets.

So what's your point? People should own two jackets to satisfy you?
[quote][p][bold]Tom Thumb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Thumb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevo98[/bold] wrote: "So presumably when drivers turn on their headlights they are also operating under their symptoms of fear." Not really. Drivers may be fearful that if they fail to notice and collide with a cyclist their bodywork may be damaged and requite a respray. I don't really think you can compare this with the fear of London cyclists that the next speeding, drunk, drugged, uninsured or mobile-distracted driver smashes into them and leaves you paralysed or dead. Cycling in London is safe and getting safer, but the explosion in cycling numbers is despite rather than because the efforts of TFL, Boris LBWF. People realise they can save nearly £2000 a year, keep fit, always get to work on time and always get a seat but only if they cycle to work. It's a no-brainer.[/p][/quote]You do get that I was highlighting the absurdity of the "A symptom of fear" comment?[/p][/quote]It's not an absurd comment. I am not blaming people who dress up in yellow or who wear helmets. I am simply pointing out that it is a symptom of anxiety. These anxieties are not unfounded, since the roads are full of drivers who are criminally inattentive to cyclists. If you have to ride a bicycle in London traffic among drivers who are texting it makes perfect sense to dress in yellow, or fly a flag, or wear a helmet. The solution lies in keeping cyclists and drivers apart. This is what "a mini Holland" would supply. The proposals on offer from this council don't do that. Yet more traffic calming isn't going to bring about a surge in cycling in Waltham Forfest. If it did it would have happened years ago. This is what the local cycling group seems blind to. A speed table is no compensation for an even worse cycling environment than existed before. Waltham Forest is a worse place to cycle now than it used to be. I don't expect the likes of PsiMonk to understand this because the PsiMonks of this world are happy to cycle on Hoe Street.[/p][/quote]How odd that you equate wearing visibility clothing to be seen when it is dark to anxiety. If a driver were to drive with no headlights he is not driving in an anxiety free manner. He is being an inconsiderate unsafe idiot.[/p][/quote]Is it night time in the photograph above? Nah, thought not. So why the yellow vest, Alan?[/p][/quote]How many times are you intending to reply to the same comment? You're asking me why someone I have never met is wearing a yellow vest. Ok I'll tell you why I would be wearing a yellow vest. I own a jacket for cycling during times when it's cold. It's yellow because it serves to make me visible when its dark which usually coincides with when its cold and I need a jacket. Saves on owning two jackets. So what's your point? People should own two jackets to satisfy you? Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Fri 10 May 13

PsiMonk says...

Tom, you still haven't answered the one question you have been repeatedly asked: what are you doing to make cycling more popular, safer etc.?
Tom, you still haven't answered the one question you have been repeatedly asked: what are you doing to make cycling more popular, safer etc.? PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree