The Grumpy Cyclist

Pavement Parking Pandemonium

2012-01-22T20:03:00.001Z

The tarting up of the streets of Leyton and Leytonstone for the Olympics is now well under way (Waltham Forest use the phrase "improving the streetscape" instead of "tarting up" but I suspect you get the general principle).

Pavements are being dug up around the area such as this area of Leytonstone High Road.

This "improving the streetscape" has been in operation for a little while, and appears to consist of the council digging up the pavement, installing expensive stone blocks in attractive patterns, and then allowing cars to park on the result. Here, in true Blue Peter fashion, is one they made earlier...

One can see the nice arrangement of stone blocks just waiting to be covered up by parked cars. I have to say the whole effect of "improving the streetscape" is somewhat undermined for me by the globs of uneven tarmac scattered along the edge of the road. And yes, dear reader, you are right to assume that the bits of uneven red tarmac with the liberal smatterings of potholes and jutting out kerbstones is the cycle lane. Inviting, no? Waltham Forest may be planning on re-surfacing the road, but I wouldn't bet my house on it.

Meanwhile, the roads which have had this treatment for a while appear to be causing motorists some confusion. Consider this 4x4 parked in Wood Street the other week.

A CCTV enforcement car was taking some interest in it as it is illegally parked on the pavement. But on the other side of the road the cars are legally parked on some of those fancy stone blocks which have been installed for around six months. In fact the gap left for pedestrians by some of the legally parked cars on this road is less than the gap you can see between the 4x4 and the wall. There were spaces behind the cars on the other side of the road for the driver of the Land Rover to park. Maybe the driver is exceptionally lazy and couldn't be bothered to cross the road (there are no crossing points for pedestrians anywhere near, but that is OK since the building on the right only houses a popular indoor playcentre - so no need to help families with young children surely?). Or maybe the driver saw all the pavement parking along the whole length of this road and didn't understand that this is only OK if the car is parked on some expensive fancy stones as opposed to everywhere? Who knows?

I remember when all this was fields...

2012-01-16T11:01:00.000Z

Draper's fields to be exact.

Before

After

Draper's fields have been given to the ODA for the period of around a year and a half to accommodate logistics services for the Olympic village (seen in the background of the second photo).

A BBC report on the the community usage of Draper's fields can be found here. The site was playing fields and an astroturf pitch used by a local school and clubs. According to this report in the local paper, the astroturf pitch was used by 1,380 (an oddly precise number!) people a week alone. The report also headlines with the fact that the site may be used for VIP parking - something not in any planning documents I have seen, so either the ODA are keeping very quiet about this, or it is an unfounded rumour.

Now, I understand that the large Olympic village will require logistics support on an equally large scale. I also understand that open space near the Olympic village may be in short supply, and Draper's field is ideally situated. It is unfortunate that the open space is one of the few in this part of Waltham Forest, and will mean that clubs and local schools will not have access to it for more than a year.

The council have been compensated £3.5M by the ODA, which they say will go to turning back the site to an even better sports facility - with the fields opening again for the public in September 2013. They say that the compensation will not only allow redevelopment of the Drapers site, but will go towards improvements in other parks as well. What concerns me most is that I haven't managed to find any documents relating to what the redevelopment after the games will actually involve. The planning statement from the ODA (found as pdf here) is very light on use after the games since Waltham Forest will be in charge of the "legacy component" (I presume this means that Waltham Forest will be given the site as is and will then change it back to leisure use themselves). Waltham Forest were going to submit plans for the changes to the field after the games, but I haven't been able to find any details of these plans online (or indeed any mention of them).

After the ongoing saga of the arcade site, I prefer not to trust Waltham Forest with regeneration plans, especially ones that are unspecified before the event occurs. Maybe I am just not a trusting soul. I would be interested to know if Waltham Forest indeed have plans for the field that are available for the public.

Smile - it could be worse...

2012-01-14T20:50:00.000Z

... and then I smiled and it steadily got worse...

Not only have we the insipid Bow Roundabout design from TfL - one that delays cyclists twice as long as other traffic yet gives them barely any extra protection anyway - but there appears to be even more bad news.

I was reading a blog on the Bow Flyover by "Over The Hills and Faraway", which was commenting on the proposed Bow Flyover changes. (I am reading all I can about the changes in the hope that TfL are actually playing an early April Fools joke and I have missed the announcement that they were only kidding, and will, of course, be implementing something half reasonable.)

So imagine my concern when I read in the blog:

The Highway Authority for the Bow Roundabout Flyover and the road immediately to the east of the roundabout (Stratford High Street) is the London Borough of Newham. TfL has commenced discussions with Newham to seek approval where changes to accommodate these options may be required on their roads.

So, decisions to implement the flyover plan will rest with Newham council. Remember them? Yes, the oligarchy run by Sir Robin Wales - the mayor who hates cycling enough to block the Cycle superhighway extending to the games for the Olympics (although they say they can look at it after the games - yeah, great). The mayor that banned the woodcraft folk, from a council cabinet meeting because they were going to protest about the laughable cycling facilities in the borough. I mean he actually barred the woodcraft folk! Maybe the council cabinet were too busy polishing all those chandeliers...

So it is probably fair to say that if you are a cyclist who needs to negotiate the Bow junction... well we are truly f*ck*d.

Call me Nostradamus if you wish, but I have some predictions for the future of cycling at the Bow Flyover:

TfL will implement the bow roundabout "early start" cycle "facility" as is, despite protests from cyclists and cycling groups. Meanwhile the Bow flyover plan will fall into the pit of despair that is Nehwam council's transport department, never to be seen again. Or maybe it will end up in cubicle 3 of the bathroom facilities, where its absorbency qualities are thoroughly tested...

Meanwhile motorists will continue to disregard the bow roundabout ASLs - especially since the traffic will be queueing at peak times anyway and no-one ever polices ASLs - so even the minuscule advantage given to cyclists with the scheme will be lost. Cyclists will get royally p*ssed off waiting twice as long as the motorists at the junction in order to be left hooked anyway, and will decide to jump the filter lights or ignore the filter lane altogether. Near misses will continue. People will complain. Police will clamp down at the junction - not at ASL encroaching motorists - but by fining cyclists not availing themselves of the magnificent facilities bestowed by TfL. Meanwhile TfL will put on their worried face again and drivel on about "cycle training" and the London Mayor will explain how he has absolutely no issues with the junction, positively enjoys it, and is stunned that anyone "with their wits about them" would have a problem. Most cyclists will continue ignoring the lethal roundabout and negotiate their way onto, and over, the flyover with absolutely no help from the road layout at all. TfL will announce the cost of the scheme implementation, which will be at least three times as much as any reasonable person could conceive it could possibly cost. Since computer modelling to ensure motor vehicles aren't inconvenienced in the slightest costs serious wedge. And then everyone carries on as normal with TfL slipping their time-scale for 5% model share by another 20 years, and hoping that some more promotional videos with minor celebrities will get everyone leaping on their cycles.

Bow(ing) to traffic flow?

2012-01-13T18:10:00.003Z

In my previous post, I was cheered by TfL's response to the issues at Bow for cyclists. There appeared to be additions of cycle only lights to separate cycles and traffic wishing to turn onto the A12, as well as the consideration of cycle lanes over the flyover with light controls to aid cyclists on and off of the flyover.

So far, so good. For those who use the flyover, a way of being able to access it without trying to control a very wide lane of traffic splitting between the roundabout and the flyover, and for those who prefer the roundabout some lights to safely allow cyclists to proceed past the exit slips to the A12.

I was pleasantly surprised that these measures were being implemented, especially on the roundabout where previous suggestions at "Toucan" crossings for pedestrians and cyclists were dismissed by TfL as being too disruptive to "traffic flow". It looked like "traffic flow" (meaning, presumably traffic with an engine as opposed to traffic without) was taking less priority to safety at last.

However, I might be being cynical, but I am suddenly becoming very sceptical of these new plans, after looking at the plans and videos on the TfL site. Specifically these two videos

Now, the text indicates that the improvement is :

A cycle 'early-start' phase at the traffic signals on the eastbound and westbound entrance to the Bow roundabout. This would provide a dedicated green light phase to allow cyclists to travel ahead of other traffic

But is this actually tying up with the videos (which is the entrance to Bow Roundabout Eastbound)?

I say this because the change appears to be a set of cycle lights in the cycle filter lane which controls cyclists entering the (larger) ASL. Once in the ASL, the cyclists are controlled by the standard lights which are green for both vehicles and cyclists.

So what would be the point of that?

Well, I suspect that the cycle lights go red when the standard lights are green to stop cyclists moving into the ASL and progressing through the junction with the traffic.

So conflict is being stopped by only allowing cyclists to progress at the green traffic light who are already ahead of the traffic in the ASL. If this is the case, then cyclists arriving at the junction at the green traffic light will be held in the filter lane by the red cycle light until the general traffic lights go red. Then the cycle lights will go green to allow the cyclists to proceed to the ASL where they will have to wait for a full rotation of the standard lights before being able to proceed when the standard traffic lights go green.

No wonder TfL isn't worried about "traffic flow" - the disruption is to cyclists, and not motorised vehicles. Also there are a few issues on top of the fact that, if this is a correct interpretation of the scheme, it will be massively inconvenient to cyclists :

1) The "early start" phase doesn't look like an early start at all. It looks like a standard head-start given by the gap in a deeper ASL. Slower cyclists will surely still come into conflict with vehicles if the vehicles are driven aggressively and the cyclist is slow. How big is the ASL to give a decent enough head-start? How fast will a cyclist need to pedal to avoid agressively accelerating cars?

2) Won't the ASL simply be populated with the normal assortment mopeds, taxis, and cars as per many other ASLs? In which case there won't be any advantage given to cyclists at all.

3) What happens if the roundabout gets backed up (as it often does)? Not only will this fill the ASL with vehicles, but the vehicles already on the roundabout may end up conflicting with the "early start" cyclists from the ASL.

I hope I have misread the video. I have watched it a few times and cannot see how else the scheme works. If I am correct in reading the scheme, then TfL will be making very little safety improvements, at the expense of delaying cyclists for a couple of traffic light cycles. It doesn't seem like much of a step forward.

I hope I am wrong...

Bow Roundabout Update

2012-01-12T09:39:00.001Z

I saw this article on the BBC website today.

After the Bow cyclist fatalities last year, TfL and the Mayor promised a review and report on the junction. This was in November, and as a general member of the public, I hadn't heard much since. Hence my scepticism when I saw some large yellow warning signs appear a month or so ago.

It appears, however, that the junction has been reviewed, and TfL have some possible alterations in mind.

1) Addition of cycle lights on the Bow roundabout to give cyclists a headstart over the traffic.
2) Addition of cycle lanes on the flyover with lights to allow easy access for cyclists to the flyover.

The second proposal would see the east-bound carriage-way reduced from two to one traffic lane to implement a cycle lane, and presumably west-bound, the hatchings would be reworked to accommodate a cycle lane there.

In my opinion, both these suggestions show the start of some sensible changes. Most cyclists I see use the flyover now, as do I, so I would err towards option 2 if I had to choose (or maybe TfL could implement both?!). Traffic over the flyover is typically very light - I am amazed at how few cars use it (most are going onto the A12 it would appear) even in rush hour. So reducing the lane count shouldn't cause disruption to motor-traffic.

The first option also looks promising, but only if the lights really create a safe route for cycles. Since all cyclists will be going in one direction (back onto the A11 slip road - the A12 is prohibited for cycles), I would have thought some cycle priority signals could be able worked with pedestrian crossing time, thus making the junction permeable for both cyclists and people on foot. I would prefer the flyover option because the roundabout is simply horrible for cyclists, and I would need to be convinced about any solutions that TfL have implemented to make it safer and more usable.

Leon Daniels said that TfL are committed to implement improvements before the Olympics. Which is an ambitious deadline considering that this is only 6 months or so away.

This news looks positive from TfL. From the small amount of information in the news report, it looks like the options have been thought out - I didn't think anything involving lights for the motor traffic would be considered because of "traffic smoothing" considerations, so TfL have surprised me with these proposals.

Here is hoping that the ideas, which sound good on paper, translate into some good facilities to allow permeability across the barrier that is currently the Bow interchange.

Nero fiddles...

2012-01-08T00:30:00.000Z

The 2012 competition for the James Martin award is off to a flying start - the accolade for most obnoxious rant against cyclists in a newspaper may be won before the year has properly started!

This time, instead of being a cook who sharpens his pen against the lycra louts, it is the MD of "Radio Exeter" in this piece.

To properly appreciate the invective that Paul Nero has unleashed upon us anti-social cyclists, I have picked out some passages.

SO I'm driving through the ridiculous 20 mile-an-hour system that's been designed to stop people going to Topsham when there's a decision to make. Should I knock this ignorant cyclist off his bike, blast my horn so that he is in no doubt about my displeasure, or slow down further so that the tailback that's built up between the rugby ground and the roundabout becomes longer still?

Thus starts the article - with no punches pulled on the stupidity of a 20mph speed limit. Clearly the yoghurt knitting town planners have put pedestrians and residents above Mr Nero's ability to go from A-B in his car. Outrageous! Don't they know who he is? Clearly, as MD of Exeter Radio he has places to go, deals to strike, important meetings to attend. Small provincial radio stations don't simply run themselves without some hard work by people like Mr Nero, and pedestrians and other road users simply need to understand the importance of people such as him travelling between traffic lights as quickly as possible.

And then to make matters worse - there is one of those appalling cyclists in Mr Nero's way. You have to start to feel his pain at that point. This cyclist appears, from Mr Nero's article, to be impeding progress to the next tailback! Hence the author's dilemma - to quietly fume or knock this upstart aside?

Someone who doesn't understand the importance of Mr Nero's progress around the back roads of Dorset might wonder if it is a proportionate response to consider causing injury or worse to another human who impedes their progress by a minute or two. Some who don't understand the distress might wonder if this sounds just a teeny bit psychotic. They might wonder if cyclists are singled out for this retribution or whether Mr Nero metes out such summary justice to anyone who slows him down. What would be his response if Mr Nero was delayed by, say, an elderly couple at the front of the checkout queue hunting for change? One might imagine that he would consider a decision between fuming behind them or punching them repeatedly in the face until they stepped aside. After all Mr Nero is a busy man; who wouldn't blame him for resorting to such summary justice?

But the cyclist is in luck. Mr Nero is not a man who forgets he is a role-model in society.

As a responsible citizen I slow down. I fume. And I add fumes. Slow-moving traffic wastes fuel and adds to carbon emissions. Idiots who ignore cycle paths should appreciate that future generations of children will drown as global warming wipes out Lympstone. And it's their fault.

Here, Mr Nero's impeccable logic cuts through the eco babble. Those pesky cyclists think they might be helping reduce pollution by using transport which doesn't produce any, but they actually cause hapless motorists like Mr Nero to add to carbon emissions. Do cyclists not realise that Mr Nero is actually helping to save the planet when he drives quickly? For Christ's sake why don't they think of the children?! Thoughtless lycra clad bastards.

As Mr Nero points out - it is all their fault for daring to use the roads.

I could go on, but I think I should let Mr Nero's rapier-like penmanship do the talking.

Except to say that those who wish to know more about the hero behind the devastating expose on cyclists may be interested to know that, as well as the comments section on the article linked there are other ways to show your appreciation for his work.

Such as on Exeter FMs facebook page here. (Mr Nero appears to be wilting a little in the comments on this page, so any support from people appreciative of his article would surely be welcome..)

Bow

2012-01-04T21:50:00.000Z

Ruminating on the year just past, I remembered the "Tour De Danger", and the two deaths on CS2 at Bow roundabout which happened just before this event.

The pressure from the media and the London assembly prompted TfL to say that they were going to review all SuperHighway junctions and report back on the bow roundabout as a matter of urgency. This was reported on 18th November 2011.

Has the urgent report been compiled and delivered yet?

What I have seen are a series of large yellow notices asking Drivers to be nice to cyclists, and for cyclists to try to avoid traffic. Such as this one below

I am not really sure how effective the signs are going to be. Especially this one, which had been twisted around to face the pavement. As a cyclist using this road, I might prefer a lowered and policed speed limit whilst the design is considered.

Festive Cheer

2011-12-30T13:51:00.000Z

I have been rather busy over the last few weeks, and unable to post. Therefore I offer a rather belated Festive greetings and Happy New Year.

I have several posts I want to share, but to continue with the positivity I summoned up in November, I thought I would start with how cycling has changed Christmas for me.

Since crossing the age divide, where one moves from opening up presents which are exciting toys and progress onto opening up presents which are socks, I have viewed Christmas as overblown and stressful. But the last few Christmases, I have started to enjoy the festive period again. And in doing so, I realised it wasn't the actual Christmas holiday I didn't like, but the run-up to it. I am not a happy shopper at the best of times, and having to shop for presents in a shopping centre so crowded that it probably contravenes EU rules on livestock transport was never going to improve matters. Or the fact that I used to drive everywhere, and at Christmas, this is just torture.

But some things changed my mind, and made Christmas so much better

1) Having a small child. One has to have really misplaced one's heart if unmoved by the excitement of a small child at opening presents.

2) The wonder that is Amazon (or any other online retailer). Not only can you buy presents online without having to inch your way through hoards of angry shoppers, but you can specify the presents you want. This means I get the gifts I would like, and can simply pick something off other people's wish lists so they get what they want as well. This seems a very satisfactory arrangement all round. Hell, many online shops gift wrap it as well for you. It as if they read my mind (or the mind of any other lazy, reluctant shopper).

3) I don't drive to get to the shops at Christmas. No matter what size of present or shopping I am picking up, multiple cycle trips are better than using the car.

To illustrate no. 3, I remember driving to my local Tescos, which was barely half a mile away, to pick up some shopping. I couldn't park in, or indeed get anywhere near, the supermarket car park. I couldn't park anywhere else either. The roads were gridlocked. The journey took 30 minutes simply to circle the supermarket. My wife got out and did the shopping whilst I inched my way around the vicinity. Apparently two people were having a fight in the supermarket, according to my wife. I knew how they felt.

But on a cycle things are very different. My journey takes me about as long as it always does to get to the supermarket. And if the supermarket has run out of what I need, I simply get on the cycle to the next shop. Not something easily done in a car at the best of times, and infuriating when the traffic means any journey is done at less than walking pace. Christmas Eve around Walthamstow illustrated the point wonderfully. This was my journey through the town centre.

The two pictures actually show one very long traffic jam pretty much circling the centre. I don't know how long it took these drivers to complete their journey, but none of them looked particularly full of Christmas cheer.

And to make matters worse, some had to spend their time queuing under the watchful gaze of Mrs Thatcher. I, on the other hand, was only delayed by trying to find a stand to lock the cycle against - a problem which actually made me happier since it means there were many more people deciding the cycle was the only sensible transport option that day.

It might sound slightly silly, but not having the prospect of spending an age in the car to simply get some shopping makes the Christmas chores much more bearable. The suitability of the cycle for local trips, and the stupidity of the car for the same, cannot be better illustrated than during the run up to the festive holidays.

Grumpy Cyclist? Depressed Driver!

2011-11-23T23:09:00.001Z

The other day, I happened upon a reference to this blog. Cycling Info is a blog written by someone far more knowledgeable about cycling that I, so I was really quite flattered that I was listed among a whole series of much more informed blogs than mine. Although the comment against Grumpy Cyclist is :

The title says it all, if you fancy reading a rant.

I have to admit this may be true - my posts are not particularly inspiring for would be cyclists..

But it got me thinking, firstly that maybe I need to be slightly more upbeat with my posts, and secondly, why exactly do I cycle?

Clearly, I consider there is much wrong with the way cycling is treated as a mode of transport. I often feel that those people who make the transport decisions think of cycling as a jolly oddity that should be encouraged, but not at the expense of important modes of travel. So, in the face of patronising and half-baked campaigns from government and often outright hostility from car drivers why would I persist?

One of the reasons for cycling was brought home to me the other day, when I decided to do a local journey of around 2 miles by car instead of cycle. Driving a car anywhere is London is simply horrid. It is slow - junctions that I get through in one traffic light phase on a cycle took three phases by car as we all collectively crept forward to the next queue. It is stressful - narrow streets, parked cars everywhere, high pedestrian numbers and dense traffic mean that I remain on edge for the whole journey. It is frustrating - a journey of 5 minutes takes 30 minutes because a lorry is unloading, the car parking spaces at the destination are all full, an idiot in a BMW decides to use an active bus lane to get 3 car lengths ahead and then blocks two lanes when pushing back in.

In short driving in London isn't pleasant. And this is simply local driving - start using a car in zone 1 and the experience becomes 10 times worse.

Compared to this, cycling is quick and predictable. A 10 minute journey might take 12 minutes if I am feeling lazy or 8 if the wind is behind me. It is liberating - when I get to the shops I generally can tie the cycle to something (although more proper stands would be jolly nice), and I don't need to circle around small car parks trying to fit my transport choice into a gap which is too narrow. Cycling, even popping to the shops, makes you feel just a bit more refreshed and healthy than sitting in a metal box for the same journey. And, in spite of the best efforts of local transport departments and errant drivers, cycling is usually remarkably stress-free.

But more than this, it is actually quite a lot of fun. A trip to the shops isn't so much of a chore. Realising that one has to go to Stratford or Leyton or Tottenham, isn't wasted time, it is an opportunity to get a little exercise and interact with the local area. Because, in a car, one is isolated from the streets one traverses in a haze of junctions and traffic. On a cycle I wave to people I know, I stop to have a chat, I smell the bakery and hear the market. In a car you fight through the local area, on a cycle you are part of the local area.

So why don't more people cycle instead of drive? I think a big part is due to conditioning. It took me years of frustration to try something else. Another big part is the way cycling is considered and treated on our roads. In spite of good words by those who wield power over our street design, the way they treat cycling in places like Blackfriars and Bow gives a message that cycling is in theory good, but hardly a grown-up way of getting around. And by letting our roads - even residential ones - become a car choked mess, they not only make driving utterly miserable but dissuade many from thinking that there are alternatives to sitting in a metal box.

So there are many reasons to be jolly about cycling. There are many reasons to give it a try. But it is frustrating when such a super mode of urban transport is compromised by policies that try making driving a car, a naturally poor mode of urban transport, easy. Not only do these policies fail to make driving easy but, in pursuing them, more natural urban transport options become much more difficult. So this is why I remain a grumpy cyclist despite all the wonderful things about cycling.

Or maybe I am just a glass half empty type...

Neutrinos and post office vans

2011-11-20T23:43:00.001Z

There is currently uproar in the world of Physics. Particle physicists in Italy have measured Neutrinos that appear to break the fundamental principle of Einstein's theory of special relativity - namely that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Such is the incredulity at this result that one physicist, Professor Jim Al-Kalili, has committed to "eat his boxer shorts on live TV" if the results are proven to be correct. Since a second experiment seems to show the same results as the first one, I am intrigued by the possibility that we may be treated to the sight of a respected physicist eating his undergarments live on the small screen. Still, I guess it beats X-Factor..

Living in the UK, I struggle to understand why anyone would be astonished at anything breaking the speed of light. Those physicists should have had a holiday from their lab under a mountain in Italy and popped across to the UK and tracked our Royal Mail vans - some of whom seem to be able to achieve such amazing speeds with ease. In fact such is the velocity of some of our post vans that I find it difficult to understand why it can sometimes take so long for post to arrive - I would expect that, at the speed of some of their vehicles, the Royal Mail could travel back in time and I would be receiving my post before it was sent.

Take the example below.

Bow Flyover at around 8:30am. Clearly, although a 30mph zone, neither the laws of physics or the road apply to this driver for the Royal Mail. For reference, I estimate the black car at the beginning of the sequence is driving a little over 30mph as I am doing over 20mph. I would estimate the van is travelling at least at 50mph? Note the deft undertake of the black car towards the end of the sequence - the driver actually went on the slalom between several cars (avoiding the joining slip road traffic) before ending up at the queue for the red lights a little further on.

I have seen a number of post vans driven with reckless abandon on our roads. Enough to wonder why Royal Mail doesn't install cameras or tracking equipment in them. This might pay for itself in less fuel consumption and body shop repairs. I have seen a post van drive so quickly up my 20mph road that one of the doors flew open. I saw another one on my road run an elderly cyclist into a parked car. Apparently they have a "how is my driving" sticker on some of them, but, frankly, the ones I have cause to report are travelling so quickly there is no way I could note the number before they have disappeared into the distance.

Still at least this post van was only speeding on the Bow Junction - an area well known for being safe and pleasant for vulnerable road users...

*PS - I am sure there are many safe and courteous drivers employed by RM. Its just the reckless ones are also driving big red lorries which are instantly recognisable, and therefore stick out like a sore thumb.

Superhighway review

2011-11-19T23:51:00.001Z

Since posting about the tragic death of Brian Dorling on CS2 at Bow Roundabout, another cyclist died in a collision with a lorry at the same roundabout within a month.

Over 300 cyclists, including me, participated in the "Tour du Danger" which was organised by Danny from Cyclists In The City and Mark from IbikeLondon. Both of whom must be given a huge amount of thanks for organising such an event with so many cyclists attending. Local LCC branch volunteers marshalled the event superbly and the local media covered the stories of both the cyclist deaths at Bow and the ride extensively.

I think that the pressure applied by LCC, the media coverage, and some GLA politicans - who participated in the ride as well - have forced TfL and the Mayor into a review of all SuperHighway junctions, with a priority on the Bow roundabout. Certainly this seems a departure from the Mayor's previous comments to the GLA where he had pronounced that the Elephant and Castle roundabout was fine:

"Though I have to tell you ...sometimes I just go round Elephant & Castle because it's fine. If you keep your wits about you, Elephant & Castle is perfectly negotiable.

Words, one can only hope, the Mayor now regrets.

The "Tour Du Danger" didn't take in the Bow Roundabout, but the other junctions were more than enough. Even within the safety of 300+ cyclists and marshals controlling traffic (I heard comments that it was the safest people had ever felt cycling in London), it was obvious that the junctions we negotiated were not designed in any way for cyclists. How Elephant and Castle can be thought of as "perfectly negotiable" is utterly beyond me. In case we forget, it currently looks like this

image courtesy of London SE1 blog

Although there may be a (somewhat tortuous) cycle bypass to this junction, the same cannot be said for the Bow Roundabout. There are no options I can see aside from this junction if one is cycling from Aldgate / City to Stratford. Which makes Ben Plowden's "recommendation" to cyclists to "avoid the route" even more facetious than the already laughable fact that TfL, after spending millions on the CS2, are now advising cyclists against using it.

IbikeLondon linked to a youtube clip which highlights the danger to cyclists using CS2 on Bow Roundabout, as well as the LCC comments on consultation concerning the Bow cycle facilities. The video is below

None of this is good enough. And there are more and more people realising this. On the "Tour Du Danger", which was my first ride of this kind, I met city workers, lawyers, academics and an eclectic mix of ordinary people who are simply want cyclists and pedestrians to feature in TfL's plans when they examine junctions such as Bow. This isn't an unreasonable request.

There is another "Tour Du Danger" being held on March 17th. This will include the Bow junction. I hope that TfL and the Mayor will have reviewed the junction thoroughly before then and implemented changes to make cycling and walking through the junction easy and safe. And then the "tour du danger II" could become a celebration of the Mayor's commitment to improving road conditions for the increasing numbers of people who believe that walking and cycling are great ways to navigate our great city.

Primary and Secondary

2011-11-09T10:24:00.000Z

Cyclecraft, and cycling enthusiasts, talk of "primary" and "secondary" road positioning when dealing with our roads. They are, it would appear, considered "key" to successful vehicular cycling. To those uninitiated into the lingo of the cyclist, secondary position is where one cycles to the left of the centre of the carriageway but away from gutters, drains and other debris that hugs the side of our roads. It is intended to be safe for the cyclist, and allows easier overtaking by following traffic. Primary is where the cyclist takes the centre of the road and effectively restricts passing by following traffic. Primary is considered by tomes such as Cyclecraft to be key to negotiating safe progress for the cyclist through pinch-points and other road narrowing where overtaking could only be achieved by squeezing the cyclist's space.

So far, so good - although I do have a fairly fundamental objection to being the road-user who is tasked with controlling traffic behind me. The concept of the vulnerable road user being the one that controls the actions of those travelling in several tonnes of metal at speed seems, to me at least, slightly counter-intuitive. I would kind of hope anyone charged with driving large vehicles would be able to control themselves without little old me having to help them out.

But not withstanding this objection, the bigger issue is that, outside a fairly esoteric group of hardened cyclists, the concept of "secondary" and "primary" is completely unknown. Especially to those who are supposed to be "controlled" by this practice - the drivers. To the average driver, I suspect "secondary" looks like "bloody cyclist in my way" and "primary" looks like "bloody arrogant cyclist taking up all the space on my road paid for by my tax".

The fact that drivers have absolutely no idea about why cyclists would be taking primary or secondary, or indeed that cyclists are actually encouraged in such practices to control road-space, seems somewhat of an oversight and might just lead to some difficulties when put into practice on the roads.

So how does it actually work in practice?

I submit to the jury exhibit 'A'.* Taken a couple of weeks ago in Leyton.

In this video, I am going around the little gyratory they have on the High Road. I take primary as I move around the gyratory - even though there is a cycle lane bizarrely on the right hand side; any cyclists I have seen using it get cut up terribly on the exit of the corner. Why do I take primary? Because I don't want some genius trying to pass me on a corner when traffic from the left sometimes doesn't stop. All well and good. But then after rounding the corner, I move to secondary to allow the cars behind me to pass. Except this time, the car doesn't pass before the zebra crossing on the corner, or wait until the corner is cleared. They pass on the corner and pretty much run me off the road. I really don't think this was intentional, just really poor judgement.

So, what to do here? Take secondary and risk a manoeuvre like the one above, or stick in primary and possibly incur the wrath of impatient drivers behind? In a less hostile road environment this decision wouldn't be required since the type of overtaking as seen in the video would simply not happen, either because the road layout would stop it, or the drivers would engage a modicum of common sense.

The second exhibit is my old favourite, the Tottenham Hale Gyratory (Broad Lane), taken on the same day as the video above.

This is a different type of problem. I am in primary to prevent very close overtakes at high speed. The middle lane is travelling at between 15-30mph, so there will always be one important person determined to get in front. And, sure enough, I glance back to see a driver undertaking the middle lane at high speed until he meets me where he sits on my rear wheel. I have a choice here. Move left and get close passed anyway, or continue in primary and hope he doesn't decide to drive through me, and instead moves into the next lane. Of course he decides to drive through me.

This, I think is the problem with primary and secondary. Drivers don't know why you are doing it and care even less. Primary, in theory, should stop close passes like the Toyota whereas the best that happens in many cases is that you simply slow down the close passing car and force it make some attempt to move into the other lane.

The real problem is that roads are designed with only the car in mind, and drivers know they can get away with this type of behaviour with absolute impunity.

Both videos have been reported to Roadsafe.

(* I think I may have been watching too many courtroom drama series on TV recently)

Unbelievable

2011-10-29T20:35:00.000+01:00

Following on from the death of another cyclist involved in a collision with a tipper lorry, Private Eye, of all places, ran a story concerning the death of Nora Gutmann in June.

It would appear that the driver of a tipper lorry, Joao Lopes, who was involved in the collision which killed a cyclist, Eilidh Cairns, in 2009 was also involved in the collision that killed Nora.

I normally have the utmost regard for the police. But the investigation of the death of Eilidh Cairns, and the prosecution of Lopes appears to take bungling to an art form. The police officers first at the scene failed to collect witness details, instead asking them to get back in their cars and leave the area in order to get traffic flowing again. Then they failed to check Lopes' eyesight, even though he said he hadn't seen the cyclist. When a few months later his eyesight was checked it so defective that he legally couldn't drive a lorry. However, by this time, this fact couldn't be used in his prosecution for killing Eilidh Cairns.

He was found guilty of driving with uncorrected vision and got 3 points and £200 fine.

Now it would appear that he has been involved in the death of an elderly pedestrian, also in London.

One worries about the release of this information before prosecution for this latest offence - but now the information is out in the public domain, I can only hope that a Jury direction to disregard previous events is considered adequate to continue with any prosecution.

London wasn't designed for large vehicles. They add risk to the road. They also are, in most cases, essential. But there is much that can be done to mitigate this risk, from better driver training, to technology such as sensors and cameras. Even shutting down companies that employ drivers who are drunk and using a mobile phone might be a good start.

Most of the technology and safety equipment isn't particularly expensive. We are talking about adding side-bars or mirrors in most cases. Even fitting out cameras and sensors isn't exactly prohibitive.

I would like to see all government building contracts - including huge construction projects like the Olympics - mandate that transport used by contractors are fitted with the latest safety equipment, and that the drivers are trained to the highest standard. This would send a clear message.

I would also like to see that those driving to a standard significantly lower than expected - for instance by driving drunk or using a phone or whilst they have uncorrected vision are subjected to lengthy jail terms and the firms for which they work are given very heavy fines and stringent checks before they can operate again.

CS2 death in Bow

2011-10-28T00:00:00.002+01:00

It is with sadness that I read of the first death on a cycle-superhighway this week.

Details are somewhat scant aside from the following from the BBC link above.

A 58-year-old man has died after a collision with a tipper lorry on a cycle superhighway in east London.

The cyclist was involved in the collision on the roundabout at Bow Road, Bow, at 08:45 BST on Monday.

I normally use this blog to vent my frustration with dollops of sarcasm. For such a serious incident as above this is entirely inappropriate. The fact that this is the superhighway, and junction, I cycle through on a fairly regular basis, has brought this particular incident home.

I don't usually cycle the roundabout as it is circuitous, and in my opinion, more fraught with difficulties than the flyover going over the top of it. And the flyover isn't exactly easy to cycle.

The Bow roundabout is also where the Newham boundary lies and, for reasons I have blogged about previously, this is where the CS2 ends.

There should be no illusions about the Bow interchange. This is a junction designed for the movement of motorised vehicles and, in my opinion, was never designed with cyclists or pedestrians in mind. This can be ably illustrated by the fact that the lights have no pedestrian phase - pedestrians simply have no other way to cross these roads than running inbetween the flow of traffic. I think the fact that there aren't more deaths and injuries to cyclists or pedestrians at this junction is simply because so few actually use it - I see few pedestrians and most cyclists do the same as me and get onto the flyover instead of using the roundabout.

According to questions to Boris, the Bow flyover has no pedestrian phase since TfL consider they cannot implement this without serious implications to traffic flow.

This is simply unacceptable, and has to change. Stratford high street at this point was once industrial units, but now has blocks of flats springing up. And many local transport connections at this end are across the Bow junction. So more people will be wanting to walk and cycle across it. This is only going to increase with the regeneration of old industrial areas such as Sugar House Lane.

So what to do about junctions such as these? Look at the video I took several months ago when I used the roundabout Stratford bound

Firstly, it might be easy, and a bit glib, to say the whole thing needs to be re-designed. It does, but this is so unlikely that I would say we have more chance of James Martin doing the tour-de-France. But the whole junction could be made more amenable for cyclists without having to radically change the entire junction.

For a start, this is a 30mph stretch of road. Does it look and feel like 30mph? No. The slip roads are very wide, the entrances and exits on the roundabout are designed for high speed. Surely traffic flow could be slowed and regulated, and cyclists helped by reducing the slip road entrances, by making the roundabout exits tighter.

Secondly, the new CS2 paint segregates cyclists to the left as they travel around the roundabout, but then can put them in conflict with fast moving traffic as they merge on the A11 slip-road, or even worse, directly put them in the path of crossing traffic if the cyclist wishes to continue around the roundabout. This is simply poor design, which would normally be mitigated in Northern European countries by having the cycling lane take priority, or introducing cycle lights to aid cyclists.

Thirdly, the cycle-lane on the A11 slip road back up to the A11 is laughably narrow. Although I wasn't laughing at all when I had to use it with traffic squeezing past. The presence of the lane makes drivers think they should be able to squeeze past without crossing the double lines, but this, in reality is way too close. The cycle lane should be made wider to indicate the true space required by a cycle, and the double lines should be made dashed.

Fourth, look at the parked vehicles. This was a Sunday, but after hours vehicles do park here during the week. The coach on the slip road is blocking CS2 and forcing cyclists out into the path of traffic travelling at speed down the motorway style slip-road. Parking here should be banned 24 hours a day.

Can you imagine anyone unable to walk quickly being able to negotiate this junction on foot? Or indeed would anyone cycle on this other than the battle-hardened?

The fundamental problem is that TfL et al. want us to cycle and walk more - but are not prepared to compromise traffic flow in order to help us do this. When such lack of compromise affects cycle infrastructure such as the superhighways to such a degree as seen at Bow, one hopes that talk about negligence on the part of those responsible for our streets gains momentum and forces a rethink.

My thoughts are with the family of the cyclist who died at this junction; the 14th cyclist to die on London's roads in 2011. TfL need to worry less about traffic flow and more about making our great city somewhere amenable for people. We owe it to all those killed to continue to lobby for more humane roads that will allow the pro-cycling and walking rhetoric of TfL, and local and national government to become reality.

Tour de TfL

2011-10-22T12:38:00.000+01:00

Whilst TfL is organising the Straford to Stratford cycle ride, Cyclists in the City blog is organising a cycling tour of the most dangerous junctions in London.

A roll-call of the junctions on the route sends a shiver down me.

1. St. George's Road/London Road/ Elephant & Castle Junction Southwark
2. Clapham Road/ Kennington Park Road/ Camberwell Road Junction
3. Strand/Northumberland Avenue/Whitehall Junction
4. Waterloo Road/ Stamford St/ York Road Junction
5. Mansion House St/Princes St/ Threadneedle St
6. Elephant & Castle/Newington Butts Roundabout
7. Hyde Park Corner Westminster
8. Millbank/Lambeth Bridge Junction
9. Clerkenwell Road/Farringdon Road Junction (via Kings Cross)
10. Albert Embankment/Kennington Lane/ Wandsworth Road Junction

Although my cycling is mostly confined to North of the River and the City, I have visited these junctions on foot or in the car, or on cycle enough times to know that they are simply terrible.

The initiative is really in honour of the fact that TfL is "improving" Elephant and Castle, with the same thought processes that are currently "improving" Blackfriars bridge. That is that cramming as many lanes as possible into an urban space can be adequately mitigated for cyclists by scattering some ASLs around the area and some fluffy promotional video initiative. Just look at the plans for the Elephant and Castle below (courtesy of cyclists in the city)

It is somewhat of a struggle to see how this is any improvement on the current layout. In fact, I struggle a bit to see much difference at all.

And this isn't simply happening in some isolated cases in London, it appears to be happening everywhere TfL is involved in redeveloping the roads. We have the celebrated Blackfriars bridge, but also Kings Cross, Tottenham Hale, Stratford Gyratory to name simply a few that spring to mind. TfL have no right to claim any positive influence on cycle rates in greater London whilst they pursue such misguided redevelopment plans.

So, if you are feeling brave, join cyclists in the city; the event is happening

10.30am Saturday 12 November
Meet by the stairs at the front of St. Mark's Church, The Oval, Kennington, SE11 4PW

I will be endeavouring to join this event if I can. 40-50 like minded cyclists attempting some of the most horrible junctions in London will be an education if nothing else. If I do join I will make sure the panniers are loaded with several changes of underpants so I can complete the route in comfort...

Clampdown on uninsured cars

2011-10-22T12:14:00.000+01:00

This week the MET has run a one-day campaign targeting uninsured drivers. This is, apparently, the start of the new commissioner's "total policing" policy. Several hundred cars were impounded and the MET believe "that up to 80% of uninsured drivers are involved in other crimes". Makes one wonder why the uninsured haven't really been targeted before if it leads to other crimes in 80% of cases.

This all sounds good. Uninsured drivers cost the legal motorist dear. Not only in hikes in insurance premiums to cover the damage, but that uninsured drivers are 5 times more likely to be involved in an accident in the first place, and are much more likely to engage in unsafe and anti-social driving in the first place.

But, according to another report from the BBC in 2009, the scale of the issue of uninsured drivers is huge. From research covered in the report, it is estimated that 13% of drivers in Greater London are uninsured and at least 1.7M people drove without insurance in the UK. This isn't just a small minority of drivers, it is a significant section of private motorists on the road today.

The report has the CEO of the Motor Insurers' Bureau saying

"Indeed, the number of drivers across the UK who were caught without insurance last year would fill Wembley Stadium more than twice. The message to motorists is clear: driving uninsured is simply not worth the risk."

But let's consider the risk vs reward for a bit. From the article and a bit of google research, it appears that around 300,000 people get caught without insurance per year. The penalty for driving without insurance is 6 pts on the license and £200 fine, with the car impounded (presumably released upon payment of fine). The average cost of insurance in London is over £500 per year. When I enquired (I drive a company car so don't have private car insurance), my premium would be £700-£800 per year; I have a clean license with no accidents in 5 years and am approaching middle age. So, it looks like the vast majority of uninsured drivers don't get caught, and even if they are caught the penalty is significantly less than the yearly premium.

I don't subscribe to the view that all those without insurance are hardened criminals - we are talking about over 1 in 10 motorists. So many are making a calculated decision to drive illegally. And based on the information above, I can see why.

To deter illegal driving, one has to make the deterrent much more harsh, or make detection much easier, or both. And we have the means to do both. ANPR cameras can instantly detect illegal cars and drivers, and, as can be seen from the MET clampdown, can lead to more detection of crime than illegal motoring. So why doesn't it happen more? One could affix ANPR cameras in key locations (Stratford Gyratory would be one, A406 I believe already has some) and then station police to pull over cars on occasion to issue hefty fines and confiscate cars. If the illegal motorist knew that ANPR cameras were in operation at all times, police regularly used them, and the fines were hefty including confiscation of vehicles, I think attitudes may change. In urban areas such as Greater London, the sheer lawlessness of the roads, along with myopic transport policies, is allowing illegal activity to flourish whilst discouraging other transport alternatives.

The MET actions is a start. But a few hundred vehicles impounded, to be returned after a few points and a measly fine isn't going to have much impact at all. Maybe the "total policing" policy will spread and make our roads safer for other motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. I hope it isn't simply a gimmick to raise the profile of an incoming commissioner.

TfL - caring about cyclists

2011-10-18T12:28:00.000+01:00

Whilst away on holiday last week, I note a few developments in the world of cycling in London.

In amongst the schemes that have been announced by TfL, a couple drew my attention

The first is the Stratford cycle challenge. Initially I thought this might be some kind of contest where cyclists went round and round the multi-lane gyratory with the winner being the last to be knocked off by speeding cars - some kind of cycling version of Tron. But no, it is actually a 100 mile event cycling from Stratford E London to Stratford-Upon-Avon. It does say the number of riders will be limited, and I assume this is because there are only a certain number of people ~~stupid~~ brave enough to cycle around Stratford (E. London) Gyratory.

The second was a story on the BBC about TfL offering a reward scheme for people cycling and walking instead of driving. Apparently it uses the GPS facility in a smart-phone to log journeys and this will rack up points for discounts and promotions.

Both jolly promotions showing how much TfL cares for the cyclist.

Except are we satisfied? It would appear not! Surely what else do we want?

There is the LCC now demanding all sorts of impractical things, like a Blackfriars bridge that is actually cycling and people friendly. There are even blogs such as cyclists in the city promoting demonstrations against the current TfL schemes which prioritise important motorists, and leave cyclists to fend for themselves and pedestrians to cross using multiple islands.

Then there are pesky sites such KingsCrossEnvironment which are digging up all sorts of information under FoI which TfL would prefer didn't see the light of day. Documents which show TfL had audits predicting casualties on certain roads as "inevitable" due to the layout encouraging aggressive driving and speeding. And then the blog has the temerity to think that maybe TfL should be held account when the "inevitable" happens and vulnerable road users die on said roads. Surely we need to realise that squeezing as much private traffic as quickly as possible through dense urban areas is of upmost importance?!

Us cyclists are really a grumpy lot. We are not content with some discounts for using our bicycles, but actually want roads fit for cycling as well?! What next, moon on a stick?

I for one will be very grateful for my discount points earned whilst dodging speeding traffic on the A11 bow flyover, or being close passed on the A10 at Stamford Hill, or harassed by taxis whilst in "their" bus lane. I think we should simply be happy with this and not questioning why TfL believes a points-means-prizes gimmick will encourage cycling whilst they continue to pursue a policy of marginalising cycling on the roads.

Westfield Cycle Shenanigans

2011-09-30T00:47:00.000+01:00

Several people have commented on my Westfield article. Primarily about the accessibility, or otherwise, of the centre to anyone not in a car, but on a cycle.

I decided to try for myself, and the results are below in a little annotated video

One has to remember that the road above is simply an access road to the centre, and is brand new. The facilities aren't dictated by existing road structures, or drains, or through traffic. The cycle facilities here are as they were designed. Which is slightly worrying; one might assume it is all done for a bet.

As a pedestrian things aren't exactly rosy either. This pavement is hardly generous for walkers, and, further round, the gyratory pedestrian crossing doesn't seem to have been upgraded at all. People waiting to cross are being pushed into the road by the sheer weight of the crowds, into a multi-lane road where car speeds are way in excess of the 30mph limit.

The powers that be are seemingly intent on re-creating the 1980's Birmingham Bull Ring in East London. Except with somewhat less charm. And congratulations to them - I really think they are succeeding.

War, what is it good for?

2011-09-30T00:32:00.001+01:00

.. raising speed limits, apparently.

Philip Hammond - a man whose smugness is directly proportional to the vacuousness of his speeches - is due to announce that motorway speed limits are to rise to 80mph.

It isn't really something I care hugely about. 80mph seems de rigeur for most drivers on motorways anyway. I assume that the increase in speed limit will raise the average third lane speed to around 90mph instead of 80mph as now. If nothing else it proves that many people cannot be that worried about fuel pricing if they are prepared to use 20% more of it simply to get somewhere a bit quicker.

What does seem extraordinary is the language employed by the commander-in-chief on the fight against the "War on The Motorist". Hammond manages rhetoric such as

"Britain's roads should be the arteries of a healthy economy and cars are a vital lifeline for many." he blamed Labour's "shortsighted and misguided war on the motorist" for penalising drivers.

"This government has already scrapped the M4 bus lane, cut central government funding for money-making speed cameras and announced new measures to crack down on boy racers and reckless drivers while standing up for the decent majority," he said.

"Now it is time to put Britain back in the fast lane of global economies and look again at the motorway speed limit which is nearly 50 years old, and out of date thanks to huge advances in safety and motoring technology.

"Increasing the motorway speed limit to 80mph would generate economic benefits of hundreds of millions of pounds through shorter journey times. So we will consult later this year on raising the limit to get Britain moving."

Ah, the war on the motorist. A funny thing, this particular war. I am a motorist, and as such would be sure that I should have noticed if I was "at war". Clearly I escaped this "short-sighted and misguided" war - presumably by trying to not drive like a lunatic.

But let's look at the substance of Hammond's comments - this shouldn't take long...

It appears that the war was over when the M4 bus-lane was removed. Even though a TRL investigation showed that it improved journey times for all traffic, including cars. And then "money making" speed cameras were cut. Which is strange, since speed cameras were being removed by local councils to save money, surely if they made money the cash strapped councils would be having Gatso festivals?

But Hammond isn't against the rule of law applying to the roads. Oh, no, for he does mention measures to crack down on boy racers - the specifics of which are somewhat less than clear.

Still, as he says, increasing the motorway limit to 80mph will generate economic benefits (presumably mostly for the fuel companies) to get Britain moving again. Which is good news. Clearly the reason why it takes me 4 hours to travel 70 miles on the M25 isn't to do with the horrendous congestion encouraged by road mad transport policies over a generation, but because I haven't been legally allowed to go at 80mph.

Hammond is, quite clearly, an attention seeking buffoon. Those old enough to remember that cornerstone of 90's TV programming "The Word" may remember a section titled "I would do anything to be on TV". Hammond appears to be enacting a political version of this game with gusto whilst some script writer is wondering how much more nonsense he can be made to say. But the real problem is that it is thought that everyone is a law-abiding, decent motorist whilst a few bad apples and some tofu eating enviro-mentalists are spoiling the party. Well, I am sorry to break it to Hammond but there is a very significant proportion of law breakers on our roads today, and declaring that attempts to regulate behaviour constitute "war" is beyond stupidity.

Drivers have their own internal justification mechanisms for disregarding laws. "I only speed where it is safe" being one - another being " I am always careful around schools". Even these fatuous rationalisations are wrong. Escorting my daughter to school is eye-opening in itself. The majority of motorists around the school break the 20mph limit. The school zig-zags are used as a drop-off zone at all times. And cars simply stop in the road to let their children out to the accompaniment of horn blowing by other parents who cannot wait to edge forward and do the same. If this is considered driving safely, no wonder I could fill my hard drive with examples of lunatic driving on the roads.

So, Mr Hammond, for you I leave you with some randomly picked examples of the type of driving I see every day on my cycle. The problem isn't the war on the motorist. It is the lack of law on the motorist.

A family addition

2011-09-29T18:40:00.001+01:00

Aside from my cycle, the daughter got her first bicycle a little while ago. My wife had temporary use of a loan cycle, but that had to be returned to its owner after a short spell where she used it once or twice on family outings.

So my wife, who doesn't drive, walks or uses public transport. Not so bad since London public transport by and large is fairly efficient. But my wife wanted more mobility in getting places quickly that aren't served well by public transport. A cycle was the answer, I said. She said that I meant a cycle was cheap...

In anticipation that the wife's cycle enthusiasm wouldn't last long (and being careful - my wife may say stingy - with money), we went to our local bike shop for a cheap second hand model. Where she decided upon a very early example of a folder cycle for less than £70. So early, in fact, that the manufacturing label states "Made in West Germany" - thus dating it between 1949 and 1990. I explained to my wife that this was a true classic cycle - by which she correctly surmised that this was spin for "old". And, again, "cheap".

She used it in anger for the first time the other week. I got a call from her that morning. I was expecting to hear of problems with the cycle, or difficulties with the cycling etc. Instead she sounded as excited as my child on her birthday. She had realised that she could travel locally in a fraction of the time she took walking and with much more convenience that a bus. She loves the cycle.

Her enthusiasm reminded me of the first times I used a cycle and realised the freedom it gave you, even in comparison to a car, in London. It also made me think about how much potential is in the humble cycle.

In Waltham Forest around 40% of households don't have a car or van for private use (2001 census). And this includes the leafier, less dense, Chingford suburbs north of the A406. In a ward such as mine, the number of households without a car increases to 44%. In some other wards, this number is around 50%. And remember, this is households, and won't indicate households where one adult cannot drive , or doesn't have regular access to a car (multiple car ownership is low in most wards - 10% in mine), or doesn't want to drive locally.

This seems to me to be a huge opportunity for a large section of the local population to increase their travel options by using a cycle. It also appears to me that this significant proportion of the local population who simply don't benefit from road treatments made to aid the flow of private vehicles.

So with this apparent latent demand why is cycling such a minority travel option? Even though more people are using cycles, the percentage is still very low.

There are many reasons given for low cycle modal share in the UK. Some seem fairly obvious like the state of the roads for cycling, others are less obvious such as home cycle storage, the concerns about arriving "sweaty" and dishevelled, and then there are the arguments against which can never change - such as the climate or hills. We can all speculate about the main causes, and maybe cycling will simply become more popular because of external conditions such as fuel cost, economy etc. But for my money I still think fundamental re-think of the way we use our roads is required. When one considers all the facts, it seems odd that local government and transport bodies are effectively ignoring great sections of their community when they consider roads only in the context of moving private traffic from A-B. This seems non-nonsensical in areas such as Walthamstow, and becomes lunatic in central London with plans such as Blackfriars bridge. I am not anti-car - I have one and am very glad on occasion I can drive - but I increasingly cannot see the sense in treating every road and street with a universal assumption that private traffic flow supersedes all other requirements.

A few weeks ago, my wife was somewhat disinterested in the notion of cycling as transport. Within a day or so she has become completely attached to the cycle, using it for more trips than she ever anticipated. And this is with the current, second-rate treatment of cycling - imagine what could happen if this transport option was taken seriously by the great and the good! Recently I have had to contemplate the possibility that I may become car-less for the first time since I passed by test many years ago. Previously this possibility would have given me nightmares. Now, I kind of considered it and concluded - meh - I will use the cycle and join Streetcar on the odd occasion I need one. Five years ago, I never thought my attitude to car ownership would have been reversed so completely. If the cycle changed my attitude to this extent (I used to be a die-hard car user), well then it pretty much change anyone's transport habits.

So the question remains: if my wife and I - with little previous interest in cycling, and none in transport policy - can realise how useful a cycle can be, why can't those who are actually supposed to know about these things and run our roads?

Westfield Stratford

2011-09-14T16:11:00.002+01:00

The Grand Opening was yesterday. I could tell since the traffic was backed up to the Bow Flyover, with a solid three lanes of traffic until the pedestrian crossing at the Gyratory which was having to be manned by a team of police to control the huge numbers crossing. After this there were traffic queues up Angel Lane, which is one of the entrances to the 6000 space car park.

The sheer numbers of people was astonishing. The policeman who was by me as I waited for the pedestrian crossing to clear reckoned that 1 million people will visit the centre in the coming week.

As a cyclist, having the A11 and gyratory completely backed up instead of the usual traffic moving at more (sometimes considerably more) the speed limit whilst close passing is actually a bit of a relief. Filtering is difficult due to the policy of fitting in as many lanes as possible, but us cyclists were considerably quicker than anything else on the road today. The A12 looked stuffed, and the local roads were pretty congested.

Westfield has provided over 1000 bicycle parking spaces, which actually isn't bad at all. It is then somewhat of a shame that Newham / Tfl / ODA / whoever has seen fit to make cycling as unpleasant as possible on the roads around the centre. Those new cycle stands don't look quite so tempting if one has to negotiate pants-soilingly dangerous multi-lane roads to get to them.

One of the major issues was that the pedestrian crossing between Westfield and the original Stratford centre was simply not fit for this many people. The police had to physically restrain the pedestrians to prevent the weight of people coming up to the crossing pushing those in front into the road. Before Westfield, the crossing was a horrid mess barely able to cope. It just gave up yesterday. As far as I can see there has been no significant work done to improve the pedestrian facilities around the gyratory, and I guess this is the result. Once again walking and cycling have been completely marginalised in favour of traffic flow.

I will leave you with a video I found of the Westfield Apple Store Opening. A brand that appears to have turned buying mass produced electronics consumer goods into a religious experience opening in a shopping centre that seems to have become our new place of Pilgrimage . Sometimes Mr Grumpy wonders if he isn't an alien accidentally trapped on this planet. What happened to the recession?

Dangers of Lorries

2011-09-13T10:13:00.000+01:00

Travelling along the Mile End Road the other day, I remembered a cement mixer turning left, but didn't really take much notice, apart from keeping away from it.

Looking at the video recorded, I realised how easy it is for a cyclist to travel up the inside of these lorries and how easy it is to get into real trouble very quickly.

The lorry driver did everything right, and was - as can be seen in the video - very diligent indeed. He stopped and moved slowly past the school children, he was indicting way in advance of him turning, and he turned slowly and carefully into the side road. I don't think you can ask for more from the driver.

But it is sobering watching when you see how far out the lorry has to be to start the turn, the huge space to the left of the vehicle and the very quick turning circle that it has - even at this walking pace.

In my younger days I may have gone up the inside whilst the lights were at red. These days I try to keep as much distance from lorries as possible - even overtaking stationary ones is something I do with huge care.

In my experience lorry - and bus - drivers tend to be the most professional and courteous of all road users, especially towards cyclists. But there are careless lorry drivers out there, and one wonders what I may have done if the lorry driver hadn't bothered signally left so early - would I have been tempted to undertake to get to the front? Maybe.

I have a lot of respect for lorry drivers, such as the one in the video, who negotiate London's roads with these types of vehicles, and do so diligently and carefully. Takes skill and patience. I also know that cyclists can be difficult to spot and we can put ourselves in difficult situations. In an ideal world, I would think that all big lorries in London should have pedestrian / cyclist sensors and camera to aid the driver in these busy roads. But until that day comes, this video has made me realise how easy it is for us cyclists to become very badly compromised with large vehicles.

Another RLJ

2011-09-13T09:26:00.001+01:00

Quite extraordinary this one.

The focus driver had pulled into the petrol station just before the lights - then changed their minds (actually slowing the under-passing Golf driver in the previous post).

Then, for reasons only known to them they completely ignore the red light and breeze through turning right.

Narrowly missing some cyclists coming out of the turning who had waited for green. It should be noted that the Golf driver amber-gambled the first set of lights of well, and must have simply gone through the red light at the synchronised pedestrian crossing after the right turn.

Biking Boris' Blue Lanes

2011-09-12T17:52:00.000+01:00

There are a couple of posts I have been meaning to write. The first concerns the reports on cycling facilities around Stratford by the BBC and others. There appears to be disquiet on the state of the roads local to the Olympics - particularly in relation to getting people cycling to the "greenest" Olympics. TfL, however, appear to believe all is well with cycling on these roads. Those of us who have tried, and not had our brains removed, realise that this is optimism of such as huge magnitude one can only assume that TfL have either never cycled the routes or have been binging on industrial quantities of Prozac. To be honest, each time I start a post on this subject I get worked into a frenzy of indignation that is neither good for my blood pressure or coherence. But one day I will manage it...

The other post was to relay my experiences whilst using the Boris Blue Lanes - Cycle SuperHighway 2. This is also taking some time since I start composing the post and simply run out of ways to say "OK-ish" and "how much did you say this cost?!". But I shall try to put down some thoughts below.

NE London is yet to be graced with blue-tarmac; the only Cycle Superhighway going near is the CS1 which is not due until 2015. However, the CS2 has been completed from Aldgate to Bow, and I have had cause to use the A11 Mile End Road several times in the last couple of weeks. This was my first foray into Boris' Blue cycling utopia...

Firstly, it would be very easy to be cynical and sarcastic about the whole thing. But I want to be more constructive and positive - before being cynical and sarcastic.

So on the positive side - the ASLs appear to be deeper and bigger than anything I normally see outside a Cycle Superhighway. And cars seem more reluctant to simply ignore them - presumably because they are such a gaudy colour and so large. So there is more space at traffic lights, and the left feed-in lanes aren't the tiny tight-ropes of paint often seen elsewhere. It is lucky there is more space, because I think the CS2 has more cyclists than before. Although I infrequently used the route in pre-CS2 days, it feels like there are more cyclists on the road, and this is a good thing. Certainly drivers seem more aware of cyclists, and often give way to them on left turns - something I have only seen in Copenhagen before. The signs are really clear - no missing the "CS2" boxes on the road, or indeed the extra signs along route. There are trixi mirrors on major junctions - not sure if they help lorry drivers with spotting cyclists, but they cannot hurt.

Now the not so good stuff.Clearly TfL - probably in the name of "traffic smoothing" - didn't want to reduce the space available to cars, yet the cycle lane had to go somewhere and be 1.5m wide. So, instead of removing a lane, they kept both when the road is multi-lane, but reduced the width. Most normal drivers stick to the outside lane, leaving the narrower one for black cabs and other "important road users" to squeeze up and undertake the traffic - often at speed and always close to cyclists. This is really disconcerting - the lanes aren't often wide enough to hold two lanes of traffic and a cyclist in parallel in comfort so the whole road becomes a huge elongated pinch point. When traffic is heavy, paradoxically, this isn't so bad as even the ones undertaking are slowed by other cars, but when traffic is flowing at 30mph on the outside lane, the inside lane is the preserve of idiots wanting to break the speed limit and not caring too much about other road-users.

To illustrate my point, see below.

The traffic in the outside lane is moving, but the Golf driver decides to undertake them. Unfortunately there is a hold up with someone turning left into the petrol station so he loses most of the ground he has gained, but this is driving - rationality doesn't come into it..

And then there is this

The black taxi driver has several cyclists in front of him, and one is overtaking the other cyclists - at a fair rate, I might add. Sensible people would temper the speed, pull in behind the audi and then overtake in the far lane. But the taxi driver decides to go right up to the cyclist and beep his horn before pulling in behind the audi and overtaking in the far lane.

So, the two lanes encourages those less predisposed to cerebral activity that they can undertake at speed and squeeze through. Clearly not ideal.

There are, of course, other issues with the Super Highway. It stops and starts for parking bays. When needed most it tends to become shy and only show itself as a CS2 logo on the street. I could go on.

What is really disappointing about the SuperHighway though is that this kind of road treatment is the least we should expect from cycle infrastructure on our streets. The fact that it is an improvement on the other facilities is a damning indictment on cycle infrastructure in general, not a reason for thinking the blue lanes constitute anything one could realistically term "Super". The fact is that, for something truly "Super" for cycling - indeed for walking as well - these roads need the be fundamentally rethought, with their purpose being considered outside trying to squeeze as many vehicles through the gaps as possible.

But probably the real Achilles heel to Cycle Super Highways is what happens when they end. CS2 ends at Bow roundabout in a fairly undignified manner, spewing the unsuspecting cyclist into the edge of a really unpleasant roundabout system with little indication of what to do next, and absolutely no priority. Alternatively one could decide on the Bow Flyover (which many cyclists use) and end up enjoying the cycling facilities laid on in that cycling ~~nirvana~~ hell called Newham. Hands up all those who can imagine young families and novice cyclists using this to get to the Olympic park?

RLJ

2011-09-01T12:16:00.000+01:00

Not huge amounts to say about this, frankly. Either the driver was so pre-occupied with something other than driving that they missed the lights completely, or they simply don't care at all.

The lights were red when they pulled out from the side-road (you just see a white van turning right after they have gone red). When the BMW turned right through the red you may be able to just see a cyclist turning right (on a green light) out of the side-street, and nearly getting hit - the cyclist stopped just in time. Bloody cyclists eh! Come out of nowhere...

Another day, another SMIDY

2011-08-31T00:32:00.000+01:00

Well, I say SMIDSY. I doubt he could have missed me, I was wearing a fetching high viz jacket and waving my arms around like a demented seagull just before he decided to turn (I had a distinct feeling he was going to pull this stunt). So less SMIDSY, more "I've seen you are don't give a f*ck".

Presumably he is of the "well I didn't hit you did I" brigade. The reason he didn't hit me is that I saw him, took note of his actions, and slowed as it was obvious he was an idiot.

The ASZ - All Scooters Zone

2011-08-31T00:25:00.000+01:00

The Guardian Bike Blog asked the other day "How can safety at Advanced Stop Zones be improved for cyclists"?

Well, it might be rather jolly if the average motorist, and indeed motorcyclist, took the first bit of notice of them.

There are differing opinions on the ASZ, and I wouldn't say that they are the panacea to all cycling woes - but they are useful for getting some distance between yourself and motorised traffic, and are good for when you are filtering. I tend to use them when traffic is heavy and I am filtering, or if I going to turn right at a junction where the ASZ allows me to position myself correctly. I rarely bother with them if the traffic is light, preferring to stay behind the vehicle in front of me.

But the ASZ has to be one of the most abused rules by motor vehicle users, outside speeding infractions. Scooters seems to be almost drawn to these zones as if they have some kind of strange magnetic attraction. Maybe some kind of seductive siren call emanates from the traffic lights - a call only heard by scooterists?

The ASZ is, hardly surprisingly, barely policed. In fact the closest I have seen the police take an interest in the ASZ are the couple of times when they themselves have rocked up into it whilst I have been waiting for the lights.

I also think that there are significant tranche of motorists who have no idea what an ASZ is, why cyclists need to use them, and why drivers shouldn't. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a significant number of drivers who have no idea on the rules of the ASZ and, indeed, that encroaching it on red is illegal (theoretically carries a £60 / 3pt fine). And why should they? Their function has hardly been publicised, and the policing of them is non-existent.

Secondly, there are the drivers who simply know that no-one cares about the ASZ and use them anyway - I guess to get "ahead" of other lanes, or simply to try to push away filtering cyclists. I have heard comments about how silly it is to let cyclists "push in front" to "slow down" traffic, normally from people who have no concept of the average speeds one can attain as a cyclist in London in comparison to those in vehicles.

So, to answer the Guardian's question, one could make ASZs more amenable to cyclists by making sure drivers knew how to act around them, and to enforce them in the first place. I always think that ASZs lend themselves to being used with cycle only lights - if something is in the ASZ then cycle only lights turn green for a time to allow cyclists to clear the junction. And enforcing them with red light cameras. One can only speculate at how quickly drivers might learn not to encroach an ASZ if they realise that doing so adds on another lighting phase to their wait...

So I leave you with the current state of ASZs. Another video taken recently, on the A10. Note the van changing lanes to undertake the traffic. Note how the driver goes right into the ASZ on red. Note also the cyclists waiting at the ASL who now have a large van "cuddling" up to them. Some may say the cyclists were over too near the kerb, but that misses the point, which is that someone licensed to drive several tonnes of machinery shouldn't be so moronic as to try to push past a cyclist at a red light. If I was the Bromponite waiting at the front, I would have gone on the pedestrian phase and jumped the lights simply to get away from the van - which may have been turning left for all I knew.

When this type of driving results in prosecutions then the ASZ will be respected. Until then I will resign myself to making close acquaintanceship with vans, lorries, buses, scooters, cars and motorbikes - all of whom seem to want to join the ASZ party.

In Praise of Waltham Forest Council

2011-08-26T15:11:00.000+01:00

No really...

In a departure from my normal sarcasm, I actually want to commend Waltham Forest council on something.

I have notice that they have put in more cycle stands outside the Selborne Walk BhS and some more down by the side entrance near ASDA. This has more than doubled the available bicycle parking racks, and is a welcome addition as the existing racks near the playground gets pretty busy on a nice weekend.

I frequently use the stands near Sainsburys / Willow Walk, and these can fill up pretty quickly as well. So if there is any money left over then adding some more around here would be useful. As would some down Hoe Street, where cycle stand provision isn't great at the moment.

The Mercedes Sandwich

2011-08-18T14:26:00.001+01:00

Everyone knows Mercedes drivers are very important people. I used to drive a Mercedes and knew that I was very important (now I cycle I understand I am no longer important).

So one can appreciate why the very important person in this white Mercedes decided to come over to my side of the road and barge right through me simply to park. And why the Mercedes behind me picked that exact time to overtake me instead of reading the situation and giving me some space.

This was one of those moments where one only realises the idiocy of the driver after the event. I did manage to shout "You tw@t" at him as he barged through, but he had a mildly confused look on his face that closely resembled a slightly alarmed sheep.

How people can be this moronic and still function in society is somewhat beyond me. If I could make out his number plate (and believe me I have tried) I would be reporting him to RoadSafe for this. I wouldn't leave this idiot in charge of a plastic spoon less still allow him a driving license.

The Professionals

2011-08-17T12:29:00.000+01:00

Not these.

But the drivers of these

Most of my interactions with buses as a cyclist are really good. Buses stop and start and use the same bus lanes as us cyclists so overtaking, and being overtaken, by buses when cycling in London is a simple fact of life. The following videos are the exception rather than the rule, but buses are so big that when the driver does close pass a cyclists it is deeply unsettling.

The first was taken a few weeks ago, where the bus decided to squeeze through instead of waiting until after the island. The irony is that the traffic is normally queued for the junction ahead, and that day was no exception. The driver held up their hand when I shouted at him, so I assume this was an apology of sorts.

Then, as if to prove that lightening can strike twice, a different driver does exactly the same thing on another day.

Finally, some of the worst bus driving that I have had to endure for a while. This happened this week, and concerned me as I had nowhere to go if the bus had been any closer to me

I am undecided whether he simply didn't bother checking his mirrors as he passed, or whether this was a punishment pass for daring not to use the narrow and blocked cycle-path carved out on the pavement. This path is dangerous where it crosses the entrance and exit to the retail park, has been blocked with works and conflicts directly with pedestrians coming out of the park and waiting for the buses, so at 5pm when commuters and shopper abound it is better to use the road and bus lane, and most drivers have no issue with moving around a cyclist - certainly the next lane was free when the bus overtook. Whatever the reason, I felt it merited a note to TfL with a link to the video.

Lots of crime - probably quite a lot of punishment

2011-08-17T10:27:00.000+01:00

The post below was started before the extra-ordinary events of the weekend of the 6th August. That Sunday I cycled to Tottenham Hale to pick up some items at the Argos and then planned to pop up to Mothercare. As I went past the retail park, clearly something had gone on, and I talked to a policeman on duty there to see when the shops would re-open - I hadn't watched the news at all that morning and had no idea of the riots the night before. The policeman looked at me as if I was a complete imbecile (which was a pretty fair judgement, frankly) and explained the situation. As things escalated over the next days one could only watch with increasing amazement. I cycled back from a friend's house half a mile along Hoe Street at around 7:30pm on the Monday, and the atmosphere in Walthamstow was very strange. There was less traffic and pedestrians around than usual and everyone seemed nervous. I was nervous. I was even more nervous when a car passenger shouted at me "you're brave" as I waited for the lights at Church Street. I wasn't feeling very brave - and the comment re-enforced my deeply held belief in the merits of cowardice. Still, I arrived home without incident, and Walthamstow has since returned to its normal self.

Being removed from the rioting (preferring a nice cup of tea to looting JD Sports) it was only sights such as in the video below (filmed on the Wednesday) that reminded me of the scale of the unrest, and the magnitude of the police response. As I cycled past Bakers Arms there were 10 riot vans full of police, presumably off to patrol various parts of East London.

Crime and (very little) Punishment

2011-08-16T23:20:00.000+01:00

Cycling casualties rose in the year ending March 2011. From the released statistics from the DfT, 1,870 people died and just under 25,000 people were killed or seriously injured on our roads in the 12 months to March 2011.

Pedestrian, Motorbike and car casualties and KSI all fell - pedestrians by 1% and 3% respectively, but car casualties and KSI fell by the most - 7% and 9% respectively.

Why pedestrian casualties fell is anyone's guess. Maybe there are less of them, maybe they learnt to run faster. Or possibly cars are now designed with pedestrian impact safety as a criteria. Certainly being in a car has become dramatically safer over the years, despite the huge increase in road traffic. This is no accident (excuse the pun). Untold money has been poured into road, and car, design to make the occupants safer. And whilst roads have become safer for car users with huge amounts of planning going into things such a motorway and A road design, this has had the effect of driving out non-motor traffic from the roads. So why has cycling had an increase in casualties? Maybe it is because of an increase in miles cycled, but then again motoring has increased over the years hugely and safety also increased - with the use of funds. Could it be that, whilst motoring has had billions poured in safety, cyclists have had to make do with advice like "take primary", or make use of cycle lanes that direct one into the path of car doors, left turning vehicles and prioritised side roads?

Maybe the decrease in car casualties and the increase in cycle casualties is due to car drivers becoming more diligent and careful, whilst those naughty cyclists are just reckless fools, flinging themselves at hapless drivers? Below are some videos,all taken on three trips in the last couple of weeks, that might point towards the real problem - motorists able to pretty much get away with anything on a regular basis.

The first two highlight the most endemic problem associated with motorist behaviour that currently blights nearly all our roads. It is so accepted that when 14% of motorists are found to be speeding on a road in Woodford Green, the police don't think this a problem. And the operation itself highlights the magnitude of the issue- if 14% of motorists are caught speeding when the police are by the roadside in big yellow POLICE jackets and waving around speed-guns one can only imagine the amount of speeding that goes on when they aren't around. Yet this criminal act, which has been completely normalised on our roads, kills people and makes roads utterly unusable for others.

Take the first video. Filmed on Saturday afternoon in Leytonstone High Road - a reasonably busy road. The speed of the car, coupled with its road position and the location of side turnings makes this a very anti-social piece of driving.

The second video is my favourite piece of road - the A11 into Stratford. Now, even in the pretty high amounts of competition in sh!t driving on the road, this BMW driver still manages to stand out amongst the crowd. The cyclist on the right is trying to make his way to the right turn at the lights. Some may say that his road positioning could be improved, but, frankly, there is absolutely no way of making this turn safely. Certainly the vehicular cycling method of "taking the lane" would have got him smeared over this BMW. This car was travelling so fast that I shoulder-checked as I entered the road and there was no car on the Bow Flyover. Thankfully, I did a final shoulder check and saw him careering down the road, hence my change in road positioning to the left. No way was I about to assert myself in this situation. This road is 30mph - but this is an utter joke. If Newham wanted to do something to help cyclists they might have thought about us when they "remodelled" the road for the Olympics. Or perhaps put in average speed cameras to keep the speed down. But there is nothing - aside from a hugely overworked 30mph flashing sign. Possibly because Newham council (ie. Sir Robin Wells) have absolutely no interest in cycling

Then we have the "didn't see" or "didn't care" approach to cyclists. Many motorists are clearly busy people, and there is little point in dallying around waiting for cyclists or pedestrians to get out of the way. Obeying the highway code and giving some thought to the safety of other road-users is clearly a nice idea, but not when you are in a hurry. How important is a cyclist or pedestrian's journey if they didn't decide to use a car anyway?

So, as this Audi driver kindly demonstrates, cyclists should be prepared to yield to important people in German cars.

Finally, we have the last word in the true hierarchy on our roads. Whilst we stop at the lights near Tottenham Hale tube station, this very important driver in the Mazda decides to push past me and cross the lights at red, whilst pedestrians are still crossing. Clearly he beeped his horn a couple of times, so any casualties (for example the young family still crossing) would only have themselves to blame.

So there we are. Clearly the transport planners scratch their heads and worry about the cycling injuries until they realise that what is actually required is to train the cyclists better. So that they know that they need to be positioning themselves right in front of drivers such as those above. That will sort things out for sure....

A year to go

2011-07-28T00:24:00.000+01:00

Festivities and congratulations have surrounded the year marker to the Olympics. Boris thinks that we could hold a snap Olympics now.

There is some disquiet in the ranks though. Sir Robin Wales - Mayor of Newham - is particularly concerned by disruption on the roads with the Olympic Road Network. Clearly this is a concern in Newham, where Robin Wales has played no small part in trying to strangle cycling as a mode of transport by blocking initiatives such as Cycle Superhighways in his borough. So, in an utterly car-sick borough, the thought of disrupting the normal traffic congestion is akin to an addict being put through "cold-turkey".

Unless one will be able to cycle through the Olympic park to Stratford, the only way I can see to access Stratford Centre and Westfield from the Greenway side will be on the A11. Which, as I have blogged many times, is hardly cycling friendly. In fact, I was amazed to see a reasonable number of cyclists on the A11 the other day, a testament to our bloody mindedness in the face of local government hostility, if nothing else. However as a reminder, here is yet another video of the conditions on this road.

Note the driver of Golf is speeding and sets off the 30mph sign (which is so overworked it should seek union representation). Note also that the Golf driver barely steers around me at speed, even though the outside lane is free. This might be because he was concentrating on chatting on his mobile at the time.

This type of behaviour is routine on this stretch of road which is deeply unpleasant to walk down, and downright dangerous to cycle along. Robin Wales and his cabal of colleagues have managed to block anything that would make this area of Newham a more pleasant environment, in order that private motorists can speed their way through Stratford, presumably on their way out of the borough. This is the Olympic transport legacy for cycling. A sham of hyperbole PR and utter inaction on the ground. It could have been so different.

Bexley Road Rage Updated

2011-07-26T11:08:00.001+01:00

The driver in Bexley who attacked a cyclist has been sentenced.

John Nicholls pleaded guilty to common assault.

£400 fine + £100 compensation + £85 costs and £15 victim surcharge.

I think £600 cost for not being able to hold ones temper should make him think twice when deciding to bully another cyclist. Plus the criminal record.

It is interesting to note that, despite the image from the more tabloid of our press (ie: the Mail) that cyclists are lawless anarchists, many of the cyclist stories involve cyclists who are professionals. This one involved a lawyer in his late 40's. So despite the gutter press image, actually many cyclists are professional people who are often between 30 and 50. And many have the means and motivation to be recording their journeys. This should give the motorist pause for thought. There are cyclists, who not only have a record of incidents, but the knowledge and will to pursue wrong-doing through legal channels. For example, the excellent blog, The Cycling Lawyer, has posted about a motorist who pushed him into traffic, and the actions he has taken through the courts and police . And quite rightly so, this type of deeply unpleasant behaviour needs to be confronted. Normally, as a cyclist we cannot do this at the time against someone driving a car, but we should be able to pursue through a sympathetic police service.

Unfortunately as the Cycling Lawyer case, and the Bexley assault, shows, the police either don't take cyclist assaults seriously, or are so incompetent that anyone caught is sheer luck. I simply don't believe it is the latter - I think generally that cyclist assaults are treated by police and the courts as a bit of "argee bargee" and that many believe the provocation argument - even if the provocation is simply the cyclist being on the road. This is utterly unacceptable - the police and courts need to be more robust in their actions. They should also take note that many cyclists are au-fait with their rights and the law and record incidents for evidence. Not least because they can end up looking like Inspector Clouseau on a really bad day when the video and police follow-up is published.

The Bexley case does also throw up some interesting things. Firstly, the driver's license has escaped any sanction. And yet surely punching someone else over an incident whilst driving should surely be viewed as a driving related offence? Also, the police were initially stumped by the fact that the owner of the car claimed it had been stolen (and then returned in pristine condition hours later). This either means Nicholls stole the car, or the owner was lying. Either way, it should result in some action - surely people shouldn't simply be allowed to lie to the police to get away with a crime? Lastly, Nicholls was apparently, full of remorse, presumably for getting caught and being shown up to be a little thug to the hundreds of thousands who watched the video and read the reports.

The above Bexley incident has had satisfactory resolution in my opinion (even if some questions aren't answered concerning the ownership of the car). But I cannot help but wonder what would have happened without video evidence, even with the large numbers of witnesses. It is a sobering thought to think that we appear to have little protection from the law in these cases unless we happen to organise a myriad of witnesses and video evidence and then run a press campaign that gets the story into local and national press.

The Future of Cycle Infrastructure

2011-07-23T23:35:00.000+01:00

For too long, the cynics have been deriding local and national government's attempts at encouraging cycling. Some have uncharitably commented upon the dichotomy between their media campaigns and the efforts on the ground.

There have been those bloggers - whose virtual cup is always half full - that have pointed out the deficiencies of the Olympic cycle infrastructure and that it might not be in accordance with the "greenest ever games". They may have been somewhat scathing about the fact that Newham council blocked a cycle superhighway to the games as blue offends their delicate sensibilities.

Well shame on them and their cynical outlook.

I think that the "greenest games ever" have a trick up their sleeve. And I have managed to get a photo of it, below.

I have it on good authority* from a source close to the games** that these yellow structures are actually Star Trek style transporters which can beam cyclists directly from their homes to the games thus avoiding the deeply cycling unfriendly roads in Newham and surrounding boroughs.

Clearly this is a major step forward in transportation. Information from an anonymous source*** says that there are one or two teething issues - principally that matter transportation hasn't been invented yet. But neither TfL or local government have ever let lack of functionality stop cycle facilities, and this shouldn't be any different - the fact they don't work won't get in the way of a PR exercise.

However, all this high technology shouldn't be allowed to put off older cyclists. The more traditional amongst us can be comforted with some age-old infrastructure just metres down the road on the greenway.

* OK, the good authority is that I made it up
** The source is me - I am quite close to the games, only a few miles down the road.
*** A good journalist never reveals his source. But it was me again.

(I can assure the public that no phone hacking was used to get this news scoop)

Long Arm of The Law

2011-07-18T17:23:00.000+01:00

Clearly, at the moment, the MET police have lots of things to worry about. So the case where a cyclist was assaulted by a driver probably doesn't feature highly in the top brass' list of problems to solve.

The case has been widely reported thanks in no small part to the publication of the video on YouTube being picked up by numerous blogs and local media. For those who haven't yet seen the incident that happened in Bexley between a car driver and a cyclist, here is the video below

This incident was recorded by a camera and the bus CCTV, in front of multiple witnesses including the bus driver, passers-by and the other cyclists. The number-plate was clearly visible in the video and recorded by other witnesses.

Somewhat open and shut case one may think. Except that when the police went to the registered owner of the vehicle, they explained that the car had been stolen that afternoon - with the keys in the ignition - by persons unknown, only to be returned some hours later completely untouched. As excuses go this rates slightly lower than "they made me do it" or "the dog ate it" - in fact one would expect the police to view such a story with the same incredulity as "it must have been aliens".

Except that the police seemed to shrug their shoulders and conclude they had been beaten by a criminal mastermind. This was hardly the deductive powers of Sherlock Holmes. Or even Inspector Clouseau. Eventually when the video "went viral" and the mainstream media picked up the story, the man in the video turned himself him. Presumably at this time, with multiple witnesses, video, and a man who had voluntarily come to the police, they could finally arrest and charge someone.

I cannot help but think that, without the video, this assault - even with multiple witnesses - would never have been resolved at all. Which is somewhat saddening. If thugs like this think they can get away with hitting someone in broad daylight then they will do so.

This story has a good end to a bad situation. It will be interesting to see what the driver is charged with and the result. If the owner's story is to be believed then the driver should be charged with "taking without owners consent" and driving without insurance etc. on top of any assault charges.

The Blackfriars Conspiracy Files

2011-07-18T12:38:00.002+01:00

Boris has decided. 20mph on Blackfriars bridge must be raised to 30 mph.

Between the rambling about the commission of the report, and how cycling is super, Boris was quite convinced that 20mph was a bad idea. Of course he means a bad idea for people deciding to drive through central London, as opposed to a bad idea for everyone else who decides that this is a ludicrous method of transport in the centre of a large metropolis and opts for something else.

The arguments for 30mph appear as incoherent as anything I have heard from TfL and Boris. And, believe me, it is up against some pretty stiff competition. The reasoning appears to run thus: the average speed is 12mph, so 30 mph limit won't be a problem and that somehow restricting traffic to 20mph, when the average speed is 12 mph is going to cause congestion and upset the holy grail of smoothing traffic flow. All arguments about how 20mph may actually aid traffic flow since it reduces bunching and accidents is met by bluster equivalent in argumentative validity to a small child holding their fingers in their ears and shouting "LALALA".

Then Boris mentioned that he understood the issues of Blackfriars bridge as he cycled it often. So, if the Mayor of London - who TfL reports into - cycles the bridge, finds it dangerous and yet still won't do anything about it, what hope anyone else? This set me thinking - it would almost appear that TfL are advising the Mayor to make his life more dangerous. Once the connection was made it was obvious! Someone at TfL doesn't like Boris and is trying to get rid of him! What better way than a road "accident"? Where better than on the UK roads, where no-one needs to take any responsibility for their actions in a car?

Someone needs to tell Boris he is a marked man, and, in true James Bond style, the villains have come up with a complicated and dastardly plan to rid themselves of him. The continued marginalisation of cycling and walking in London isn't due to incompetence and stupidity of a car obsessed transport organisation, it is the product of evil genius!

And if one needs any further proof, then look no further than this...

Taking the law into their own hands

2011-07-05T15:55:00.000+01:00

Everyone knows that cyclists are law dodging renegades. They have scant appreciation of the rules of the road, for example, having little respect for red lights. And to make matters worse they cannot even keep up with traffic, and then have the temerity to complain when motorists don't stick to every letter of every little rule. Such as speed limits. Terrible.

Therefore, I am pleased that certain powered vehiclelists* have decided to try to make the anarchists that are the cycling community obey the rules. Such as the picture below.

Take this scene from the ASL at Stamford Hill. Thankfully the car and motorcyclists have completely blocked the ASL, otherwise some renegade cyclists might decide it is best to jump the lights to avoid the tsunami of speeding cars when the lights go green. Also notice that there is already a cyclist that has managed to evade the road-block and is waiting at the lights. This type of law abiding by cyclists is specifically to lull us all into a false sense of security. Don't fall for it!

Of course, to make the cyclists obey the rules, these motorists have had to put their clean licenses at risk by ignoring the rules about not entering an ASL, but this is the price they are willing to pay for making those cyclists fall into line. And the ASL is only for cyclists anyway so no-one really cares.

* I am not sure if vehiclelists is a word. In fact I am sure it isn't, but Shakespeare made up words and if a master like him can, I can as well.

The future of transport?

2011-07-03T18:36:00.000+01:00

From this video of the Nissan Leaf, clearly Nissan believe it is cars. Albeit snazzy electric cars as opposed to the standard ones. Now, I am not so naive as to believe a car maker is going to say that their business has no future, but the thing that interests me with the wave of excitement concerning electric cars are the ways they are being marketed and the questions that aren't being asked.

So in this video we have the car - which looks very nice - being praised by members of the public interspersed with short clips of it popping around some rather quiet city streets.

Electric cars are being marketed principally as city transport. Cynically, one might think this is because even the 100 mile range isn't going to endear it as a long-range tourer, so an electric car at the moment is only suited to short (urban) journeys.

But the elephant in the room that questions the very purpose of these cars isn't mentioned. Not even a whisper of the potential issue.

And that is congestion.

Now, I own a car. I find driving on occasion very convenient. I have no great mission against the car in principle, although I find the complete dominance of this mode of transport in cities utterly idiotic. And one of the reasons it is so stupid is the matter of congestion.

Take for example a recent trip I did by car. From East London to Reading and back again. A trip of 50 miles around the North Circular and M4, and around 70 miles using the A10, M25, M4.

This took me 2 hours going to Reading on the North Circular - at around 6am - and 3 hours coming back on the M25. At 1.25pm. This wasn't even rush hour.

That means that on my return journey, on expensive roads designed specifically for motor traffic, I averaged around 23 mph. And this included a large stretch of 70mph on the M4 which was free-flowing.

Matters are much, much worse in cities. The fact that the car is neither an efficient nor sympathetic bedfellow with densely built areas can no longer be in dispute. Unless we decide to flatten huge swathes of our cities (a strategy that I wouldn't put past planners even now), then capacity isn't going to change in any meaningful way. Boris might fiddle with light timings under clever acronyms such as SCOOT, but, even by the planners' own admissions, this isn't going to make any appreciable difference to journey times for drivers.

So, with the status quo, the future looks like we will have streets clogged by cars with electric engines instead of combustion engines. Aside from the advantage of them not polluting the immediate environs and being quieter, it hardly seems a great leap forward.

There can be no doubt that the car has given huge mobility, and in certain areas has driven growth. But there can also be no doubt that this is no longer scalable. The extra mobility with each new road scheme is outweighed by the cost, not only of the scheme but also of the congestion due to over-reliance on the car. Yet we are in catch-22. Without a significant re-think on our urban roads we are doomed to view the car as the only serious transport option and thus make the very roads that should be welcoming to more sustainable modes of transport ever more hostile.

Cars like the Nissan Leaf look fabuluous. But, if they aren't actually solving the wrong problem, then they are at least only solving part of the problem. Our cities cannot magically find more space for a private car simply because it is more "eco" than the combustion versions. Not only that, but the electric cars currently have a limited range which means that they can only be seriously considered as an option for short journeys - normally in cities - where better alternatives already exist.

If I had driven from East London to Reading last Friday in a Nissan Leaf instead of my standard car, I still would have wasted hours of my time in stressful traffic, and actually probably run out of juice 20 miles before getting home, if I couldn't charge inbetween journeys.

It hardly seems a breakthrough.

Traffic smoothing in progress

2011-06-30T23:59:00.004+01:00

Traffic flow is a costly business.

£3.4bn is being spent on widening the M25 on a 22 mile stretch. £657M was spent on 5 miles to link the M8 and M74 in Glasglow. We are talking over £100M a mile for these types of schemes.

Even putting some car parking on the pavement and mucking around with some tarmac costs around £0.5M

In 1994 the M11 link road was built through Leytonstone effectively cutting a swathe through Waltham Forest between Leyton and Leytonstone. It was 4 miles and cost £250M

It was the subject of a large protest, and heated debates. A government spokesman at the time said

'This road will relieve a hugely congested part of London. The Leyton High Road is choc-a-bloc every day and this will take that traffic away from it and make the area breathable.'

And so the scheme went ahead.

And various promises were made about the improvement in environment in Leytonstone and Leyton areas. Freewheeler wrote a comprehensive article concerning how the proposals for reducing car dominance on these local roads were watered down over time until they were so insipid that they meant nothing.

But what is the M11 link road like now? Has it relieved congestion for those deciding to travel by car through East London?

M11 link road at Leytonstone

Oh. This typical picture taken at around 6:30pm doesn't seem to indicate that a "hugely congested area of London" has been "relieved".

But wait.

The government spokesman also said that

"The Leyton High Road is choc-a-bloc every day and this will take that traffic away from it and make the area breathable."

Well thank goodness for that. At least Leyton High Road has had the traffic taken away from it and the air is as sweet as summer meadows. Because surely such an expensive and controversial scheme would be an utter embarrassment if even this fundamental aim wasn't realised.

Leyton High Road at the same time

Oh dear.

But surely there must be something special about the M11 link road that means it hasn't relieved any congestion, but instead caused more? After all, if building more roads in general led to more traffic and ended up making congestion worse then spending billions on road expansion schemes even now would be ridiculous?

Albert Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Well he may have been a smart-arse when it came to relativity but he got this wrong. In the UK it isn't the definition of insanity; it is the definition of transport policy.

Another Captain Angry

2011-06-29T23:23:00.000+01:00

Again, today, I had the fortune of meeting one of our good motorists in London who appear to have been taking the angry pills.

Minding my own business, cycling along broad lane (a 3/4 lane arm of the wonderful Tottenham Hale gyratory) and I obviously upset an important motorist.

He came up behind the cycle, hanging off the rear wheel and beeping his horn. The traffic was light and he could have simply moved to the next lane to overtake. He clearly decided that he had to harass a cyclist instead.

Eventually he passed whilst shouting at me.

My camera was working at the time, so I have the incident recorded, and have reported it to Roadsafe. I doubt this will be effective at all, presumably the worst that will happen is he gets a letter.

Why people do this is a mystery. I had no altercation with him beforehand, he had a clear 3 other lanes to use, the traffic was light and I was in no way holding him up. I assume it is the misplaced entitlement that some motorists have. I say misplaced, but when the whole road system, and nightmares like the A10 at Tottenham Hale in particular, are designed to cater to the motorist with little or no sanction for speeding and anti-social behaviour, some idiots are always going to take advantage.

If TfL and local councils like cycle-hating Newham insist on multi-lane urban motorways in our city then I think the least that should be provided are average speed cameras to at least try to keep traffic within the limits, and a robust attitude to the type of deeply anti-social behaviour exhibited by this driver. Later on I went down the A11 and the speeds attained by motorists on this road must near 50mph in some cases. Enforcement is an utter joke.

Olympics - start as you mean to continue?

2011-06-25T13:56:00.000+01:00

The "greenest ever" Olympics is starting to shape up. Here we have the Greenway diversion near Stratford. For reasons only known to the authoritis doing the work, this part of the road has had concrete barriers scattered liberally around it to form a very narrow pedestrian pathway. The obligatory "cyclist dismount" signs are, of course added to the mix. In fact twice, one in blue and one in red in this picture. The pathway is so narrow that actually wheeling the cycle may be more inconvenient to pedestrians than slowly navigating the little path on the bicycle.

I can see no reason why this impromptu maze has been constructed. I can also see no reason why a cycle path couldn't have been added alongside the pedestrian path.

I assume that this is all conditioning us for cycling to the Olympics. For added realism, I would suggest that they should construct a ZIL lane for the dignitaries next to the "cyclist dismount" sign and have someone issuing huge fines for anyone daring to use a bicycle in the presence of important people.

New TfL documents - they want the same but more of it.

2011-06-25T11:54:00.001+01:00

TfL recently published two documents.

The first is the Network Operating Strategy (NOS) for the roads controlled by TfL.

The second has been blogged by cyclists in the city and is "the future of road congestion".

The NOS is up for consultation here.I would issue a warning - those who are easily depressed should probably refrain from clicking the link. In fact the second document "The Future of Road Congestion" could be easily answered simply by the words "It will get much worse" and a link to the NOS.

So, first things first. The NOS. This covers TRLN which is basically the main arterial roads through London. I believe the A10 is one of these such roads. The types of roads that cyclists often use because the LCN+ network (or quiet routes) are simply a recipe for contending with rat-running traffic on narrow roads, fragmented routes punctuated by impromptu no-entry signs, and the added bonus of probably getting completely lost with the misleading and missing signage. These are also often the types of roads that serve as high streets and heavy pedestrian areas. Therefore these roads have several conflicting usages that require difficult decisions. The NOS document details how TfL make these decisions - by ignoring any consideration outside getting as much traffic through as humanly possible.

Not only does the document barely mention other forms of transport outside private cars (buses get the odd mention), but they have a couple of case studies on not installing pesky pedestrian crossings which might slow important people in cars.

What the NOS is really interested in is new technology. The authors have watched one too many episodes of the Gadget Show. The latter part of the report is littered with acronyms of fancy light and traffic management IT. There are case studies which detail SCOOT implementations that save a driver, for example, 3 minutes on a journey - neglecting to mention what this infrastructure costs. Quite a lot I should wager - and the gains seen so puny, to the point that the document itself recognises that even drivers won't really notice and improvement.

Cycling, as one might imagine, is pretty invisible in the document - aside from the usual ecofluff nonsense about how everyone at TfL thinks it is really important. Worse, the general environment around these roads is barely considered. We have had decades of these important roads - many of which are effectively local town centres - turned into traffic canyons, and TfL clearly think we haven't had enough of this treatment. The fact that the decades of this view has left us with congested and deeply unpleasant roads (even for motorists) doesn't seem to deter. There is absolutely no mention of measures that may make some of these roads more pleasant for everyone - for instance at no point are 20mph limits discussed. Yet, not only would this make some of these roads more accessible for pedestrians and cyclists, it would actually help traffic flow by reducing the likelihood of serious accidents and help traffic merge more easily whilst reducing bunching. Judging by the seriously pathetic speeds measured in fig3.3, I doubt it would make motorist journey times longer either.

The second document details the future issues of road congestion. This document is slightly less depressing, but only if you are actually optimistic enough to think that a TfL document talking about sustainable transport options will actually change anything. And that is a lot of optimism - the type of optimism one might encounter after simultaneously taking a bottle full of prozac and winning the lottery.

But - cynicism aside - what does this document tell us? That congestion is bad and it is going to get worse. Sherlock Holmes clearly is being employed by TfL these days.

Some bon-mots from the report include the fact that 42% of London journeys are in private car but there has been some success in promoting cycling and sustainable transport (clearly TfL think they are responsible for this as opposed to horrible congestion, strikes, and the actions of the lunatics on 7/7). They appear to want TfL to measure all transport (cycling and pedestrian) to use in their plans - which is a novel approach for an organisation that appears to only include private transport - and buses at a push - when looking at road planning.

Then page 32 has the section on reducing the demand on the roads. This includes cross-rail, thameslink upgrate, tube upgrade and cycle superhighway / hire scheme expansion. It is interesting to note that, although the superhighway and hire schemes cost millions, the other alternatives talked about cost billions. Clearly we need all of these schemes, but it highlights how cost-effective cycling actually is.

The conclusions include the normal stuff, alongside re-enforcement of the hierarchy of provision (or the enactment in the first place - evidence of this hierarchy is somewhat difficult to come by on the roads), and road pricing.

There is also an interesting "dissent" appendix where the conservative members of the group clearly felt that even this fairly insipid document was going too far. The two areas of concern for them were

Hierarchy of provision - stating that they felt everyone should be equal on the road, and motorists should not be penalised. This neatly sidesteps the fact that motorists have been prioritised in road planning for decades and still are. Hierarchy of provision is trying (and mostly failing) to get some equilibrium back to the equation.

Road pricing - here the conservatives get really odd. When a resource is limited then using a free market to price the value of said resource for its users is surely the cornerstone of capitalism? It is how we value virtually all goods and services we trade. Yet the conservatives, on road pricing, appear to be incredibly concerned that this isn't right and will disadvantage the poor. They appear to have suddenly gone all socialist on us! I think we need to keep a close eye on these anti-capitalist revolutionaries. The argument they give is, of course, laughable. They are concerned that road pricing would disadvantage the poor, but the poor generally don't have cars in London, and anyway how about all those fixed costs like insurance and VED? Surely, with this thought process, these need to be scrapped as well as they are by far the biggest barriers to car ownership. And then the second canard they trot out is that there may be no alternative. Seriously? In London? Road pricing is a sensible way to value the use of our roads and reduce congestion - if congestion carries on as it is at the moment, then we have to have some way of prioritising certain road usage over others and this has to be the most efficient way.

Looking at both documents in the round, it would appear that the TfL strategy du jour involves traffic smoothing and playing around with clever IT systems and models to shave off a second here and a minute there from journeys, thus allowing more people onto the roads for the status quo to be resumed. SCOOT and all the other fancy acronyms aren't going to be a long-term solution, looking at road usage and our environment in the round will be.

Meanwhile decades of road policy which marginalises anyone not in a car has managed to create an environment as shown in the video below. Which is Selborne Road and Hoe Street the other Saturday. This is not unusual for a Saturday. And is why, despite the best efforts of TfL, I prefer to cycle.

Blackfriars Bridge, the two faces of TfL and Newham's aversion to blue paint

2011-06-02T00:24:00.005+01:00

I haven't spoken much about Blackfriar's bridge, simply because other people have been covering it much better than I could, and have been heavily involved with the protests against the proposed changes.

It is interesting to note how much TfL took for granted when the plans were first released. And, as CycleOfFutility notes, how much this contradicts the eco-fluff words that spill out from their website and other publications. Freewheeler believes that TfL is the enemy.

No doubt there are keen and knowledgable people in TfL who want to enact upon the heady words given by TfL concerning walking, cycling and "sustainable transport policy". It just appears that these people's ideas are sidelined as soon as any major road changes are to be made in favour of the car-centric policies enacted since the 1960s. TfL cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot be making chic little films involving minor celebrities extolling the magic of cycling, or have a cycle challenge, when, on the other hand, they are taking away cycling space to turn a bridge that has more cyclists than private cars in rush hour into some kind of mini-freeway. And increasing the 20mph limit to 30mph for reasons that seen somewhat less than transparent.

TfL also seemed to do this and present it as a fait accompli with laughable consultation. I assume they felt that the usual suspects would have a bit of a moan about yet another part of the road network made deeply unpleasant for anyone not in a car, and that would be that. Except that this moan seems to have developed some momentum. With members of the GLA asking some awkward questions, cyclists having a protest on the bridge and the LCC really getting their teeth into this change, they appear to have discovered that there might be some room left over for cyclists after all.

I wait to see what happens with this in the end. TfL are probably desperately hoping it will all blow over, they will rejig the design a little bit and normality will be resumed. To the credit of many who have blogged on the subject, and LCC itself, I don't think that they are looking to let TfL off as lightly as that.

I have signed the petition on the LCC website.

From one apparently unaccountable anti-cycling shambles of an organisation to another: it appears that the antics of Newham council in relation to cycling infrastructure has reached the attention of the press. Under the banner of "Boris's superhighway not welcome in Olympic Borough", Ross Lydall has a blog outlining the blocking of a cycle super-highway to the olympics. This was first reported in the LCC magazine in Febuary - I wrote a post here.

The council's response to the story?

Our primary concern is cyclists' safety. Newham council is committed to a cycling legacy from 2012 and we are in constructive negotiations with TfL about the route. Kulveer Ranger will be visiting the borough later this summer so we can work together on the best way forward."

I give them 10/10 for Chutzpah anyway. Their concerns for cyclists' safety runs so deep that they are blocking any attempted taming of the multi-lane free-for-all that is the A11 and the Stratford gyratory. I can only assume this is to encourage us silly cyclists into our cars where we can travel with the comfort of airbags and impact protection bars. It is reassuring to know that they are committed to a cycling legacy after 2012 - presumably for those of us who survive their appalling roads until after the Olympic games. And does it really make much sense to put in the infrastructure for cycling to the Olympic games (remember, the greenest games yet!) after the event? Not that it matters too much since apparently cycles will be banned from the Olympic park anyway for "safety reasons". Should make the velodrome events somewhat interesting if they carry out this ban for all cycles...

TfL are being made to care about cycling because they are starting to face some awkward questions from people about what exactly they are doing to our streets. Newham council don't care about cycling, and they don't care about anyone knowing they don't care. They don't even care if people care they don't care as they have full control of the council offices and a bunch of silly cyclists aren't going to change that. Hell, they even banned the "woodcraft folk" from their offices - it would appear they were going to ask some questions that the Mayor didn't want to answer. Democracy in action.

As cycleoffutility says, Blackfriars bridge matters. It even matters to those of us who use it very rarely or even never at all. Because if this protest gets TfL to rethink their plans then it shows that they can be held to account for their treatment of cycling (and walking). And if it fails, then there is no hope of ever holding places like Newham council to account for their idiotic actions.

Child Seats

2011-05-28T23:54:00.000+01:00

After much deliberation, I took the plunge and put a child seat on the cycle.

I have been out three times with the little one since getting it a week or so ago.

She started off being pretty nervous about the whole idea (she wasn't the only one), but judging from the squeals of delight and shouts of "Daddy, faster" when I picked up speed, I suspect she got over her intial jitters fairly quickly.

The cycle acts in a very different way to normal. Which is only to be expected with a 15kg child hanging off the back, I guess. And although moving the seat slightly forward to try to put the weight over the back hub made a huge difference, manouverability takes a hit as does the ability to maintain speed on hills.

One thing that hugely dissapointed me was that cars don't give any extra space or make much of an extra effort. Of course one would ideally like drivers not to be blase about my welfare, but when a small child is on the back, I had hoped for better. Some are great, but the vast majority carry on as if I was invisible, as per normal. With the reduced manouverability and speed, I got pretty angry with a couple of drivers - one who drove straight at me after waiting for a car to pass in front of me.

Some motorists' reactions do seem rather odd. I have had looks from them when transporting the child around. One motorist gave me a strange look as if to say "why on earth would you expose your child to this type of danger when there are morons like me driving?". Whilst they gave this look they were passing me on a pedestrian crossing as I was trying to move out to pass a parked car on the zig-zags. So they might have a point...

Ultimately what makes me a little sad is that transporting my child makes me realise there are many roads in the borough - and beyond - which I wouldn't entertain using with her on the back. And this restricts my freedom of movement. Maybe my attitude will change as I get used to the cycle when carrying my daughter, but even so, I begin to understand how my wife (and presumably many other new cyclists) must feel about the conditions on much of our road network. When I go to Copenhagen, or other Nordic countries for work, I am very envious of their attitude to this type of utility cycling - it simply is sensible to them. If cycling in London with a child ever becomes as routine as it is in Holland or Denmark then that is when we will know cycling has entered the mainstream.

Halfords - again

2011-05-28T23:35:00.000+01:00

In a previous post, I spoke about Halfords - specifically about the lack of service in the Tottenham Hale branch, and the general politeness in the Chingford branch. And that the Chingford branch didn't appear to have any cycle parking - which was somewhat dissapointing.

Well, I decided to take the plunge and put on a cycle seat for the child. After much fiddling around with a "loan seat" from a friend to see if my cycle could accomodate a seat, I decided to simply go to a shop and buy one, and knew Halfords stocked them.

I went to Halfords in Tottenham Hale first, and hung around for a while waiting to be served. This didn't seem to be very forthcoming and after my last efforts to buy something in this store, I decided to cut my losses. I went instead to the Chingford branch.

Wow - what a difference!

I was served promptly by a chap who knew what he was doing and was incredibly polite and patient. He tried the demo child seat on my cycle to make sure it fitted before selling it to me. He then spent a considerable amount of time fitting it correctly and making sure I was happy with it. When I suggested about adding a kick-stand, he fitted this for free. All the while his other staff were serving other people, also incredibly politely.

So there we are. Chingford Halfords just off Hall Lane and the North Circular. Excellent.

Now if they could just add a few cycle stands and move the bike section (the busiest section of the shop when I visited) to the ground floor!

Definition of a femtosecond

2011-05-28T11:40:00.000+01:00

I have just looked up femtosecond on wikipedia.

Imagine my surprise when the article whittered on about atomic vibrations and light wavelengths instead of giving the true definition.

Which is the time taken between the lights turning to amber and this motorist beeping me.

It was a young chap driving - I got a stare as he passed and gunned it up Leyton High Road. The strange noise on the audio is me laughing - there was something a bit comical about his entire attitude.

I don't know why he was in such a rush. Maybe his Mum wanted her Polo back - maybe his tea was on the table. It is interesting to note that he feels completely at liberty to "intimidate" a more vulnerable road user. If I was driving behind him (and I drive a pretty big car) would it be acceptable to harass him in his little car?

I had no interaction with this driver before he pulled up behind me at the lights - so the beeping and revving past me was just for show presumably. In a little VW Polo this is slightly less effective than he might hope.

Traffic Madness

2011-05-28T11:24:00.000+01:00

This is what greeted the drivers from Clapton Pond down to Homerton / Eastway yesterday.

There had been an accident on Homerton road, but this road is often tailed back with very heavy traffic.

It is all a bit insane. The road authorities are still trying to squeeze as much traffic into our ancient roads as possible thus making alternatives much less palatable, whilst failing dismally to even make the motorists' journeys less time-consuming despite the fact that priority is given to them on nearly all our road network.

Who really would want to be stuck in this traffic in a bus? I saw some fellow cyclists, but many wouldn't be comfortable cycling in these heavily congested streets. It is hardly relaxing.

The video is quite long (a bit less than 10 minutes), but this was the extent of the queues last night.

Lawless roads

2011-05-23T23:37:00.001+01:00

Once again, Newham shows how little regard one can have for the law when one drives. The cyclist debate always degenerates into how many cyclists jump red lights and ride on the pavement (as if that excuses putting other cyclists' live in danger). Little is made of the disregard some drivers have for their rules. Even the transport minister appears to be under the strange impression that there is some kind of war being waged upon motorists.

The first video shows the 24 hr bus lane near Stratford one way system. The BMW driver clearly decides that he is above such regulations as keeping out of bus lanes and uses it to undertake the cars at speed. What the poor quality (sorry!) video doesn't show so well is him close passing a cyclist in the bus lane at this speed. The bus lane had been open to all vehicles whilst the outside lane was being "regenerated" but now the "improvements" appear to have been completed the lanes have reverted back to normal use.

Spot the door opening passenger at the end of the film...

The next video is taken whilst cycling on the A11 towards Stratford. Sparse traffic allowed this genius on a motorbike to really gun it down the road. I estimate he was traveling at least 50mph in the 30mph limit.

This is what happens when one has a completely car-centric road layout that doesn't enforce any rules. If one has to keep the A11 as an urban motorway at least enforce the 30mph limit with ANPR and average speed cameras. The A11 is a classic example of the blight that these types of multi-lane urban free-for-alls have on the environment. They cause a rift between shopping areas and local transport links, and between everything on one side of the road and the other.

BT emergency response vehicle

2011-05-23T12:06:00.000+01:00

BT do appear to be the new emergency service. Only a month or so ago did I experience a close pass by one of their vans, clearly on the way to an emergency. Since only an idiot would speed past a cyclist with inches to spare if it wasn't really important.

This time, on Saturday, I got confirmation of the importance of the BT van.

This time, they were clearly attending to such an important matter that they had to park blocking much of the pavement next to a busy junction by the market. Clearly whatever they were doing was so important that they couldn't go around the corner and park in the large multi-storey only yards away, or the numerous other car parks around the area.

I saw no evidence of work going on near the van, but clearly that is my lack of understanding. And my thoughts that the driver of the van may have just put it there whilst doing his or her shopping was just my cynical mind.

On looking into the cab, I noticed that there were already several penalty notices on the dashboard. Presumably some traffic wardens don't realise the urgent work these vans are engaged upon.

It's not just cyclists part deux

2011-05-23T10:52:00.001+01:00

In a previous post, I mentioned the fairly unpleasant crossing facilities between the high street and Willow walk.

Freewheeler commented that he had raised the issue of cars blocking the pedestrian crossing whilst waiting for the lights at Selborne road with a road planner. Who had denied that this ever happened.

One needs to accept one's mistakes. Clearly the photograph below, taken on Saturday is some kind of mirage.

I waited for a little while at the crossing, and a pattern emerged. The lights would turn red at Selborne Road and the traffic would back up across the junction. Pedestrians would walk between the stationary cars, occasionally being beeped or shouted at by traffic going the other way which could move. The more timid pedestrians, or those with prams / in wheelchairs etc. would wait until the lights turned red, but then either had to go in between the cars or wait until the lights at Selborne turned green and all the cars cleared. If they did the latter they would have a fraction of the time allocated to cross.

Shortly after the picture was taken, the cars started to move and the blue Peugeot hurried the crossing pedestrian along by starting forward as she crossed the front of the car. Many pedestrians got beeped, including, disappointingly by a number of buses that used the horn as an early warning system to indicate they weren't going to slow down, less still stop, for anyone silly enough to be trying to cross whilst the bus driver had the green light.

If Waltham Forest cannot understand that this junction is a problem and that it is really deeply unpleasant for people to use, then I want what they are taking.

It's not just cyclists

2011-05-14T12:52:00.000+01:00

Today at Walthamstow Market where a road crosses the hugely busy pedestrianised High Street. The lights at the end of the road cause traffic to tail back across the pedestrian crossing. Pedestrians then cross between the cars who frequently start moving again.

It seems a yellow hatched box might help pedestrians and give motorists clear indication that stopping across the pedestrian crossing isn't acceptable.

There was a policeman around the junction today who stopped a lorry next to the junction at Selborne Road. Why, I don't know. But when the lorry moved away, the driver bullied his way through the pedestrians crossing (they were crossing on the red because the traffic was stationary the other way and he was blocking traffic on his side). He then overtook a couple of cyclists incredibly close, and immediately turned left before disappearing down some back-streets. It was a 3663 lorry, and only the awareness of the pedestrians and cyclists actually prevented a serious accident.

How to slow cars

2011-05-07T20:31:00.000+01:00

I live on a one-way residential street which is 20mph and has been "traffic-calmed" by the addition of road-humps.

Suffice to say that the number of drivers sticking to 20mph or less is dissappointing. The road isn't very long, and is quite narrow, but still some clever clogs manage to really put their foot down.

Except today, I saw a driver gingerly approaching each speed hump at walking pace and carefully negotiating the road. Why? Because they were driving a Ferrari that was so low to the ground anything over 10mph would have taken the front of the car off as it went over the road humps. There was something very satisfying by the normal trail of traffic being slowed by one of the fastest cars in the world.

So there we have it. If we want all drivers to negotiate our traffic calmed roads slowly and carefully we should give them all Ferraris....

Of primary and other optimistic cycling techniques

2011-05-06T21:54:00.000+01:00

My wife is starting to cycle - my enthusiasm has clearly had an effect...

It is amazing to go out with someone completely new to cycling on roads and understand what they think.

Firstly, my wife is currently petrified of interacting with cars on a bicycle. She prefers to wait behind parked cars rather than go around unless the coast is completely clear behind her. This can be somewhat time-consuming. It also renders my talk about secondary and primary and asserting oneself as being completely pointless. She doesn't want to assert herself in traffic, she wants to disassociate herself from it.

Secondly, it has highlighted to me how complicated we have made cycling. A phrase I heard from an online talk by Jim Davis (cycling embassy of Great Britain) kept recurring when I was trying to explain how to negotiate traffic - "in the UK we have bent over backwards to make the most difficult mode of transport easy and the easiest mode most difficult". I thought it wise that she attend a cycling "bikeability" course. She was irritated by my suggestion that she needed formal training to cycle. I suspect her reaction isn't unique, and may lead to many just giving up. I dared not introduce her to "Cyclecraft" and the talk about cadences for fear of the withering response.

Thirdly, it was marvelous to see her actually enjoying cycling. She doesn't drive. Therefore her transport is public or walk. Even in an area well connected by public transport she really liked the extra mobility a cycle can give. Despite her real and deep concerns about cycling on the roads, she has persisted.

Fourthly, she made me realise how different a "non-cyclist's" requirements are to a "cyclist". I hear the disparaging term "POB" (pedestrian on bike) used by "proper" cyclists (as if the cycling community can actually afford to be divisive!) My wife is a POB. Whilst we in the "cycling community" blog, poring over helmet statistics, use cameras, talk of primary and secondary, and debate fiercely over road design she just wants to pop to the shops, or see her friends or have a cycle down the canal path to the pub. She thought the underpass on the Chingford Road under the A406 was super and, if one ignores the broken glass, it actually is kind of neat. I also realised how disruptive car parking in the cycle lanes is - she doesn't travel quickly, and moving into the traffic path was simply something that really concerned her.

I hope she continues. Nearly all the cars that past us showed great consideration - some stopping to let her out, but there is a significant minority that, as we know, treat cyclists very poorly, and my concern is that she will give up if she happens upon one of these characters. She has said that there will be roads she will never use - Tottenham Hale gyratory was pretty high on her list. And this is a shame that the freedom her being able to cycle would give us is curtailed because some key roads have designs which are so hostile that they form barriers to cycling.

I leave you with a "traditional cyclist" (me) negotiating the Stratford one way system (again). And the inevitable ridiculous antics of some drivers who appear oblivious to the cyclist. Whilst roads such as these forms rings around shopping areas and town centres, I am not sure how we think that the "non-cyclist" will entertain the idea of using them. My wife has suggested shopping more in Walthamstow and Leyton town centres which haven't got racetracks built around them, and less in Stratford and Tottenham Hale which are being strangled by speeding traffic. I think it is a very sensible idea.

Smoothing traffic flow

2011-05-01T11:27:00.000+01:00

There are many reasons to cycle, even with the roads sometimes deeply hostile to anything other than the combustion engine. One of the very good reasons to cycle is well illustrated in the video below

This was taken at the same time as the other video (just didn't get around to editing it) and is immediately after the Stratford one way system (the bit where I got close passed by a chap reading a map and another motorist who seemed incapable of moving to the second lane which was free - both got immediately caught in this jam).

As can be seen by the video, the jam stretched for a very reasonable distance; I imagine the motorists were stuck here for a while. And the problem?

The temporary traffic lights which directed traffic through a very short narrowed piece of road where some road-works were being done. The actual issue was that traffic going towards Stratford was also in a queue and were queuing across the road-works, thus restricting the other lane of traffic when their lights went green. Gridlock ensues.

This was a very minor roadwork. It neatly illustrates why I had to give up driving everywhere for sake of my health and sanity. The average car journey is very unpredictable these days - one slight restriction to the road adds on 30 minutes to a 10 minute journey.

TFL and the government's solution to this is to prioritise "smoothing traffic flow" over everything else. Hence we have the situation where a bridge (which are generally difficult for cyclists anyway) is being re-worked to increase traffic lanes and decrease pedestrian and cycling space. And Blackfriars Bridge actually has more bicycles crossing it at rush hour than private cars. If this situation still merits more space given to cars, then it is highly unlikely that those in charge of highways will consider places such Tottenham Hale or Stratford as requiring more cycle friendly planning.

The fundamental problems with the "smoothing traffic flow" are obvious. Traffic reaches its own level - increased capacity increases car usage, the M25 should teach us this. But also, the traffic flow is trying to be re-worked in London which is dominated by streets singularly unsuitable for large volumes of traffic. In the Tottenham Hale gyratory for instance, traffic generally moves quickly around the multi-lane racetrack in the one way system to come to a grinding halt either side on the A10 as they then filter down onto ancient roads through local centres.

From my experience as a cyclist and driver, the average junction design is to have as many traffic lanes as possible entering it - even if the other side is too narrow to accommodate - in an effort to push as much traffic through the junction as possible. This is uncomfortable for a motorist as the lanes disappear and everyone ends up jostling for position. For a cyclist is a down-right horrible as car drivers are too busy concentrating on claiming their road-space to worry about a bicycle in the middle of it all.

The very act of "smoothing traffic flow" makes junctions and roads more hostile to pedestrians and cyclists than they could be. And then more people decide to drive because the roads are more attractive to cars and much less attractive to anything else. And then the road becomes congested so it is redesigned to "smooth traffic flow", again at the cost of other modes of transport. And so on, and so on, presumably until all space between the buildings in London is one huge traffic smoothing exercise.

What should be accepted is that "traffic smoothing" involves all modes of transport - cycling, walking, bus user and motorists, and that to accommodate everyone traffic flow is going to be between 10mph and 20mph on average. This also humanises the road-space - at the moment traffic is allowed (some may say the road design encourages) to "put their foot down" in the multi-lane free-for-alls to only be snared in the inevitable jams either side. Places like Stamford Hill have traffic lights at the bottom and top - normally with considerable queuing traffic, but the road design in between has two lanes with a lane width of hatching between opposing traffic. It is deeply unpleasant to cycle on - which maybe why I see many cyclists jumping onto the pavement at this point - something which helps out the motorist but hinders the other group of people most affected by this car-culture - the pedestrian.

One day people will realise that their urban spaces are too important to use by seeing how much traffic can be squeezed through it. I think this is already happening - 20mph zones are widely accepted (even if they are not widely respected by motorists), "home-zones" in places have been designed to enhance living space. But our town planners and local government, instead of leading, appear to be trying to pull the other way.

Stratford's cycle excellence

2011-04-28T23:29:00.000+01:00

In my previous posts I have been less than complimentary about Newham and its cycling policies. The video below shows one reason why I am so contemptuous of the borough's cycling record.

This cycle lane isn't just useless. It is dangerous. Whatever way I tackle this I have problems. If I try to use the lane I get to the end and have to negotiate my way into fast moving and unsympathetic traffic. When I take primary, which is probably the way I would be advised to tackle it, I usually get close passed by traffic and more than once frantic pointing by the driver towards the little cycle lane.

Clearly whoever implements this crap hasn't the first idea about the challenges of cycling. And it is utterly needless - the pavement has just been restructured to swallow up the cycle lane when the revamp could have actually improved matters for cyclists.

I note there are two types of cyclists around the one way system. The ones, like me, who decide to try to employ vehicular cycling on deeply unpleasant roads only designed for the car - and where speeding is endemic, or the cyclists who decide to ride on the pavement weaving in and out of pedestrians (and presumably annoying them somewhat). I am frankly unsure which makes most sense. Clearly Newham think the option that makes most sense is to ditch the bike and use the car, thus adding to the congestion and pollution in the area.

Words Fail Me

2011-04-27T19:59:00.001+01:00

It is official. The world has gone completely mad. Or at least the ASA has.

Citroen produced an advert for its "green" C4 featuring a large herd of cyclists following a C4 - supposedly able to breathe more easily because of its "stop-start" technology.

All fairly anodyne stuff really. The only complaint I would have is that any car being sold on "green" credentials is possibly stetching things a little bit.

But, after one complaint, the ASA has ruled against the advert saying

“we considered that younger children might not appreciate the fantastical nature of the ad and might consider that the ad represented a real-life scenario. We were therefore concerned that the ad might encourage younger children to emulate a behaviour prejudicial to their health and safety, and therefore concluded that the ad should have been given an 'ex kids' scheduling restriction to ensure that it was not broadcast at times when younger children were likely to be watching.”

The key issue that would corrupt our nations young minds was that the cyclists were not wearing helmets.

Frankly I think anyone watching the advert, no matter how young, would get the fantastical nature of the advert. A young person would actually have to be cycling on a UK road before being able to emulate, and in the years of cycling I have never seen anyone under the age of 10 on the roads around me (and then only a couple of school kids braving the A10). The fantastical nature of the adverts is that there are that many cyclists on the roads without having some idiot trying to barge their way through to make it ten seconds earlier to the lights. The last time I was in such a large group was the London Bikeathon where a black cab driver expressed his opinion of having a few dozen cyclists in front of him by leaning on the horn repeatedly until he turned off the road.

When I look at cycling, I sometimes feel that either someone is playing a massive April Fools joke on me, or the establishment has been replaced in the night by raving lunatics.

Newham's priorities

2011-04-27T11:03:00.003+01:00

I am now the proud owner of a MUVI camera. Well, not particularly proud as the reason I bought it was to somewhat mitigate the lawless and car dominated roads that I sometimes have to cycle upon - especially those in Newham.

I have now managed to upload a section of the footage, which is my cycle-ride along the A11 from the Olympic park to Stratford Centre. It isn't particularly interesting, and the image stabilisation isn't what it could be - so those who are prone to sea-sickness may want to take their pills before watching...

This is the stretch of road that Newham Council (or the ODA, or TfL or the Mayor depending upon who you talk to) have decided doesn't need a cycle-superhighway. Or that the colour would detract from the pleasant ambiance of the road. Or that they are really quite busy re-organising the road at the moment. Or their dog ate the plans.

My video was taken yesterday in quite light traffic as many people aren't working this week. So things are a lot busier at rush hour on a normal week.

Even so, I think that it can be safely said that the road isn't exactly for beginners. Bear in mind that the road has recently been "improved" and this is the end result. It would appear that even extending the bus-lane to be continuous on this stretch wasn't deemed appropriate, yet would have afforded some measure of protection for the cyclists using the road.

It would appear no-one is really taking responsibility for shelving the Cycle Superhighway along this section, but fingers all point in one direction - Newham Council, and Mayor Sir Robin Wales.

Sir Robin Wales was knighted for services to local government (presumably this doesn't include cycling) but seems to court a certain amount of controversy.

To start, the first directly elected mayor has seen his salary increase by 34% since his election in 2002. Including a 4% payrise last year, when the borough is cutting £28M from the budget and staff have a two year pay freeze. This shows an admirable chutzpah if nothing else. Who on earth decides to award the payrise at this time? The local councillors - all of whom are in the same party as the mayor. Apparently half of these councillors have been awarded part-time jobs earning a very reasonable salary. Not that these two facts should be ever connected - it is clearly complete co-incidence.

Putting the question of personal renumeration aside, clearly Newham have better things to spend their money on than some cycle facilities. After all this is one of the poorest boroughs in the nation. So imagine my surprise when I stumble upon a BBC article concerning the council's new offices.

To summarise Newham managed to spend £111M on one office block for themselves. This included items such as five designer lights at £1,853 each. The refurbishment cost £18.7M with another £92M going on buying the office and stamp duty. The BBC article states that the £18.7M is around two thirds the money spent by every other London council combined on headquarter refurbishment over three years.

The article also mentions, almost in passing, that Newham have a council run newspaper costing around half a million pounds a year (the costliest in London) and that the Newham town festival costs more than the Westminster festival which attracts five times as many people. Although tight-lipped over costs, the BBC managed to get information that the show had cost around £160k in 2004, but was then rebranded as the Mayor's Newham Show and spending increased to £362k. The idea to name the show after the mayor was the mayor's. So one cannot accuse him of being completely bereft of good ideas..

In defence of the council, they are saying the move to new premises will save money - they expect to save £140M by 2014. Which is an impressive amount of money. Although the more cynical may say that words like expect when used in relation to future council cost savings are possibly code for might or hope. Indeed, I haven't seen a clear breakdown of how these savings will manifest themselves. I also struggle to understand why designer lights would aid these cost savings.

All of this adds up to my impression of a Mayor who runs Newham with compliant councillors and very little criticism. If the Mayor doesn't like cycling (and I assume he doesn't) then cycling measures are blocked. If earnest youth groups like the Woodcraft Folk want to challenge decisions such as the cycling superhighway then Sir Robin Wales simply refuses them entry to the meeting.

All of this would be laughable in a rich borough, but Newham is one of the most deprived. Whilst services to desperately vulnerable people are cut, the fact that the council thinks a pay-rise for the mayor and fancy chandeliers are acceptable shows a local government very deeply out of touch, and indeed a council that believes they are untouchable. The cost of the pay-rises and lights wouldn't save services, but the signal it gives out shows deeply complacent local government who aren't being held to account.

Easter Festivities

2011-04-23T21:08:00.002+01:00

Happy Easter!

What better way to celebrate Easter than sitting in traffic jams in 27 degree heat.

The above is the scene from Chingford Road. The traffic was jammed both ways from the Bell Junction up to the North Circular roundabout - a not inconsiderable distance.

In the picture one can see a couple of renegades on cycles. The type of people who contribute neither to "road-tax" or the increasing PM10 pollution levels. They really are a menace and should be stopped.

Big Brother Is Watching You....

2011-04-22T23:43:00.000+01:00

.... or at least the tarmac surface anyway.

I got myself a Muvi camera the other day. The incident at Stratford finally made me think that recording incidents would be a good idea, if only to use as evidence if someone does knock you off the cycle.

Unfortunately, I managed to mount the camera in such a way that it gave an incredibly detailed view of the tarmac directly in front of the cycle, but little else. If anyone wants to do a study on the road surfaces in East and North London, look no further, I have over an hour of footage.

I think it incredibly sad that on cycle journeys this kind of recording needs to take place. But as can be seen with the link above, that need is very real.

Smog

2011-04-22T23:27:00.000+01:00

England and Wales are under threat from smog, according to the BBC

According to the dept of Environment :

...the alert was due to warm and still conditions brought on by a high pressure system.

I am very far from being a tree-hugging eco-warrior. But even I am slightly concerned that the dept of the Environment seems to be blaming the weather for pollution instead of the cause of the pollution. Maybe they actually believe that clement weather causes smog.

Later on, they advise people susceptible to pollution not to take exercise, and to try not to make short journeys by car.

London pollution regularly exceeds the guidelines from the EU. London traffic speeds during peak hours is 10mph. 50% of outer London car journeys are less than 2 miles.

Some people may think we would be mad not to encourage walking and cycling in London and discourage driving.

Halfords

2011-04-17T00:07:00.000+01:00

I have found that there is a certain amount of snobbishness concerning Halfords in some cycling circles. Certainly, I have experienced very different customer service in different branches. I haven't been in the Tottenham Hale branch for a while, so things may have changed, but the one time I went there last year I was met was majestic indifference to my questions, and so left and haven't returned.

The Halfords in Chingford, by the A406, by contrast, has always had polite staff who are helpful.

But this store has absolutely no cycle parking. None. Nada. Zip. Isn't this strange for a shop with a large cycling department?

Even stranger is that every BikeHut department I have visited is upstairs. It didn't occur to me until I saw three people heaving their bikes up the stairs (presumably to get them repaired) quite how inconvenient the stores are set-up.

Why would a company set up cycle stores in this manner? Surely not all the people who visit the cycle section drive?

My new purchase

2011-04-16T23:19:00.002+01:00

I ride a 20 year old bicycle. It is a pretty good make, but there comes a time when one has to invest in new equipment. So I took the plunge and bought a cycle for the first time in many years.

Somehow I suspect that my toddler daughter will use this more than me....

The high-viz tassles clearly a boon. Motorists whose attention has to be split between driving, phone calls, texting and emails, should be able to simply catch sight of the tassles through their peripheral vision whilst engaged in more important activities.

I am concerned though.

My daughter learnt to ride a cycle very quickly. Probably because riding a bike is as easy as - well - riding a bike. But she is showing a worrying lack of road awareness skills.

For a start she just doesn't seem to understand about vehicular cycling and primary position. It would appear that using a vulnerable cycle to control the actions of cars and lorries isn't something that comes naturally. She seems confused when I try to push her in front of fast moving traffic in order to take primary. She seems to think that this might be risky. She has so much to learn.

Also, one can see in the picture that there is a second seat for a doll. In the picture Dora the Explorer is at terrible risk because she hasn't dressed in high viz and a helmet before going on a ride. This is tantamount to recklessness and if Dora ever had the misfortune to get in the way of important road users (ie motorised ones) then she would only have herself to blame for the consequences. As some judges have pointed out more than once or twice.

When my daughter rides the cycle, it appears she actually enjoys doing so. Sometimes she even breaks out into a little song or has a chuckle to herself. This is simply unacceptable. How do I instil in her that cycling is a serious business requiring specialist clothing and protective equipment and should be conducted grim-faced whilst negotiating angry motorists on inhospitable roads?

Frankly, I wonder whether my daughter is cut out for cycling....

New cycle infrastructure for olympics

2011-04-15T00:11:00.001+01:00

I may have been harsh when talking about the disjointed - indeed non-existent - cycle infrastructure which will apparently whisk thousands to the games on their cycles.

One such facility was the excellent greenway which stops at one end in a mess of industrial estate roads and the other at the A11 where there is no crossing.

I spoke too soon. The Wick Lane end of the Greenway has been revamped and re-surfaced and up has sprung the new cycle infrastructure to aid cyclists on their way to the "green" olympics.

So there it is! What do you mean where? Right there. The little ASL. Underneath the stationary car.

A very unpleasant incident

2011-04-14T23:59:00.000+01:00

A pretty unpleasant incident happened in Stratford one way system the other day.

A driver took exception to me being in the bus lane (which is open to cars during road-works) and beeped and shouted - even though I was in stationary traffic. I tried to indicate for him to pass after the lights, but that got him even more worked up, so when the lights went green he basically drove at me and hit my arm as he past. He stopped and reversed, so I moved to a parking space where we exchanged abuse before he drove off.

Then it gets strange. I caught up with him within minutes of him driving off, and had a word. I kept it very polite and said his driving was a real problem. He actually apologised, which got me apologising (for what I don't know) before both of us went our ways. He seemed quite calm and reasonable, yet minutes earlier was forcing me off the road for no reason at all.

Driving like this makes a mockery of the advise about primary position and so on. There are some car drivers (and they aren't all of them by a long shot, but they are a significant number) who simply don't care and will decide to drive through no matter what.

For this reason I will be using a video camera when I cycle from now on. If I do get knocked off, I at least have evidence.

The incident isn't the first around the gyratory at the moment - I have seen other cyclists bullied as well. The problem is that the bus lane is open for cars during the road-works, but most don't realise this. Therefore a queue builds on the outside lane, and the bus lane is used by aggressive drivers who want to pass at any cost. Precisely the people who shouldn't be allowed to share road-space with cyclists (or anyone come to that). But Newham are a deeply cycle unfriendly council, for whom this sort of consideration to cyclists isn't worth it. Hence the complete lack of even basic cycle facilities on their appalling road system.

The incident made me the closest to given up cycling since I started using the bicycle again a few years ago. I won't give up, but think that it is a sad reflection on the state of our roads that I feel the need to record my journeys because of the dangerous driving that some seem to think is acceptable.

The imperfect art of vehicular cycling

2011-04-09T00:23:00.001+01:00

Baker's arms last Saturday. Spot the cyclist? Yes, sandwiched between the bus and the stationary red car. Personally, I would overtake the red car to gain some space, but it is all a bit subjective - positioning where the motorcyclist is driving also holds dangers.

All countries require cyclists to cycle amongst vehicles to a greater or lesser extent. Holland and the Nordic countries may require less vehicular cycling due to cycling facilities, but there are still many roads where cyclists and motor transport mix together.

However, there seems to be something fundamentally different about the attitude surrounding vehicular cycling in these countries and the UK. In the UK, vehicular cycling is used as a method to control the motor traffic around the cyclist. I cannot help but think that it is deeply troubling when the most vulnerable road users are expected - by their actions - to control the actions of the least vulnerable. I think it would be quite jolly if the cyclist could concentrate on their cycling whilst the drivers concentrated on their driving. I would at least expect the courts and law-makers to believe that this should be the case.

Instead, one finds the strange situation where drivers - even ones that are found guilty of careless driving or worse - can mitigate based upon the clothing or helmet usage of the victim. It is certainly an odd precedent. One wonders if it could be extended to car drivers themselves. After all, when I drive, I don't use a car with a roll cage and 5 point harness - yet in the case of an accident, I doubt these deficiencies would be noted against me.

Learning how to safely navigate roads on a cycle is one thing. Expecting people to use these skills to mitigate some drivers' lack of training or sheer impatience is quite another. Whilst we are expecting these techniques to be required for safely cycling on mixed streets, then cycling is not going to appeal to a large number of potential cyclists.

The situation is difficult. Certainly segregation on fast, difficult roads (as long as this segregation actually helps the cyclist instead of simply sideline) can help. But the cyclist still needs to negotiate roads open to all traffic at some stage. Part of the answer is that drivers need to know how to act around cyclists, and to actually take responsibility for controlling a dangerous piece of equipment. This is much easier said than done, but whilst the establishment try to mitigate this responsibility by questioning the victim's attire, or taking the attitude that "accidents happen" (even when the guilty party is proven to have been acting carelessly or worse) then we stand no chance of changing this mindset.

Of course when I didn't cycle I had no idea about a cyclist's needs on the road when I drove. I had no idea what difficulties inconsiderate driving can pose to a cyclist. It wasn't until I started cycling that I understood and could modify my driving behaviour. Maybe giving people found guilty of driving offences the option of going on a bikeability course instead of taking points and a fine might help more drivers understand as well.

Leytonstone get the Waltham Forest Treatment

2011-04-08T23:36:00.000+01:00

According to the Hubbub newsletter, Leytonstone High Road will be the latest area to become Walthamised . After the success of Alexandra Road, I imagine Waltham Forest is now getting in its stride and going after some large scale projects.

The newsletter optimistically thinks that it won't be as bad as the Wood Street makeover, since the High Street is wider. I do think that the author has unfairly under-estimated Waltham Forest's capabilities here. The small matter of whether there is a lot of space available is no barrier to implementing some really shoddy cycling provision, as Forest Road proves.

True to form, the plans (which are not available online from WF as far as I can see) seem to involve a lot of extra pavement parking for cars. Presumably vast amounts of money will be spent raising the tarmac by a couple inches as well since this is what Waltham Forest believe constitutes an improvement to the "streetscape".

Mayor on the run

2011-04-08T23:15:00.001+01:00

According to the ever excellent HubBub newsletter, Newham's Mayor, Sir Robin Wales, is stopping cycling campaigners from attending the next cabinet meeting, presumably because they may be less than happy with his "efforts" with regards to cycling. Apparently, this includes a group called the "Woodcraft Folk". Unaware of this organisation before reading the newsletter, I had images of angry hobbits picketing the council offices, but on closer investigation, they are a children's / young adult community group.

Newham's mayor appears to think that making cyclists face the misery that is the Stratford gyratory and A11 without any provision at all is acceptable, whilst facing some questions on said policy by some well meaning cycling campaigners - well that is simply too much.

I would like to suggest that any cycling questions would be better illustrated by the great and the good of Newham council responding to them whilst also trying to cycle the A11 from the Bow Flyover to the other side of the Stratford gyratory. I would provide a change of underwear to anyone completing the route. For extra bonus points they could attempt this road with their children, since they clearly think that this route is fine without modification to accommodate families attempting to cycle to the "green" olympics.

The Sixth Emergency Service?

2011-04-07T00:48:00.000+01:00

Is BT now classed as an emergency service? I only ask because the driver of FE07 TXZ appeared to be in a desperate hurry along Upper Clapton Road. Maybe there was a telecomms emergency somewhere in East London. Maybe somewhere an internet hub was down and a facebook or twitter page was being left unattended.

Obviously it was something really important otherwise the driver wouldn't have passed me at speed with inches to spare. It was on a narrow piece of road where I try valiantly to stop idiotic passes by taking primary, but clearly I underestimated the idiocy of this driver.

I took this picture a couple of minutes later when he caught up with the back of the traffic light queue. So, I was glad my safety wasn't disregarded for nothing.

The Olympic Tower

2011-04-07T00:37:00.000+01:00

This looks like the beginings of the ArcelorMittal Orbit sculpture which will be a major legacy structure after the Olympics have finished. It looks like it might be a quite extraordinary building. To pique your interest here are some fascinating facts about it

1) It will be 115m tall
2) It will cost £20M
3) It will have two observation towers
4) It will be constructed entirely from discarded TfL cycling strategy documents
5) The structure will not use bolts but will be held together by the collective disappointment of all those cyclists wanting to get to the games who weren't expecting Newham Council to block CSH2 through their borough.

* It is possible that I may have made some of these facts up.

The best option for Central London

2011-04-03T23:33:00.001+01:00

I went with the family today to London Zoo. And very nice it was too.

As an automatic reaction, I went via the underground (Victoria line, Northern Line) to Camden Town and then walked to the Zoo. After all taking the car would be monumentally expensive, inconvenient and time-consuming, surely?

Well, maybe not.

Firstly, the cost.

My two rail-cards cost £14.60 but then I got a 2 for 1 deal on the entrance which cost £19 each. So the total was £33. If I had used a normal underground ticket and therefore not had the 2 for 1 deal, it would have been around £48.

Now, here is the interesting part. I looked at the car park for the zoo and, for the whole day, the cost was £13. Even on the meters on the road outside (which you can park at all day on Sunday) the cost was £1.40 per hour. So assuming that I stayed 7 hours, this would have cost £9.80 at the meter, the total cost would have been £47.80 including the two tickets. The diesel would haven't cost very much as it is only about 7-8 miles to the Zoo. All other costs are "fixed" (insurance, VED etc.)

So the train was cheaper because of the saver deal with Network Rail. Otherwise the costs would have been very similar.

Now look at convenience. First thing in the morning, there wasn't much traffic and I expect I could have beat the train to the zoo. Coming back the traffic was pretty horrendous around Camden and I was pleased I wasn't driving. Until I got to Camden station, which is shut on Sunday afternoons between 1pm and 5.30pm because, it would seem, too many people want to use it. Only on our transport system would the solution to overcrowding be for the service to be removed completely. So this meant we had to walk to the bus stop to get the bus to Euston and then the tube home. I couldn't find any details of the closure on the TfL website, although trawling Yahoo answers when I returned seemed to indicate it was a regular occurrence. So, all in all, I think convenience tips towards the car, when one considers that one can go from door-door and pretty much park outside the zoo.

Finally, walking back to Camden, Prince Albert Road looked like this

So, only a couple of hundred metres from the zoo was completely free parking. Of course, this blocked the mandatory cycle lane, but this isn't an issue on a Sunday, as no-one in their right mind would want to cycle to somewhere like the Zoo would they?

So there we have it. The best way to travel in central London is the car. Super.

The Road to Mothercare

2011-03-26T17:05:00.002Z

So I know that I have blogged previously about Mothercare, that I would never darken their doors again, after they showed complete contempt for anyone trying to get to their store by cycle instead of car.

Clearly, it is fine to have principles but when one has a small child that demands a potty only available from mothercare otherwise she will poo with abandon anywhere of her choosing, principles take somewhat of a back seat.

On the way, the cycling and walking infrastructure had been improved by someone dumping a lot of stuff next to it and setting it alight.

They had even provided a seat, presumably so the weary could rest and admire the vista.

Between the burnt out rubbish, the detritus scattered all along the path and the imposing concrete and barbed wire, the whole scene could be mistaken for a courageous art installation called "urban decay".

When going to Mothercare, I was a bit sad that I didn't have a child seat for the cycle so that the little one could come along. However, Haringey council have kindly stopped any such dangerous nonsense by installing a narrow gate on the off-road cycle path.

This means anyone with anything bigger than panniers on the bicycle cannot access. Presumably the contraption is designed to stop motorbikes and scooters using the path, but frankly, if the solution makes it impossible for legitimate users to access as well they may have well just put up a brick wall. If I did have a child-seat, or a trailer, or large panniers then I would have to either brave Meridian Way - a "40mph" road that is deeply unpleasant for cyclists - or find another way, or give up completely.

Alexandra road - just when you thought it was safe to take primary...

2011-03-26T14:29:00.001Z

I have previously written about the "improvements" to Alexandra road in Leyton.

I have to say that I have very low expectations of Waltham Forest council when it comes to cycling, which they consistantly fail to meet.

This is no exception.

This is now the end result which cost £562,000 (hat-tip to Freewheeler who posted the amount on the comments to a previous post).

The result appears to have been that the road has been raised around 3/4 inch so that there is no drop between the pavement and road. Presumably so motorists do not have to worry about damaging their alloys when they park (legally) on the pavement.

The thought given to cyclists consists of the dashed white line one can see to the left of the road. Which runs right next to the parked cars, opening up an exciting world of dooring whilst being past by cars travelling at speed.

I consider myself an experienced urban cyclist who is not a "shrinking violet" on the road. But I certainly didn't have the courage to position myself away from the door-zone and thus prevent close passes by overtaking cars on this road. The traffic volume is simply too high and too fast - two issues that adding some more tarmac has singularly failed to resolve.

This "improvement" above isn't just crap for cycling. It is worse than what was there before, and is actually dangerous whilst doing nothing to make the street more pleasant for anyone that isn't racing round the gyratory in a car.

Cycling is popular!

2011-03-26T11:15:00.002Z

Clearly, despite the best efforts of various vapid journalists and TV non-entities, cycling seems to be entering the mainstream a little more. Witness more adverts that have a bicycle strategically positioned somewhere in shot. Even car adverts are doing this

And the other night, going past the Porsche garage in Stratford, I realised that even the luxury car market were trying to use bicycles to promote their products

Whether they put a bicycle on the roof to illustrate the practicalities of this new 4 door porsche or whether they were indicating where a cyclist would land up if they got in the way of a porsche driver using the car to its full capability, is unclear.

Isn't it strange? Clearly cycling seems "cool" enough to be used by advertisers (who are very picky on what they use to promote products), yet it appears to be open season on the people who actually carry out the activity.

Journalist puts cyclists in their place

2011-03-26T00:10:00.001Z

Another journalist has decided that cyclists are in need of a good dressing down and being put in their place.

This time Celia Waldon has chosen to take up the baton of cyclist bashing, last wielded by some TV cook whose name no longer springs to mind.

Apparently, she is being driven crazy by fair weather cyclists - in fact all London cyclists - who are "a preening, upper middle class bunch". As opposed to a preening, upper middle-class journalist presumably. In actual fact I am somewhat flattered by being labelled as preening upper middle-class. Not terms associated with residents of E17 too often...

The article finished on the note that there will be many more "boy cycle racers" on the streets as the olympics:

so confident on the roads that they will all be plugged into their iPods, calmly humming "lalalalala" along to Sasha Distel as that articulated lorry indicates left.

Celia Waldon may not have known that 6 cyclists have died in HGV incidents so far in 2011 when she wrote her bon-mots, but seeing someone has since put this fact on her wiki page, she may now.

I should imagine her Pulitzer is in the post.

No room at the inpatients

2011-03-25T00:02:00.001Z

Some of the more uncharitable E17 cycling blogs think that the local council spout ecofluff about cycling whilst - at best - doing nothing to help cycling in reality. Like this blog here from freewheeler on the cycle stand provision at St James street medical centre. Which is, frankly, just unfair. Local government and NHS trusts would love to encourage cycling to their sites, if only there was the room to accommodate them. After all, cyclists need to be realistic.

Take, for example, this re-designed area outside Whipps Cross 24hr walk-in centre.

If only there was any room to put cycle provision outside the walk-in centre of one of East London's biggest hospitals, then don't you think the powers-that-be would do so?

As it is, one can just see in the picture above, a typical lawless cyclist deciding to take the law into their own hands and use the railings to secure their cycle. This type of anti-social behaviour is exactly the reason why cyclists should pay road-tax and insurance. And wear silly high viz and helmets. And keep out of the way of motorists.

Those of a cynical disposition should take heed that Whipps Cross website actually discourages travelling by car, saying

"Patients are encouraged not to come by car as there is limited parking on site".

It then continues to detail the 4 car parks on site which can be used by motorists.

Strangely it doesn't detail the cycle parking available at the hospital, instead saying

"We encourage visitors and staff living nearby to cycle to the hospital if possible".

Clearly this encouragement doesn't extend to some sheffield stands near major departments. Presumably encouragement can only go so far.

Travels and Budget

2011-03-24T21:28:00.001Z

I have been away for the last few weeks travelling to a very different place than E17 (and cycling a little bit there as well).

In the meantime, I notice that another budget has happened. One that will be a "budget for growth" (can one imagine a chancellor announcing a budget that isn't "for growth"?!)

For the "and finally" flourish at the end of the speech, the chancellor is knocking off 1p off fuel duty, postponing the 4p rise and cancelling the fuel escalator.

As the BBC reports, the chancellor

.. told MPs "the cost of filling up a family car such as a Ford Focus has increased by £10" and he said he wanted to ease the burden on hard-pressed families.

Presumably there are no hard-pressed families who don't own a car.

It is somewhat difficult to reconcile any government green credentials with this budget move. By keeping the fixed costs of car ownership the same (VED and so on) and reducing the cost of fuel, the move will make the total cost of ownership of a car a bit cheaper but the marginal cost of driving extra mile a lot cheaper. In essence if one owns a car and pays the fixed costs, then the comparative costs of using a car for a particular trip against public transport has gone even more in favour of the car.

It is fair to say that most people won't give up access to a car completely. I certainly wouldn't. And neither should it be necessary to do so to get people using other forms of transport for many journeys - after all, the Netherlands has high car ownership, alongside the best cycling modal share in Europe. But whilst the marginal cost of each journey is cheaper than alternatives, and the roads are geared completely towards the private car, it is unlikely that other transport options stand much of a hope. Either people move away from private transport by wanting to reduce cost or because other forms of transport are more pleasant, quicker, and direct than using the car. In the case of the UK at the moment, the marginal cost of driving isn't enough to get many people to switch and the roads are deeply unpleasant places for non-motorists. Any government campaigns for cycling in the light of this are either cynical ploys at looking "green" or the product of a group so optimistic that they must border on the deranged.

If the government was determined to use fuel as a mechanism for "easing the burden" (even though this is a monstrously inefficient way of targeting tax relief) there is a possibility to lighten the tax load on car owners and also discourage car usage where other options exist. This would be to reduce some of the fixed costs imposed such as VED, but increase fuel duty. This wouldn't penalise people for owning a car (which most car-owners wouldn't change) but would penalise for excessive use (which most car owners could change relatively easily). But then the treasury would be in significant danger of losing revenue - they love the fixed costs because they know people won't get rid of their car completely, and hate the tax on extra mileage precisely because people could more easily save this. In reality most people will continue to spend around the same on fuel as it has been seen time and again that people will use cars more the cheaper they get. So, the government gets a nice headline, but in reality won't have to stomach much, if any, loss of fuel tax revenue whilst finding the perfect excuse to add on taxation at the oil company end. But maybe I am just cynical...

Olympic heights

2011-02-22T22:10:00.000Z

I cycle through Stratford regularly. I sometimes shop in Stratford. I rarely look around at the developments. When I am cycling through Stratford I am normally more interested in the multi-lane free-for-all that I am forced to share with cars and lorries than taking in the view.

But the other day, I had a chance to look around. The scale of change is impressive, in terms of it being vast and big and completely changing the face of the area.

The large structures amid the forest of cranes in the picture above is the Olympic village. The shot is taken from Leyton Road and the building in front is the pub, Wheelers. The contrast between the old pub and the vast new buildings just behind it (the picture doesn't do justice to the scale) is amazing. Especially when one turned around to see the existing housing estate on the other side of the road.

Wheelers is advertising Karaoke on Saturday nights. I like to think that, come 2012, it will be full of Olympic athletes winding down and having a bit of a sing-song.

Around the corner, Westfield seems to have emerged from the wasteland very quickly indeed, looking like some huge UFO whose owner has watched "Pimp My Ride" once too often.

Clearly Stratford and the surrounding areas will never be the same again. The sheer impact of the games on life in my neck of the woods really sank home whilst I mooched around behind the high fencing - taking photos whilst being watched by security. I like Stratford mall. It has a selection of chain shops with an area for small independent retail spaces and even some market stalls in the middle of it. I doubt Westfield will have stalls in the concourse selling pallets of fruit and veg propped up on cardboard boxes and trestle tables.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this development is a bad idea, or have some nostalgic whimsy about pound shops and veg by the bowl. I am sure Westfield, and the other developments will bring jobs, shopping and evening activities that were out of reach several years ago.

But I do wonder what will happen to the surrounding areas. I hope it will boost them, not kill them. The number of small shops around the area - Leyton, Walthamstow, and Stratford itself - is amazing, supported by a local community which tends to shop locally, at least for some items. .

I hope councils don't think that the way to counter any negative effects of the huge new developments on our doorstep is to try to emulate a smaller, cheaper, crappier version in the hope some people may be deflected from their path to high price items in Westfield. It won't happen. Walthamstow centre is, yet again, under "consultation" about its future. For those uninitiated to the tribulations of the town centre regeneration programmes, I won't bore you with the details here. Needless to say that there has been significant amounts of money spent on consultations, partnerships with development companies, and so far nothing has come to fruition. St Modwen were feted as the "regeneration specialist" but parted company with the council after issues relating to the schemes viability (I assume this is code for the "recession hit") and we have now moved on to another partnership. The point is that there are many things that can regenerate Walthamstow (not least getting the high street cinema back to use as a cinema), and many other things that will simply turn it into a dreary also-ran.

Which brings me back to cycling (sort of).

When councils panic about retail in an area, one of the first things that seems to be done is to increase the availability of parking. Which is an odd response when one thinks about it. I doubt there has ever been a conversation which goes like this

"Darling let's go to Oxford Street and hit the sales"
"Would love to, but there isn't any easy, free parking. How about we go to Wood Street instead? I understand that we can now park right outside the shops in free pavement parking bays"
"What a super idea - let's go there instead"

A facetious point, I know, but it surely has some merit. People aren't attracted to shopping areas because they can park, they are attracted to the shopping areas because of the shops. All that parking outside local shops does is allow a sub-section of the local population, who may have shopped there anyway, to drive instead. To attract people to a retail area, that area has to be attractive to them. And long lines of parked cars with narrow pavements isn't attractive.

It is the same with congestion and roads. Re-engineering a road to allow more traffic through a local shopping area normally just allows drivers to be less inconvenienced as they travel to the out-of-town shopping complex. It doesn't help the area - in fact fast moving traffic is completely detrimental to attracting shoppers - if it was the other way around, surely the North Circular would be packed with chic little fashion shops and coffee houses instead of derelict buildings?

Surely the way to make local shopping attractive is to play to the strengths of local shopping. Make it pleasant, different to the normal mall, humanise the area and allow it a chance to become a meeting place and to cater for the local requirements.

Cycling, walking and public transport play an incredibly important part in this. Yet are normally utterly overlooked in schemes that end up with a canyon of parked cars either side an inaccessible road of fast moving vehicles.

Let's hope our local councils get this right. Because many have got it horribly wrong in the past and local communities have been blighted as a result.