TfL / Royal Parks: Bring Boris Bikes to the Mall

Back in July 2009 TfL, led by our cycle-friendly Mayor Boris Johnson, proposed installing a large 38-bike Cycle Hire Docking Station on the Mall as part of the initial 2010 implementation of the Boris Bike scheme. (For those interested the full details of the refused planning application can be found here.)

There is currently a massive glut of Cycle Hire Docking Stations in the Mall Area. See for yourself on this map.

Among those idiotically opposed to the Docking Station was the Conservative MP for Westminster, Mark Field, and the proposed site on the Mall was eventually rejected on the grounds of:

"impact on streetscape"  (!)

Yes, installing a Docking Station here would clearly change the large pavement area on the North side of the Mall in some small, minor and purely cosmetic way. But as has been shown with other public events like the Notting Hill Carnival and the Olympic Games, the Cycle Hire bikes can be quickly and easily removed during busier periods to prevent excess congestion. When this is done all one is left with is a few stands barely waist height. There really is no logical reason not to extent the Cycle Hire Scheme to comprehensively cover the Mall/Constitution Hill area.

Moreover, if there is one part of Central London where the roads are wide and empty enough to accomodate large amounts of cycle traffic it is the Mall. The entire network of roads around Buckingham Palace are almost comically large and this whole area could really become a very pleasant place to cycle around in the near future.

This is something devoutly to be wished, since a higher numbers of cyclists (instead of cars and taxis) on these streets would make the whole neighbourhood:

1. Cleaner

2. Less polluted

3. Quieter

4. Safer (no one can argue that even the most irresponsible cyclist in London is a fraction as dangerous as a car going at 30mph or more)

5. Less congested (cyclists take up far less road space than the equivalent amount of passengers using cars, taxis, or even buses)
6. Safer cycling (since as cyclist numbers increase political support for tough decisions in favour of cyclists - e.g. reallocating road space in cyclists' favour, cycle-only traffic signals, adequate cycle parking in urban centres - will become ever greater)

The Mall's proximity to the wonderful off-road East-West cycle routes available through Hyde Park also mean that it is (comparatively) very pleasant to travel to and from by bike meaning a Docking Station there would be very well popular with both tourists and locals alike.

From the official Westminster Council planning application. Space for a Docking Station here? YES YES YES. Boris Bike racks have been squeezed into far smaller spaces in the more cycle-friendly boroughs of London.

As I've argued before in this blog, Cycle Hire schemes function as a highly effective 'gateway drug' to much higher levels of cycling by all portions of the population, not just on cycle-hire bikes. This is one reason why cycling rates in London have risen so markedly in the last two years despite the amount of safe cycle infrastructure in the city, and the statistical risk to cyclists, remaining relatively static from 2010 to 2012.

Therefore, it is clearly in the interest of everyone interested in cycling in London to improve the currently woeful lack of Cycle Hire Docking Stations in the Mall area. How can this be done?

The Mall as it is now. Full of (mostly empty) taxis and not a single cyclist in sight.

Well, fortunately I've been informed by TfL that they are now re-applying for planning permission for a Docking Station on the Mall as part of the 2013/2014 Phase 3 expansion of the Boris Bike scheme which will (hopefully) include substantial intensification of the scheme in Central London. This intensification is needed to help accomodate increased commuter flow of bikes from the South-West areas of London which are being brought into the area covered by the scheme.

Therefore, if you want to help support TfL's, and the Mayor's, efforts to gradually tame Westminster and make it that little bit less cycle-toxic, please sign this petition by I Love Boris Bikes to bring the Cycle Hire Scheme to the Mall.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/tfl-royal-parks-bring-boris-bikes-to-the-mall-3

If TfL can show evidence of widespread support for a Docking Station here they are much more likely to get a successful planning application for it.

Furthermore, if you are a resident in the Borough of Westminster please consider writing personally to your local councillors and Mark Field MP, as letters from personal constituents can often be more effective than large scale campaigns.

Doing the simple things well with road design for cyclists

Below is a picture of Storey's Way, Cambridge (googlemap street view: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=cambridge+uk&hl=en&ll=52.21213,0.107503&spn=0.017303,0.0318&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=47.483365,65.126953&hnear=Cambridge,+United+Kingdom&t=m&layer=c&cbll=52.213776,0.104975&panoid=-l2D8TEtu8I4pkMgJsVPPg&cbp=12,20.89,,0,1&z=15)

Cycling right-turn cycle safety box outside Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge

The very simple cycle 'box' painted on the road provides greatly increased safety to any cyclists turning right here. Drivers on both sides of the road are alerted to the potential presence of a cyclist by the red paint on the road and cyclists are therefore much less likely to get hit by a vehicle while waiting to turn right.

Moreover, this kind of cycle infrastructure costs virtually nothing; it's just some red paint, a white cycle sign, and some chevrons.

What is surprising though is that this kind of street layout is still a comparatively rare sight in the UK.

Equivalent situation street design in London (Ladbroke Grove). The road is blocked with paving in the middle, but no effort has been made to make this permeable for cyclists or to use the road space which is being taken up anyway to provide a safe box for cyclists turning right. I imagine this design was put in during the 80s.

It's up to all of us to help inform our local planning officials and let them know about the little things like this which can make a cyclists journey so much safer and are so easy to implement!

(Obviously much bigger elements of cycle infrastructure are crucially important too. But it really does surprise me how many local planning officials would - if they knew it existed - be happy to implement smaller elements of cycle infrastructure like the cycle-box in the first photo. It's our job to make them better informed so we don't get more of the second photo.)

Government completely ignores former Conservative Transport Minister's calls for better cycle infrastructure and responds to a rising death toll on Britain's streets with a shoddy advertisement campaign

Last week former Transport Minister Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Conservative MP for Kensington and Chelsea who I unfairly maligned a few weeks ago) intelligently stated here in the Hammersmith and Fulham Chronicle that:

"a long-term paucity of proper cycling infrastructure has forced many cyclists onto busy roads, where they are bound to come into conflict with drivers of cars"

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who served as Conservative Transport Minister from 1990 to 1992 also said that "Cycling should be encouraged as a healthier, cheaper way of getting around that can serve out city's wellbeing and provide relief to our public transport infrastructure". Unfortunately the current Transport Minister, Patrick McLoughlin just wants to create more space for motorists.

Moreover, according to The Times 87 cyclists have died on Britain's roads this year, and at least 75 of those deaths have been due to collision with a motor vehicle. This is a staggeringly high figure and is put into grimmer perspective by the fact that Britain has the fifth worst record for reducing cycling fatalities in the EU.

How is the Government responding these dreadful figures? Is it listening to MPs like Sir Malcolm that are calling for "proper cycling infrastructure" which will prevent cycling deaths on busy roads or killer junctions like Bow Roundabout?

No. The Government is only responding with an advertising campaign that encourages motorists and cyclists to treat each other with more respect. Respect is great, but as Sir Malcolm says, if you've got cyclists mixing with traffic going at speeds usually substantially higher than 30mph then you are going to get fatalities no matter how much mutual respect is going on

Our Government is being wantonly useless. In fact, virtually all positive improvements in cycling infrastructure are coming from the bottom-up. TfL does appear to now be finally taking concrete steps to improve Bow Roundabout, but this is because of bottom-up pressure from Londoners who regularly cycle on Bow Roundabout rather than top-down pressure from a Government that wants to reduce cycling fatalities.

In a civilised country that cares about the safety of its citizens there should be pressure from the top-down on institutions like TfL and our local councils to put in place secure measures that will making cycling safer. But what is the reality in Britain? The Department for Transport (DfT) is currently hindering TfL's efforts to make Bow Roundabout safer because advance traffic-lights for cyclists are actually currently illegal under DfT guidelines. This state of affairs is a complete joke.

TfL has legally installed special 'horse-height' crossing buttons and horse-only crossing lights (seen as red image in background) at the eastern crossing of Hyde Park Corner. But installing a red cycle crossing light is currently illegal (which is why there isn't one here), as is installing cycle-only traffic lights at 'cycle-height'. Tens of thousands of cyclists use this crossing point every day; they are being ignored. I've never seen a single horse here; they are being catered for. Our current National transport policy is a disgrace. Moreover, a lack of 'horse-awareness' is also why the Government-run DVLA have blocked calls by driving instructors to make cycle awareness part of UK Driving Test. Again, this is completely farcical.

The Government needs to get its act together and start taking cycling, and the comments of MPs like Sir Malcolm seriously. Ad campaigns are no bad thing in of themselves. But anyone that has ever cycled on any road in Britain knows that what is a hundred times more important is safe cycle infrastructure which ensures that cyclists do not have to integrate with fast moving traffic that might, and indeed does repeatedly, kill them.

I suspect the reason for the Government's intransigence is due to a fear of alienating motorist voters. This is because nearly every element of proper cycle infrastructure you can think of deprives space or speed to the motorist in some way; advance stop boxes - ineffectual as they are - mean that motorists have to stop further away from the traffic lights; protected cycle lanes reduce that amount of lane space available to motorists; phased traffic lights mean motorists have to wait slightly longer at the lights; contra-flow cycle lanes usually necessitate the removal of on-street parking or the narrowing of a residential street.

The sad truth is that due to successive decades of pro-motorist policies in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, London's streets are already incredibly motor-friendly. Motorists and taxis have now got used to this state of affairs and are, like the American South, resistant to change. This photo is of Eaton Square, a five-lane (yes, that's right, FIVE LANE) residential road linking the twin centers of industry and commerce that are Sloane Square and Buckingham Palace. I can understand that high levels of motor capacity are necessary for some routes like the M25, but this kind of highway design in the heart of Central London, connecting two areas that are barely a mile apart, is just a complete and utter piss-take.
The lorry pictured here is, I believe, working for TfL and has special cyclist sensors. (Has the Government forced the freight industry to make this the industry standard, at least for vehicles travelling in London? No. Of course they haven't.) The rest of the traffic is just speeding taxis and young professionals in sports cars, probably driving to the gym where they'll get on a stationary bike for a workout. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that one lane of this road is used to create a two-way protected cycle lane.
I would also like to see every member of our current cabinet cycle from Sloane Square to Parliament along this road and then say that all we need to make our streets safer is an advertising campaign. To be frank, I doubt they'd all make it to Parliament alive.

However, unless the Government wants to see more and more cyclists dying on Britain's streets due to collisions with fast moving motor vehicles it needs to make the brave decision to start a National Strategy to improve cycling infrastructure across the country and help - rather than hinder - organisations like TfL in their efforts to make roads safer for cyclists; even if this means making things slightly more cramped or slower for motorists in some areas, particularly inner city roads where high levels of motor capacity are simply not necessary.

To do anything less is grossly irresponsible, and it is a real discredit to Patrick McLoughlin and the Conservative majority of the Coalition Government, that as Transport Minister Mr McLoughlin has not made any efforts yet to properly rectify the issue of spiralling numbers of cyclists being killed by - to quote Conservative former Transport Minister Malcolm Rifkind again - "a long-term paucity of proper cycling infrastructure".

----

Cyclists in the City has also written intelligently on Rifkind's recent piece in an article available here.

Conservative AM Richard Tracey's cretinous contribution to the London Assembly's investigation into cycling in London

Having just watched the live feed of the London Assembly's investigation into cycling in London today (11/9/2012), I felt obliged to record the idiotic comments of Richard Tracey (a Conservative London Assembly member, representing Merton and Wandsworth) for posterity on the internet.

Here's a photo of Conservative Richard Tracey looking substantially less fat than he did on my web-feed today. Maybe he could take the advice of the Danish Cycling Embassy and prolong his life by 6 years by cycling to work and losing a few pounds?

The London Assembly had very intelligently invited two experts, from Holland and Denmark respectively (two countries where cycling is both much safer and much more widely practiced than in London), to speak on the issue of cycling in London. The Dutch and Danish experts made many incisive comments about the importance of building safe cycle infrastructure, for instance segregating cycle traffic away from fast moving motor traffic to provide real protection for cyclists. Unfortunately Richard Tracey's contribution did not match their intellectual standard.

Among other questions Richard Tracey seemed very concerned to know just how large Copenhagen and Amsterdam were in terms of population size. Given he's paid £53,439 a year to be a London Assembly he perhaps could have gone to the trouble of consulting wikipedia for this information before the meeting in question, and subsequently avoided wasting everyone else's time. But no. He's too lazy. He's Richard Tracey.

Having established the population sizes of Copenhagen and Amsterdam (500,000 and 1,000,000 respectively) Mr Richard Tracey then jingoistically remarked that they were both smaller than Birmingham, the UK's second largest city. Looking around the conference room for encouragement for his completely irrelevant comments, Mr Richard Tracey then pondered if Birmingham was indeed the UK's second largest city, or whether it might be Manchester. Mr Richard Tracey then concluded that he was initially correct. It was Birmingham. [Again, none of this was remotely on topic. What on earth is this man being paid £53,439 a year for???]

If Mr Richard Tracey was aiming to make a point about journey distance (and hence undermine a pro-cycling argument by conjecturing, even though it has been conclusively proved otherwise, that Londoners make so many long-distance trips that a high modal share of bike use is impractical) he completed missed the mark by asking about population size instead. Was this a bit of completely pointless Capital City Cock-Wagging by our elected representative? ["My capital city's bigger than yours! Thanks for taking all the trouble of coming to London and giving us the benefit of your vast experience! Joke's on you cause my ears were closed you European Pricks!"] Just to clarify those are Richard Tracey's words, not mine.

In fact, the extremely high population density and comparatively small road space of London actually makes a very high modal share of cycling eminently practical, for a reason so simple that even Mr Richard Tracey can understand it: bikes take up far less space on the roads than cars. In London we have lots of commuters and a strictly limited road space. Therefore we need more cyclists in we want to ease inner-city congestion.

This photo (borrowed from the excellent Cyclists in the City) shows about 20 rush-hour cyclists fitting into a space that would only hold 2 cars. Imagine how much worse the traffic would be for Richard Tracey if all of those cyclists were in their own cars, creating a 20 car traffic-jam stretching far back over Southwark Bridge.

Having watched Richard Tracey wasting about 10 minutes trying to undermine the London Assembly's distinguished guests because their cities were smaller than his, I thought he would now shut-up. But, unfortunately he didn't.

Moreover, can you guess which reputable newspaper Mr Tracy decided to draw on for his next 'intelligent' contribution? Was it The Times' CycleSafe campaign, highlighting the shockingly high numbers of cyclists that have died on our streets? Was it The Independent and The Guardian repeatedly calling for London's authorities to do more for cyclists. Was it The Economist cogently (as always) arguing that cyclist numbers in London have been increasing while cycle infrastructure has been staying static, and massive investment is now needed to make cycling safer and therefore more attractive to Londoners? Or was it even The Telegraph arguing that cycling should be our national sport, and listing the many ways in which regular cyclists pay an astonishingly positive contribution to our economy?

No. It was The Daily Mail which published an article about a (possibly fictional) woman that got hit by a cyclist. Now, I am in no way condoning anti-social cycling (if this incident did indeed occur). But Richard Tracey is seriously missing the issue here. Insultingly so. If we are to talk at a public meeting about safety incidents involving bicycles in London, should we not be remembering the many people that have lost their lives on Bow Roundabout before we consider anyone that may or may not have been brushed by a bicycle on a pavement? These people are dead now. The Daily Mail columnist's mother (if she exists) is still alive. Surely those that died on Bow Roundabout represent a much bigger issue?

But no. Richard Tracey continued on, quoting from online media created only for the most intellectually limited members of our literate populace, and called for compulsory bicycle number plates so the anti-social perpetrators of these crimes could be caught. Mr Tracey, if you're going to put the focus on justice, how about calling for greater punishments for the van driver who killed a 12 year old boy last Thursday? Or the driver that seriously injured a Paralympic cyclist last year? David Cameron spoke yesterday at the Olympic Athletes' Parade about his son now - in the post-Olympic aftermath - wanting to be "like Bradley Wiggins". But did David Cameron mention any safety measures that would make his son, and many other sons like him, allowed to have the option of cycling safely segregated from life-threatening high-speed traffic, like the aforementioned van driver? No, David Cameron didn't.

Caroline Pidgeon, the leader of the LibDems on the London General Assembly (pictured here), does genuinely understand cycling and cyclists in London. But she is unfortunately hampered by having to work with buffoons like Richard Tracey. The man's an idiot and I'm quite frankly amazed that one single Londoner voted for him in 2010. I am even more shocked that the London Assembly have allowed Tracey to be a member of the Transport Commitee.

To return to my final point with regard to Richard Tracey and the London Assembly meeting. When Dr Rachel Aldred and our Dutch and Danish friends were very cogently outlining the limitations of many of the current Cycle Superhighways (especially CS2 which runs, as blue paint, from Bow, down Mile End Road and Whitechapel Road, to Aldgate), Richard Tracey was extremely keen to know what the "trade-offs" would be to installing safe, protected cycle lanes for Londoners to use. Clearly Richard Tracey was cacking his pants about the impacts of any slight reduction to London's motor traffic capacity.

But as Dr Aldred very acutely observed, many of London's key roads were closed or constricted during the Olympics. Did we have chaos? No. Not at all. London ran better than many of us have ever seen it run. Moreover, all available studies have shown that road congestion simply expands or contracts to meet road capacity. So, just as building the massive M25 did nothing to alleviate London's long-term traffic congestion, because traffic simply increased to accomodate it, limiting traffic flow on many major London carriageways by the installation of segregated cycle lanes is not going to lead to an explosion of road congestion; traffic levels will simply decrease to accomodate the reduced capacity. So would Richard Tracey kindly stop cacking his pants? No.

I've written here in defence of Boris Johnson's cycling credentials. I argued that the biggest opponents to safe cycling in London are local politicians, often councillors, that have no interest in installing safe cycle infrastructure in their boroughs, where they have almost complete control of street layout since, by law, the local council is the local highway authority. This morning at the London Assembly we heard of Newnham Council's depressingly successful opposition in 2010 of TfL's, and Boris Johnson's, plan to extend Cycle Superhighway 2 - literally just 'blue paint' - into their borough. We also got to see, and hear, one of these anti-cycling councillors 'in action' at the council table: Mr Richard Tracey.

An example - on Whitechapel Road - of the horribly obstructive blue paint of the CS2 that Newnham Council so righteously opposed. I wonder how the traffic can flow at all on this street with that barely visible blue box getting in everyone's way.
Future Cycle Superhighway construction needs to be a hundred times more ambitious.

If you think that Richard Tracey needs to bring his views up-to-date with the 21st century - and lets not forget this a man who was in Thatcher's Tory Cabinet of the 80s, a government which designed most of the 'killer-junctions' which TfL are now improving - drop him an email at Richard.Tracey@London.gov.uk and do please let him know just how regressive and unhelpful his views are.

If you are a resident of Wandsworth or Merton you could also contact Richard Tracey as a constituent of his through www.writetothem.com

After all, we live in a democracy and cyclists using online communication channels recently managed to get Richard Nye to publicly apologise for saying "the only good cyclist is a dead one". Richard Tracey's road management policies aren't much better than Richard Nye's anti-cyclist editorials, and unlike Mr Nye, Mr Tracey has far more power to do cyclists actual harm through these policies.

So I think it's worth all of us dropping Mr Tracey a line at Richard.Tracey@London.gov.uk and letting him know that his idiotic contributions to today's debate simply weren't good enough.

(I didn't see the start of the debate so if I missed any more puerile questions from Richard Tracey do please add them in the comments section. Politicians like Richard Tracey, and Conservative MP Mark Field, need to be brought to public account with the cycling community, so we can all stop simply 'blaming-Boris'.)

Those interested can also watch a recording of the entire meeting here: http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/webcast/transportcommittee110912.asx (Richard Tracey begins his idiocy at about 1hr 40minutes) or read a transcript of the meeting here: http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/b6950/Minutes%20-%20Appendix%202%20-%20Transcript%20Cycli.pdf?T=9

-------

Other posts on Richard Tracey being a buffoon: 

- A Personal Note to Conservative London Assembly Member Richard Tracey by Cyclists in the City - Nov 2011
- The chutzpah of Richard Tracey by As Easy As Riding A Bike - Jun 2011

Mayor of London's Roads Task Force Consultation

Just a short post to emphasise how important it is that all London cyclists fill in the following consultation before it closes THIS Friday 14th September:

The kind of segregated cycle infrastructure we could start seeing all over London

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/taskforce

As the Mayor of Paris said, "The car has no long-term future in our cities". We need to make sure this message gets delivered to TfL and radically increased provision for cyclists is prioritised over the next few years, and in the long term.

We want far more dedicated cycle paths, increasing both pedestrian and cyclist safety. If there do have to be some roads (for freight travel etc.) they should be increasingly built underground and have their capacity limited to what is strictly necessary only (e.g. not a commuter who could travel by bike or public transport).

If we want more of this (cyclists completely separated from dangerous HGVs and lorries at Southwark Bridge) we need to let the Mayor and TfL know.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/taskforce

Open Submission to West End Commision

The West End Commission are currently asking for submissions on how the West End should develop over the coming years, with a substantial focus on transport issues. Anyone interested in cycling in London should get in touch with them here and have their views heard:

http://www.westendcommission.com/Home_Page.html

I've coped my submission below here in case anyone (is lazy) and fancies simply copying and pasting something similar to what I've written. A lot of this is ripped of the wikipedia page on Utility Cycling anyway...

Inviting for a cyclist? Not really... On the plus side at least all these taxis and vans are making the West End far more dangerous, polluted, congested, and noisy, than any cyclists would.

Dear Sir or Madam,

My evidence is relatively brief so I have contained it within this email as well as copying it into a word-document that is attached. As a London resident and frequent West End visitor, I would like to express in the strongest terms how much I believe the West End could improve its current cycle provision. 

I will first list the benefits that increased cycling rates in the West End would bring. I will then list a number of ways to bring about this increase.

Potential benefits of significantly higher cycling rates:

- Less congestion on the West End's narrow roads and at busy tube stations during peak times. 1 car takes up about as much space as 4 cyclists on London's roads. Moreover the vast majority of cars in the West End contain only one person, the driver. Therefore, creating significantly higher cycling rates will inevitably lead to an easing of congestions on the West End's streets, and also less of a pressure on already creaking tube services.

- More direct, reliable, and quick transport. Cycling is a very fast way of getting from place to place across Central London. Unless you get a puncture it is also far more reliable than either tube or bus services. Moreover, you don't have to worry about traffic jams so it is also more reliable than taking a taxi. So the West End will also benefit from more reliable transport times by encouraging cycling.

- Less air pollution. This point should need no expansion.

- Fewer deaths in Central London. Though cyclists do pose some level of hazard to other cyclists and pedestrians, they overall pose far far far fewer dangers to either groups than cars do. So for every motorist that you replace with a cyclist you make Central London a safer place to walk and cycle around. This can only help to encourage tourism and spending in the West End and make it a more pleasant (and safer!) place to live, work, and visit.

- Better health of West End residents, workers, and visitors, because they are getting more regular exercise.

- Increased tourism due to attraction of visiting a borough with high cycling rates. Copenhagen and Amsterdam both benefit massively from tourism generated by cycling culture.

- Reduced noise pollution from traffic.

- Increased amounts of local spending since cyclists spend far more at local shops on their route than motorists do.

How to increase cycling rates:

- Infrastructure is the most important factor. This requires political will and financial investment. It includes:

* Safe, protected, cycle paths (in line with international best-practice in countries like Holland and Denmark) on major roads like Shaftesbury Avenue and Oxford Street. I would strongly advise working with TfL to introduce a central London Barclays Cycle SuperHighway as this will give the West End both free publicity and financial aid with building a cycle network through the West End.

* Large, safe cycle parking spots created in key locations near tube stations, big theatres, big squares etc. Cycle Parking provision is currently awful in the West End

* Intensification of the Boris Bike scheme (i.e. increasing existing docks, building more docks to create more bikes and more spaces)

* Creating contra-flow routes through areas like Soho to allow cyclists to take direct routes through the West End without having to follow a circuitous one-way system designed for motorists. This involves taking away one side of on-street parking to allow for a cycle lane to be put in place. The City of London have already done this to many roads in the City to great effect.

This will all take both strong political will and reasonable financial assistance. But the potential benefits for the area are enormous.

Many thanks for your time,

George Johnston

Open Letter to Richard Nye, Editor of The Richmond Magazine, author of "the only good cyclist is a dead one"

[do contact Mr Nye yourself at editorial@sheengate.co.uk]

Dear Richard Nye (current editor of The Richmond Magazine),

I was disgusted by your comment:

"the only good cyclist is a dead one"

in the latest copy of the Richmond Magazine. 

Are you aware of the fact that there have been 11 cyclists killed in London already this year, 74 cyclists killed in Britain as a whole already this year, and that a 79-year-old man (clearly not a 'lycra lout') died yesterday in a collision with a skip lorry in Walton? 

Your comment was morally despicable, and mocks the serious safety risks posed to cyclists (by drivers like yourself) on Britain's roads in 2012.

I very much look forward to seeing a detailed, formal, sincere, and public apology - and hopefully resignation - from you in the next few days. 

I will continue to publicly and formally seek an apology from you until I hear of one.

George Johnston

P.S. Instead of fuming at cyclists while you drive around London, the next time you are stuck at the lights why not imagine that all the cyclists in the advanced stop box in front of you (and in Central London at rush hour there are quite a few these days) were in a car of their own instead. How much worse would congestion on London's streets then be? You should be grateful for every cyclist you see in London because, by choosing a bike instead of a car, he or she has actually eased congestion on London's streets making it easier for you to get around in your car. Cyclists only interact obstructively with motorists when the Government has failed to build proper cycle infrastructure (cycle lanes, etc.) which the cyclist is allowed to use instead and allows cyclists and motorists to safely travel at vastly different speeds down busy roads because they are safely segregated. And please don't talk about road tax because that doesn't exist. Car users pay a small car tax but given that over half of all Boris Bike registered users earn over £50,000 a year I think they are more than making up for the extremely minimal damage caused by bicycles to London's road system through the 40% income tax they are paying.

P.P.S You should be sacked.

Footnote

Here's a photo of Richard Nye looking like a crap journalist that doesn't deserve to be employed, let alone made Editor.