Please attend London's Protest Flashride this Friday at 6pm, Tower Hill; we need Londoners there to make change happen.

In the wake of two cycling fatalities in recent weeks - one in Lewishman, the other on Cycle "Superhighway" 2 in Aldgate - Londoners are calling on Boris Johnson, TfL, and local councils to actual cycle-only lanes along busy arterial routes to bring London's road design up to the international standard being set by New York, Paris, Tokyo, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Zurich, and Berlin.

This is not in any way 'cycle infrastructure'. This is just blue paint.
This is not a Cycle "SuperHighway". This is a pile of shit, built at incredible expense to the taxpayer (£2-£4million per mile)

There is plenty of space on London's main roads to create dedicated space for cycling. But Boris Johnson and local politicians have so far completely refused to create actual safe cycle infrastructure,  resorting instead to just putting some blue paint on the road.

This is what cycle lanes look like in Germany (picture is from Heidelberg). If the Germans can do it, why can't we?

In 2009, on the launch of the Cycle "SuperHighways" programme, Boris Johnson said:

“I'm not kidding when I say that I'm militant about cycling, and these Superhighways are central to the cycling revolution I'm determined to bring about. No longer will pedal power have to dance and dodge around petrol power - on these routes the bicycle will dominate and that will be clear to all others using them."

Unfortunately, Johnson clearly was kidding.

If you feel that cycling in London is dangerous, please come to Tower Hill at 6pm on Friday 12th July 2013 and make it clear to Boris Johnson and TfL that we need actions (not consultations) to stop the continual killing and maiming of Londoners travelling on a bike by drivers of motorised traffic.

Blackfriars Bridge flashride in 2011.

Flashride details

• Meet 6pm for 6.15pm start at Tower Hill (where it meets Minories) http://goo.gl/maps/8Czme
• The protest ride will last approximately 20-30 minutes, including a brief stop at the junction of A11 Whitechapel Road and A1202 Commercial Street to pay respects at the place where last week's victim died
• The ride will be marshalled by LCC staff and volunteers, and will finish at Altab Ali Park around 6.30pm
• #Space4cycling

There is also a vigil at City Hall from 5.30 pm in memory of recent lorry deaths, including the pedestrian killed by a lorry driver in Fulham on Monday.

Friday's Flashride is also supported by the Evening Standard

I will be attending the vigil at City Hall at 5.30pm, and then the protest ride at Tower Hill 6pm.

Will you be there too?

-----------

BBC News reporting on the first person on a Boris Bike to be killed by motorised traffic in London (and the third person to be killed by Cycle "SuperHighway" 2):

Cycling is now the dominant mode of travel on Central London's roads, yet still idiotically ignored by Westminster Council in new Bayswater plans.

The Evening Standard published an article a few days ago with some rather stunning figures about bike travel in London:

• On Theobald's Road 64% of vehicles in the morning peak are bikes.
• On Kennington Park Road 57% of vehicles in the morning peak are bikes.
• On Old Street 49% of vehicles in morning peak are bikes.
• In Central London 24% of all traffic are bikes during the morning peak; 16% acros the whole day.
• On Blackfriars, Waterloo and London bridges cyclists make up 42% of traffic and 15% of people, though they take up only 12% of road space
• By contrast: taxis on Oxford Street take up 37% of road space but only carry 1% of passengers!

As Andrew Gilligan says "These extraordinary figures disprove any claim that cycling is marginal and that investing in it is indulgent." I believe it's importnat to make that clear, especially to members of the general public that may not cycle themselves. In fact, I think Gilligan's approach of securing approval for his £1 billion cycle plan by stressing the benefits to those that don't cycle is extremely intelligent.

Cycling is important. Those that choose to travel by bike not only help the environment and reduce road congestion, they also work all manner of jobs and contribute significantly to London's (and Britain's) GDP.

This idea that only those that drive actually have jobs, and so to promote economic growth we need to build more roads, is absolutely crap, as Evening Standard's latest figures show.

These guys are clearly adding nothing to London's economy.... Photo from Standard article.

If we want London to grow economically we need to make its workforce safer. Therefore, since 24% of all vehicles during the morning peak are bikes, we logically need to make those that choose to cycle safer.

And yet cycling is still being designed out of London's roads by awful new schemes such as Westminster Council's proposals for the Bayswater area.

These plans are, frankly, atrocious. Cycle parking is being removed since it is 'clutter' (yes, 'clutter'!). Car parking spaces will be increased leading to more congestion, more fumes, more noise, more road traffic accidents, and more road traffic deaths.

Photo from PDF of Westminster's proposed 'improvements'.

You can see in the photo of the proposed 'improvements' for Queensway North a couple of things:

• No cycle lanes of any kind. This is simply idiotic. Plenty of space for segregated lanes in each direction on this Queensway.
• Cyclists positioned in a 'death zone' between opening car doors from stationary vehicles and oncoming taxis and private cars that are driving dangerously close to them. The Highway Code, by contrast, states motorists should "give cyclists at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car".

Notice a difference between this photo (courtesy of The Highway Code) and the last one?

Moreover, these plans are also bad economics. Westminster Council note that "Queensway is a busy shopping street at the heart of Bayswater." They want to improve its qualities as "a shopping and leisure destination". Yet, in their efforts to achieve this Westminster Council are pretending they're in the 1970s, lagging embarrassingly far behind New York City's Department for Transport that has long recognised the economic benefits that increased cycle traffic brings:

Photo courtesy NYC Department of Transportation. The figures speak for themselves.

Westminster Council may not be much bothered about achieving a 58% decrease in injuries to all street users. Perhaps they aren't... That's very sad if it's the case....

But, if they want to be "encouraging people to stay and use the streets shops and eateries" in Bayswater they might just take note of the 49% increase in retail sales. (Yes, 49%!)

What is shocking about these plans is not just that they demonstrate little or no concern for preventing traffic accidents and deaths, but they are also bad, bad economics.

Westminster Council have also tried to contextualise their improvements within the surrounding area, but again they are dangerously off-track.

Map from consultation document showing Bayswater and surrounding areas.

There are a few crucial bits of information left off this map:

• Portobello Market is a 5 minute cycle away.
• Later in 2013 the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme will be expanding to encompass the entirety of Portobello Market (it already covers Westbourne Grove and Paddington Station).
• Hyde Park, and particularly 'Broad Walk', a long, wide path located next to Queensway, accounts for a huge proportion of the total Boris Bike trips made every year, as this video shows:

Therefore, there might be a significant commercial advantage to be gained if a safe cycle network were created linking Portobello, Westbourne Grove, Paddington, Hyde Park, and of course, Bayswater.

But are Westminster at all interested in this? No. 

Are they even aware of the potentially enormous economic benefits to be had if tourists on Boris Bikes could be lured out of Hyde Park to spend money in Bayswater? No.

Are Westminster Council even considering that most token of gestures to make pedestrians and cyclists safer, something that the City of London recently wrote had "little or no disbenefit", a 20mph speed limit? No, no chance (at present...). 

Do they want their pedestrians and cyclists to be safer? Not if it slows down motor traffic...

We are left with: more car parking; more motor cars; more road traffic accidents and deaths.

That's all we're getting in Bayswater, despite the fact 24% of morning peak vehicles are now bicycles. Appalling.

But something can be done - if you take a similar view to these plans then please:

A) Fill in the consultation online: http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/environment/planning/majorprojects/queensway/

The feedback form includes a specific section "cycle parking and provision", so it's well worth filling in. Perhaps these plans can be improved on. I certainly hope so.

B) Write an email suggesting that cycle lanes and a 20mph zone (among other improvements for cyclists such as more cycle parking) could be very profitably integrated into the Bayswater plans to:

Councillor Edward Argar

Cabinet Member for City Management, Transport and the Environment

Westminster City Council

eargar@westminster.gov.uk

Since Councillor Argar is also Cabinet Member for 'the Environment' there should be an added incentive for him to embrace cycle and pedestrian safety by promoting cycling as an environmentally friendly form of travel...

Plenty of space on Queensway for proper segregated cycle lanes like this example from Montreal, Canada. Trouble is, Westminster won't build them... Image courtesy of StreetsBlog.org

'Conservation Area'? With all those oversized parked cars choking up the entire street? Pull the other one...

Ian Jones of Fulham recently wrote an extremely excellent brief letter about the ridiculous opposition to new Boris Bike docking stations in Fulham from local residents who claimed that a docking station located next to the entrance of Hurlingham Park is somehow a bad idea because it would 'clutter' the road more than their SUVs and town-tractors already do...

In fact, some of these residents admit to using the Cycle Hire Scheme themselves, proving this is NIMBYism at its very worst.

These residents are up there with the group of businesses that took Westminster Council to court in 2010 because they erroneously thought having cycle hire bikes nearby would damage their business. In fact, the opposite happened: footfall, and profits, picked up; and Westminster Council won damages.

Anyway, I'll let Ian Jones' letter speak for itself:

Ian: we've never had the pleasure of meeting, but I really couldn't have put it better myself.

Also of interest is this article on local opposition in Wandsworth from I love Boris Bikes.

Long Term changes in public opinion towards motor traffic in London, and the death of Dr Katherine Giles due to collision with a lorry while cycling in Victoria

The tragic death of a brilliant young scientist in Central London a few days ago, killed by a lorry driving into her as she cycled through Victoria, reminded me how important it is that cycle infrastructure in our capital changes for the better (and how appallingly dangerous Victoria is to cycle around). The fact that this death warranted in-depth coverage from the BBC, ITV, The Times, and Sky News, as well as an immediate political response from Boris Johnson (viewable in this ITV video), also had me thinking slightly positively about the future of cycling in London.

I read Ian McEwan's novel Saturday (2005) recently and was struck by how unconsciously car-centric it was. If you haven't read the novel, it's basically a day in the life of a neurosurgeon whose lives a financially confortable life in Central London. On the day in question this main character, whom we are repeatedly led to admire by McEwan, chooses to drive to his local sports club in a large Mercedes in order to play a game of squash. His squash partner, an anaesthetist, drives too.

This is despite that the day in question is 15 February 2003, the day 2 million people entered London to protest against the Iraq War, blocking many major roads. This is despite the fact that the neurosurgeon in question runs the London marathon every year and is highly concerned with keeping his fitness up. This is despite the fact that his squash partner, an anaesthetist colleague, goes to the gym every day. This is despite the fact that both men live in Central London, where their squash club is also located, meaning they could easily walk, jog, cycle, take the tube, or even a bus.

Yet despite all of these 'push' factors our admirable neurosurgeon rejects any form of remotely active travel and chooses to navigate the various road blocks around London instead, returning after a gruelling squash game to park his car right outside his house in order to avoid any walk to his front door.

Later in the novel McEwan describes in an overwhelmingly positive way what would I would imagine to be in fact an extremely tedious drive through traffic from Warren Street out along the Westway to Perivale. He notes the joy his 'man-of-our-times' protagonist feels at moving around London in his car with the noxious fumes (to which the neurosurgeon is himself significantly contributing) locked safely outside.

Finally towards the end of the novel McEwan's protagonist contemplates both the extremely high volume traffic of the Euston Road and the incessant buzz of planes flying over London into Heathrow as if both were completely unalterable facts of our urban existence, and more strikingly, things to be savoured and enjoyed by a 'Good Londoner'.

The Euston Road. Not something to be savoured or admired. Something to be changed.

Obviously this all says a lot about McEwan, but I would argue it also says a lot about public opinion in 2005, and in the previous decades. In 2013 I would be surprised to find an equally successful novel that employs a similarly car-centric protagonist.

Because, in fact, both the Euston Road and Heathrow are negative aspects of our urban lives, and both are alterable. The revolutionary new designs for Parliament Square and Blackfriars by the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) show that change is possible all over our city. The current storm over potentially expanding capacity Heathrow also demonstrates that urban dwellers are becoming less and less accepting of the harmful effects of local airports. 

Moreover, the implementation of large scale infrastructure projects such as The Tube upgrade, Crossrail, London Cycle Hire, and Boris Johnson + Andrew Gilligan's Vision for Cycling in London (all implemented after 2005), show that politicians are now willing to invest huge amounts of money and political credibility into financing incredibly ambitious non-motorised methods of transport  at least in urban areas.

Crossrail is costing the government billions of pounds and will increase London's entire  non-motor transport capacity by 10%.

City-changing improvements in cycle infrastructure cannot happen without large scale public support behind them, and the ideologies that they embody. This public support didn't exist in the second half of the twentieth century which is one reason we have so many horrible gyratories in London. However, there are hopeful signs that car-centric thinking is becoming less popular and we will have the political power to implement big changes in London in the early twenty-first century.

After all, all these gyratories were all installed in the last 50 years, so they can surely be taken out again in the next 50 years?

It's important for all of us to realise, unlike McEwan's protagonist from 2005, that urban motorways like the Euston Road are not enjoyable, nor immutable facts of London-life. Neither is having the luxury of on-street parking right outside your house (unless, of course, you are mobility impaired). In fact, luxuries such as this can easily accumulate and kill you through obesity.

The parking restrictions in large amounts of Central London next Wednesday for Margaret Thatcher's funeral (organised with barely a week's notice) will be implemented with no trouble at all. So why do we accept the lie that such high levels of inner-city car parking are 'necessary' the rest of the time?

Similarly, many major roads will be closed for much of the day for Thatcher's ceremonial funeral next Wednesday. Will business grind to a halt? Will money as we know it cease to exist? No. London will be fine. If you closed the inner-city tube lines on a weekday... then you'd have problems.

Thatcher's funeral will see all motor traffic removed from a large swathe of Central London on a weekday with barely a week's notice. Any problems? No. So why do we 'need' this motor traffic capacity the rest of the time?

We should remember that, like on-street car parking, the high level of motor traffic in Central London that we have at present isn't a 'necessity' either.

Ironically, the passing of Thatcher marks the point where we are going to see a similar decline in her incredibly flawed policy of promoting motor-traffic at the expense of all other forms of transport in our cities.

Thanks in part to pressure from cycling bloggers, as the BBC's Tom Edwards has highlighted, change is coming (an overwhelming show of hands at a recent London Cycling Campaign Policy Forum reflects the newly positive outlook of cycle campaigners).

Warren Street, a street which Ian McEwan's protagonist drives down in Saturday (2005) is now closed for traffic 'Except Cycles'. If McEwan wrote the same novel today his lead character would probably cycle or take the tube instead of driving in order to travel around London. Photo courtesy of Cyclists in the City.

Saturday proves it. Camden proves it. Hackney (where more people now cycle than drive to work!) proves it.

Disgustingly cycle-toxic politicians like Kate Hoey, Richard Tracey, and Mark Field need to watch out or they may not be in office come 2015...

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

Dr Rachel Aldred, Chair of the LCC's Policy Forum, discusses the same phenomenon in a very interesting post on her blog, as do both City A.M.'s Alexander Jan and The Guardian's Oliver Burkeman in recent articles.

There is also a fantastic recording of Andrew Gilligan's talk and Q&A at the first London Cycling Campaign Policy Forum (8/4/2013) which you can listen to or download (right click on the link and then click 'Save Link As...') here.

Finally, here is a link to Boris Johnson speaking extremely intelligently and cogently about his new cycling policies on The Daily Mail (no less!)... who'd have thought it...

Delivery of 4 new TfL Cycle SuperHighways accelerated to 2013

EDIT (18/1/13) - As is probably abundantly clear now, TfL have quickly scrapped their previous plans (which I outlined below) to open 4 new Cycle Superhighways in 2013. This is obviously disappointing.

However, the plans drawn up for the CS2 extension show that TfL might now be significantly shifting their policy to supporting full segregated cycle lanes instead of the current rubbish 'blue-paint-only' that characterises much of the first 4 Cycle Superhighways.

If this is the case, it is possible that the other 4 Cycle Superhighways that were meant to open this year have been delayed so they can made into fully segregated lanes which - understandably - will require substantially more planning, application, and build time.

Fingers crossed eh? The BBC clearly thinks that cycle blogging has led to real, concrete improvements for cyclists.

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

A while ago I was trawling the internet for information on the Boris Bike Scheme expansion which I could then put on wikipedia (because I'm young and cool like that) and I found this article from the London Cyclist: http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/no-new-superhighways-in-2012-or-2013-but-the-cycle-hire-scheme-continues-to-expand/

As the URL makes clear, the Mayor said back in Dec 2011 there would be no new Superhighways in 2013. But that's strange because if one now checks the TfL website for Cycle Superhighways (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/15832.aspx) the delivery dates have been brought forward and we are now promised 4 new Superhighways in 2013 and another 4 by 2015.

Evidence from TfL website (3/9/2012)!

The most likely explanation for what has happened is that the increased number of cyclists on London's roads, and perhaps the efforts of cycle campaigners, has led to the Mayor and TfL deciding to accelerated their delivery schedule (we do, after all, live in a democracy). The reason the decision has not been widely publicised is probably because the excuse given back in December 2011 for no new SuperHighways in 2013 was 'a restricted delivery window caused by the 2012 Olympic Games'. Suddenly going back on this would make it seem like there was no good reason for not implementing the SuperHighways in 2013 in the first place...

What does this development mean for cycling in London?

Well, firstly its a big positive for everyone that likes cycling in London. TfL clearly listens to us, at some level, and does (sometimes) alter its policy accordingly. Pats on the back all-round.

My second point is much more important. If TfL has accelerated 4 of its SuperHighways to a 2013 delivery date then it can accelerate the other 4. There is no need for us to wait until 2015 for them. Massive flyovers take 3 years to build. Painting a bit of tarmac blue (which is all that much of the current Cycle Superhighways consist of) takes about a week. I firmly believe that if enough pressure was exerted we could see those last 4 SuperHighways implemented well before 2015, especially since the 2013 Superhighways will only further boost cyclist numbers, and therefore public pressure on politicians to do more for cycle infrastructure.

Map showing future Cycle Superhighways (and junctions proposed for improvements). Available on TfL website; click here to view full-size. As can be seen, the routes proposed for 2015 are clearly NOT going take 3 years to build.

Moreover, as many cyclists online have made clear, the standards to which the last 4 Cycle Superhighways were made is simply not good enough compared to international best-practice.

Given that the Mayor pledged the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) to build new cycle routes in-line with international best-practice as part of his 2012 election manifesto, I also believe that with further pressure from Londoners we could see these new Cycle Superhighways being built to significantly higher standards than the first 4 were.

Wider. Better protected. Better signposted. I'm getting excited just thinking about them...

Boris Johnson also mentioned in his election manifesto a vague commitment to build an East-West Cycle Superhighway. It isn't on TfL's map above. We need to put it on the map (literally). This is NOT an infeasible project and if we could use the increasing momentum of utility cycling (no pun intended) to get it built, it could potentially completely revolutionise cycling in Central London. [If London were personified by David Cameron, then building an East-West cycle Superhighway through the centre of town would be the equivalent of branding the words 'I LOVE CYCLING' on Cameron's forehead for life.]

Essentially the voice of the utility cycling community is clearly being heard (at last!) by London's political leaders. But that is only more reason for us to shout both louder and clearer about exactly what improvements we want to see over the next few years, especially since idiotic local councillors have the power to do so much to obstruct TfL's efforts to build cycle Superhighways through their boroughs.

I've written extensively in this blog about the window of opportunity for cycling in London created this year by the Tour de France, followed by the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics, and finally the Tour de Britain to finish off (over a million spectators were recorded in 2011 - how many will it be this year with Wiggins involved?).

This window of opportunity has been widened by the AA's call for more cycle lanes (along with Carol Ann Duffy's), and the strong campaigning by British Cycling - a group which has itself more than doubled membership since 2008 to over 50,000 - for both a justice review for when people are hurt or killed on the road, and international-standard protected cycle infrastructure.

Right now, this window has been widened further still by George Osborne's, and the rest of our Government's, calls for investment in infrastructure to help tackle the recession.

Cycle infrastructure certainly isn't as expensive as the Thames Hub Airport would be (which we should build, by the bye). However, it certainly isn't that cheap either, especially in a city as complex as London. If cycle infrastructure could be made part of the national infrastructure-investment 'picture' that would help secure the kind of money necessary to fund the radical road engineering projects which will inevitably be necessary to create uniformly great cycling infrastructure across London, not just blue paint.

So, if you are reading this, please take a moment to have your voice heard at this critical time by:

1. Writing to your local MPs and Councillors (www.writetothem.com)
2. Writing to your MP through this contact detail too, some of them can be very reticent (http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/)
3. Writing to TfL at londonstreets@tfl.gov.uk
4.. Writing to Cameron, Osbourne and Clegg (http://www.number10.gov.uk/contact-us/, http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/contact, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/contact_index.htm)
5. Encouraging your friends and family to get on their bikes to get around London. The higher the recorded number of cycle journeys around London is the more the Government and TfL will do to make cyclists safer and better accommodated (they want votes; UK is a democracy).

6. Finally, like charity, good cycle infrastructure begins at home. Making as many journeys as you can by bike is another effective way of creating change in our city. Drivers see you cycle, making them more aware of all cyclists. People see you cycle, making them jealous that you can filter traffic and encouraging them to cycle themselves. The government registers you cycling, and does that little bit more to represent cyclists at a national level as numbers increase.

If you usually undertake a long commute sans-bike, why not try it by bike a few times a week when the weather is good? Or if you're tootling around Central London and left your regular bike at home, consider getting a £1 day registration for the Boris Bikes instead of using a tube, bus, or taxi to get somewhere.

(comments welcomed)

More user-friendly map of proposed Cycle SuperHighways. Remember that strong local support in every borough will be essential if the new Cycle SuperHighways are to be built, and built to a high standard of safety. Full-size map available to view here.

Footnote

For those interested in the Boris Bike scheme, the 2013 expansion shows all the signs that it is going ahead although obviously voicing your support locally (and nationally) will help make sure funding does not fall through, which might still be a potential problem. Moreover, if your Borough is not included in the scheme currently, nor in the planned expansion, the 2013 increase clearly demonstrates that TfL and the Boris Johnson are open-minded about further expansion - the Mayor has said publicly he sees it's expansion as an 'ongoing project' - so if you want Boris Bikes near your house write to TfL and let them know (email: BarclaysCycleHire@TfL.gov.uk)!

A further increase in the Boris Bike scheme can also be tied in with the Government's proposed plans for overall investment in transport infrastructure, so now is the perfect time to ask TfL and your local MPs for Boris Bikes to come to your Borough.

Furthermore, for any Hammersmith and Fulham residents, or regular visitors, visit the H&F website here to suggest potential Docking Stations and influence the future shape of the BCH expansion in 2013. The more local support gets heard, the greater the expansion will be. Simples.

Conservative Mark Field MP wilfully ignores cycling as a viable mode of transport

This post is an expansion on my last article examining Boris Johnson's cycling credentials. Here I would like to examine Conservative Mark Field MP (London and Westminster) - mentioned in my previous post - in more depth. Here's a photo of him looking suave but remaining ignorant:

Mark Field MP: "Cyclists are economically detrimental to Central London despite the fact they ease both a congested road and public transport network. I am also comically out of touch with my constituents, the majority of whom don't even have acces to a car. I am unaware of this fact because I'm regressive."

This is a man who represents the Parliamentary Constituency of the Cities of London & Westminster. This borough is in many ways the heart of London, an area through which cyclists from any part of London are likely to travel at some point during a normal week. These cyclists might use their own bikes, or they could very cheaply use one of the (estimated) 3,500 'Boris Bikes' in Mark Field's borough. Moreover, if Mr Johnson is serious about his speculative plans to build an East-West Cycle Superhighway - which, by the way, is an absolutely fantastic idea which would really raise the profile/accessibility/safety/numbers of cycling in London - then it will almost certainly have to run through Mr Field's Parliamentary Constituency for a significant section. In short, this man matters for cycling in London.

This is also a man who clearly cares about transport. If you look on is website you can find many articles on 'The Great Aviation Debate' that he's been writing about for the last 5 years at least. This man clearly understands the importance of giving Londoners - and those working in our city - safer, more direct, and more practical ways of getting from A to B; and, though it is irrelevant to this article, I, like Mr Johnson, fully support Mr Field on his advocacy of a Thames Hub airport.

However, unlike myself, or Mr Johnson, Mr Field does not seem to give two tenths of a crap about cycling as a form of transportation. If you search either 'cycle' or 'cycling' on his website, both words come up with zero articles whatsoever on the subject of cycling in London. This man is so oblivious to any benefits which increased cycling rates could bring to our capital that he can't even be bothered to mention cycling in any way whatsoever, let alone financially, politically, or even just publicly support anything which might improve the lot of London's cyclists. Mark Field even blocked some of TfL's planned Boris Bike racks in 2009 because of "the problems they might pose to traffic flow". There's nothing TfL can do to make cycling safer and more popular if there are complete idiots like Mark Field MP actively working against them.

Here is an extract from his revealing reply to a resident on being asked to support The Times completely reasonable Cities fit for cycling campaign:

...As you are already aware, the Times are running a campaign to see road safety improved for cyclists. I have read through the campaign asks in detail but have some concerns about their practical workings and their economic implications. I appreciate that in many respects one cannot put a price on accident prevention if lives are saved. However it is the job of government to balance the sometimes competing needs of all road users and to find a workable medium between safety, enforceability and what is desired by the public. Without a better understanding of the implications, therefore, I am afraid I am reluctant to give the aims of the campaign my wholehearted support.

What kind of politician cannot even promise support to a campaign to safe cyclists lives?

Which of the many positive economic implications of higher cycling rates is Mark so worried about?

Why on earth has Mr Field MP chosen to occupy this anti-cyclists position?

Space for a cycle lane on the Mall? YES. But I've got a better idea, lets reserve it for cars and taxis that only contain a driver. That is a far more efficient use of limited space available in London's congested road system! Plus it makes the whole area quieter and less polluted, and makes all the pedestrians in the area safer because cars only kill 500+ pedestrians in London each year! Mark Field MP also actively opposed putting in an off-road Boris Bike rack here.

Mr Field's behaviour seems downright idiotic. Boris Johnson is Mark Field's Conservative colleague and you would think that Mr Field would want to support Mr Johnson, even if all Mr Field chose to do was pay token lip-service to the idea of improving cycling in London without ever actually doing anything. But instead Mr Field explicitly withholds his support from The Times cycle campaign, actively blocks TfL's attempts to expand the Boris Bike scheme in his borough, and can't even be bothered to mention the issue of cycling ever on his website.

Moreover, being anti-cycling isn't even a viable 'Conservative' position in 2012.* There's can be no idea of Mr Field 'towing the (male) (white) party line' and 'ignoring all the (poor) (female) (immigrant) (European) cyclists' since a Transport for London (TfL) customer satisfaction survey from September 2011 revealed more than three-quarters of the Barclays Cycle Hire (BCH) scheme’s users are men and half earn upwards of £50,000 per year, while 88% are white. 

Mr Field is deliberately, and idiotically, ignoring all the rich white men in his constituency that would clearly appreciate some leadership from him on the issue of improving cycling infrastructure in the heart of London.

Furthermore, next door to Mr Field, the City of London as a borough is not only home to the UK's financial centre, but also to some of London's best cycling rates and conditions (in terms of cycle lanes, cycle parking, Boris Bike provision, etc.**). The rich businessmen that work in our big banks clearly love cycling. 

Mr Field is rightly trying to help these businessmen by supporting the massive aviation capacity increase that 'Boris Island' (a Thames Estuary Airport) would deliver, allowing better connections with crucially important emerging economies like Brazil. Yet that same Mr Field is also completely uninterested in doing anything to improve these same businessmen's (and, indeed, the rest of the population's) intra-London transport options with regard to cycling. It doesn't make sense. It literally makes no sense at all.

The kind of cycle lane that Mark Field MP and Westminster Council support in order to reduce cycling fatalities in Central London. Notice how this one is conveniently located directly inside the 'car-door-opening-space' for parked cars, putting both car doors and cyclists in danger. As can be seen, the road-surfacing standards are also exemplary [I'm being sarcastic] and mean cyclists no longer have to swerve into the middle of the street - and traffic behind them - in order to avoid potholes and other hazards.

If you put 'Boris Johnson cycling' into google you get thousands of results, including many pictures of the Mayor cycling himself. Yes, Boris may not be perfect. But he is at least a high profile Conservative politician who is repeatedly putting cycling on the agenda, putting himself on a bike on London's streets, and has undertaken a TfL review of 500 dangerous junctions. Moreover, if TfL keep to their deadlines, Boris Johnson will have delivered both a significant expansion of the Boris Bike scheme and 4 more Cycle Superhighways by 2013 (as he promised in his election manifesto).

By contrast, if you put 'Mark Field cycling' into google you get nothing of relevance. If you put 'Mark Field MP cycling' into google the only cycling related result is a post from February 2012 by a well-respected London cycling blog criticising Mr Field, among others, for being completely useless, in fact harmful, with regards to improving cycling in the Capital.

It is time that Mr Field MP, and the Westminster Council***, started listening to these criticisms by the proponents of utility cycling in London and sharpening up their act. Cycling does not have to be the political preserve of Labour, the Lib Dems, and the Greens, especially when one considers the astonishing dominance on our roads of white, male cyclists, and white, male, upper-middle-class BCH users.

More importantly, without the support of Conservative London MPs like Mr Field, and the Tory councillors who effectively run Central London constituencies like Westminster, there is much less that Mr Johnson - as a Conservative himself - can achieve in this area of London.

Indeed, I can't help feeling that the fact Mark Field is a fellow Conservative prevents Boris Johnson calling him out, as he would a Labour politician, on Mark Field's active opposition to cycling in the capital. 

So we can do it instead. 

If you cycle in London and think, like the author of this article, that Westminster could drastically improve its cycling infrastructure then why don't you drop Mr Field a quick email at FieldM@Parliament.uk? (If you're keener and fancy writing a letter then click here for full contact details. Moreover, if you are one of his constituents you can also contact Mr Field using: www.writetothem.com)

In response, I'd love to see or hear some kind of reply from Mr Mark Field MP detailing exactly why I am wrong in this article, and exactly what Mr Mark Field MP is going to be doing to improve the lot of London's cyclists between now and 2013 as part of London 2012's Olympic Legacy. That would be fantastic, Mr Field.

With a cycle friendly Conservative mayor, a highly successful £140 million cycle hire scheme which is the 2nd largest in Europe, a significant number of large parks that could - if managed correctly - provide direct, pleasant, traffic-free cycle routes, and an already strong population of cyclists regularly commuting to the heart of the City, Central London should be leading the way for the rest of Greater London (and the UK) with regards to improving cycling infrastructure. 

Instead, Conservative politicians like Mark Field MP are deliberately obstructing measures that will make cycling in London safer and more popular.

(comments welcomed. I'm not trying to pursue a party-political line in this blog - it's simply pro-cycling - but I can't help noticing that non-Conservative London MPs generally seem far more supportive of cycling in their constituencies; with notable exception, of course, for the cycle-toxic Labour disgrace that is Kate Hoey.)

Footnote

If you have Twitter then you can also tweet @MarkFieldMP, letting him know that completely ignoring cyclists in London's most central borough is NOT okay. Searching @MarkFieldMP on Twitter is also a great way of meeting other Twitter users who also want cycle provision in Westminster drastically improved!

* In my last post I wrote at length on the geopolitical and societal differences between the UK in the 80s and London in 2012 which no longer make a completely non-cycling transport policy tenable, even by Thatcherites.

** For those interested in these things check out the boundary-breaking (for London at least!) east-bound cycle lane on Beech Street which even has a chevroned area of road giving bike riders real protection by separating the traffic lane from the cycle lane (this google map image shows the road as the unnecessary two-lanes it was before). Also look at the cycle boxes in the City of London which are regularly packed to the rafters at rush hour.

*** It is a mark of how little Westminster Council care about cycling in London that cycle parking provision has actually decreased during the re-design of Leicester Square that that this cycling page of their website is now two years out of date: http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/transportandstreets/cycling/london-cycle-hire-scheme/

EDIT: this article is now the first search result when you put 'Mark Field MP cycling' into google.

In Defence of Boris Johnson's cycling credentials

EDIT (25/3/13) - 6 months on from writing this blogpost I feel my qualified support for Boris Johnson has been vindicated. 

Change is coming!

In early March 2013 the Mayor, along with his new cycling commissioner Andrew Gilligan, announced a whole host of innovative measures to improve cycle safety in the capital, primarily through segregation, segregation, and segregation.

A superb analysis of the Boris Johnson's 'Vision for Cycling in London' by Cyclists in the City can be found here.

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

The more I inquire into local cycling infrastructure projects in my area the more I have come across local officials telling me, "well, the Mayor supports this, but we don't want to go through with it so it hasn't happened".

Amateur photo from today (2/9/2012). How many of London's other politicians are regularly seen cycling?

Among other projects, I have been told there is strong support from Mr Johnson for putting segregated lanes on major carriageways in Kensington and Chelsea, and for permitting cyclists to cycle in Hyde Park between Lancaster Gate and Queensway (allowing a 'full circuit' route to be created for cyclists travelling around Hyde Park so they don't need to use Bayswater Road). The proposed cycle lanes have been blocked by local authorities worried about restricting road space on what are already 4-6 lane roads while the cycle route through Hyde Park has been blocked by Royal Parks officials worried about the hazards new cyclists might pose to pedestrians. These people seem frustratingly oblivious to the far greater hazard posed to cyclists now as they are routinely forced to share lanes with motorists overtaking them at over 60km/hr down Bayswater Road and other London carriageways that lack even the most rudimentary cycling infastructure.

If Boris is being given a pro-cycling spin even by his antagonists in local government then he must to some extent be fighting the good fight on behalf of London's ever growing number of cyclists. Indeed, it is very easy to overestimate the amount of power that Mr Johnson actually has as mayor; the London mayoralty has only existed since 2000 and is much weaker constitutionally than its equivalents in America, which has a far more federalised government, granting significantly more power than we do to authorities sitting between the local and national. Even TfL only run 5% of London's roads. Essentially, if the local authorities don't want their local Cycle Superhighway to be segregated then it won't be segregated. End of.

So this post is a plea, of sorts, for London's cycling community to not give BoJo quite so much ire. Or at least direct that ire somewhere else.

I'm not saying that every decision or comment that Boris has made in relation to cycling in London has been a good one (although I am an umitigated suporter of the Boris Bike scheme and its rapid expansion).*

But all of my inquiries into local cycling infrastructure so far have uniformly given the distinct impression that the real opponents to good cycle infrastructure are the (often Conservative) local councillors and MPs of Central London who see a cyclist doing 25km/hr in a Royal Park as an intolerably dangerous hazard not to be countenanced, but a regard a motorist doing 48km/hr (30mph) down a residential street as a basic human right not be curtailed with speed bumps or poxy 32km/hr (20mph) speed limits.

Space for even an advisory bit of 'blue paint' on Bayswater Road (pictured here)? Local councillor says no. It would hold up the taxis, which are probably empty anyway. Plus local councillor needs sufficient spare space to have a large chevroned area in the the middle of road serving no purpose whatsoever. (these people are idiots).

It is these councillors and MPs (Conservative Richard Tracey AM - London Assembly - I'm looking at you...) who are repeatedly opposing cycle lanes which might restrict the constant flow of Taxis, Minicabs, and Chelsea Tractors (all stupidly large vehicles) through the already narrow streets of Central London.** They don't seem to realise that getting more people on bikes will actually create road space since someone cycling somewhere takes up so much less road space than someone driving somewhere.

It is these councillors and MPs who, despite all their talk of an 'Olympic Legacy', oppose the removal of on-street car parking to make way for safe and direct contra-flow cycle lanes, because losing a fraction of the borough's parking spaces would make it more difficult for their constituents, and themselves, to easily keep 2 or 3 cars in Central London.

It is these councillors and MPs who, quite frankly, couldn't give a solitary shit about creating more cycle racks in locations that integrate with other transport networks and discourage thieves.

It is these councillors and MPs (Conservative Mark Field MP - London and Westminster - I'm looking at you...) who still cling to Thatcherite pro-automobile policies from the 80s that are completely unsuitable for 2012 due to various geopolitical and societal changes over the last 30 years; e.g. global fuel squeeze, highly politically volatile oil-rich Middle East, desire to exit Afghanistan and Iraq, climate change, pollution in cities, road congestion in cities, national recession, growing health problem of obesity, global green movement, significantly improved London public transport system, and the lack of a British-owned volume car maker that lobbies for demand stimulation (although we do now produce very successful Brompton Bikes which improved cycling infrastructure would certainly stimulate demand for).

Therefore, it is these councillors and MPs that the cycling community should (primarily) be having a go at. Not Boris. 

In fact, you can even do it yourself, using www.writetothem.com to contact your local politicians about their cycling infastructure policies in your borough. 

With local elections coming up in 2014, and the popularity of utility cycling set to continue increasing over the next two years, these regressive politicans might even get nervous and start publicly collaborating with TfL's and Boris's repeated efforts to build safe Cycle Superhighways through their boroughs... So email them now and let them know you're not happy with their current policies!

(comments welcomed)

* i.e. the whole 'smoothing traffic flow' idea is deeply flawed; faster traffic logically means more pedestrian and cyclist deaths (but on bright side it seems like the Mayor - hopefully - might have dropped that now).

** I know that Taxis and Minicabs very occasionally operate at capacity take 4-5 people but the vast majority I see on my travels around town either have just the driver, or the driver and one single occupant. It is a ridiculous management of street space to have so many of these barely filled vehicles constantly bowling around our city, especially during a recession when the vast majority of Londoners can barely afford taxis anyway.

--------

EDIT (18/9/2012): Sir Malcolm Rifkind (who I originally targeted in this article as the 'anti-cycling' Conservative MP for Kensington and Chelsea) has today written to me saying that he is actually supportive of proper cycle infrastructure, pointing to this article in the Hammersmith & Fulham Chronicle - published ten days after this post - where he states 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"

Arguably he's thinking clearer than CTC (The National Cycling Charity) when it comes to highlighting the patent and obvious flaws of an approach where cyclists integrate with traffic on busy roads, although the headline of the article in question - 'Let's encourage cyclists who obey laws of the road' - is admittedly rather too Daily Mail for my tastes (and has been parodied here).

In fairness, I believe I unfairly misrepresented Sir Malcolm when I wrote this article, and that he's clearly leaps and bounds ahead of some of his Conservative colleagues, such as the infamous Richard Tracey. 

Still, would be nice to see his signature on The Times's #CycleSafe Early Day Motion (EDM) and British Cycling's Justice Review Early Day Motion (EDM), and as he's my MP I'll keep on pestering him until he signs them; as you should all do with your MPs too.

Why all London cyclists should actively support a rapid and extensive expansion of the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme (Boris Bikes)

I've noticed on London cycling blogs that some regular cyclists can be slightly sniffy about Boris Bike users.

They, in my opinion, are failing to realise that Boris Bike users are the London cyclist's best friend.

As I've already written about in detail, all London cyclists have a very strong vested interest in seeing overall cyclist numbers increase. The only way this will happen is if new people get cycling. These kind of people do not read cycling blogs; they are probably unaware of the relative joys of Copenhagen; and they may not even understand what the phrase 'segregated cycle lane' means.

These 'Boris Bikers' represent a far more diverse cross-section of Londoners than the two regular (athletic, male, geared-up) cyclists pictured at back of the photo. It is this kind of broad range of Londoners that will have to start cycling regularly before we can see figures as high as 10-20% of journeys made by bike in the capital. Moreover, the 'Boris Bikers' pictured here are intelligently unafraid of cycling in the middle of the traffic lane, helping to slow motorists, prevent dangerous overtakes, and make the road safer for everyone, including pedestrians.

However, it is only these people than can give cycling the kind of majority support that will mean we can start seeing more of the kind of infrastructure which Love London Go Dutch are trying to implement, because these improvements to cycling infrastructure will necessarily require not just an allotment of significant amounts of government money on cycling (and away from other areas of transport) but also a very real political cost to those in power in the form of a relative decrease in motorist space/freedoms.

There is, quite simply, a direct correlation between the Mayor's room for manoeuvre with regard to utility cycling, and the amount of Londoners who regularly cycle. The more cyclists on the road, the more London authorities can do to improve cycling. That is the definition of a democracy (unfortunately).

So we know they're important, but how do we get these 'newbies' on their bikes? Well, the Boris Bikes are one extremely effective way. In fact, recent costumer research showed that 49 percent of Barclays Cycle Hire members say that the scheme has prompted them to start cycling London.

Boris Bikes provide a distinct and recognisable visual reminder to everyone in London that utility cycling is a perfectly viable method of transport.  Their users are also often less experienced than other cyclists meaning that newcomers feel less nervous having a go themselves. Motorists give Boris Bike users more space and are likely to adapt their driving accordingly in an area where there is a steady stream of Boris Bikes, thus making the area safer for all cyclists. Boris Bikes are quite literally bigger (in terms of width) than most other bikes on the road meaning motorists feel less inclined to share lane space with them so will sometimes give Boris Bike users an entire lane of road, and perhaps in the future might support the creation of segregated cycle lanes so that they (the motorists) no longer have to worry about the Boris Bikers swerving in front of them or hitting their wing mirrors when they try and filter through traffic at the lights.

Arnold Schwarzenegger on a Boris Bike providing an important piece of positive publicity for all London cyclists.

Furthermore, perhaps getting a day pass for a Boris Bike (£2) and have a short jaunt around London is actually much less daunting financially, and indeed socially, than buying a good road bike, high quality helmet, high-vis wear, and suddenly deciding to commute to the office one morning?

And once you've had a jaunt, maybe you get a pass for a week and try using the Boris Bikes to get home from work a few times when you're not particularly pressed for time. And then maybe you realise that getting around London on a bike is far cheaper, quicker, and easier than driving. Perhaps you even feel better after a short cycle around town and you like the health benefits of cycling regularly.

And then you might think, "man, these bikes weigh a ton, all these people are shooting past me on proper bikes". So you russell up the cash and get a proper bike which is even easier to travel about town on than your old Boris Bike, especially now you know a few good cycle routes into town and to/from work. Or, you might even think, "actually I like not having to worry about locking my bike up, I'm going to get a year membership and become a regular Boris-er; the weight factor just makes them better exercise".

And, in either case, hey presto, we've got another 'convert to the cause'. We've got another person (every vote counts) calling for better cycling lanes in their area, maybe writing to the local councillors. And suddenly a year after installing Boris Bike racks the council have decided to widen the cycle lanes leading to and from these racks in response to the increased cycle traffic on the roads.

Every cyclist can use these lanes. Indeed every cyclist in London benefits from the whole range of advantages brought by the Boris-er. Therefore every London cyclist should actively support the rapid and extensive expansion of the BCH scheme (and the altered tariff plan giving 60 minutes, instead of 30 minutes, free use to registered users - described in detail here - which will help promote longer journeys, more registered users, and a more socially diverse ridership).

Primarily because they can't go as fast as regular bikes, Boris Bikes don't always appeal to cyclists. This doesn't matter. The critical political advantage of the Boris Bike is that it appeals to non-cyclists (like One Direction), and can therefore produce dynamic political change.

Boris Bikers help 'normalise' cycling in London, showing even the most idiotic Daily Mail reading retard that anyone can use a bike to get from place to place in the UK, not just lycra louts and other fictional characters.

You could argue that the money spent expanding the scheme could be better spend on cycle infrastructure, e.g. a segregated lane so that your child can cycle to school. That is undoubtedly true.

However, the keystone problem with this kind of thinking is that it fails to take into account the fact that heavy political concessions are required to take a lane of traffic out of a main road so that you can replace it with a two-way segregated cycle lane. Ditto the removal of a street's worth of car parking spaces. By contrast, very few political concession are required to remove three parking spaces on a street (or perhaps slightly reduce the amount of space available on a pavement) in order to make space for a 25-bike Docking Station for BCH users.

I'm not saying London cyclists shouldn't campaign for better cycling infrastructure. This is, of course, crucial, necessary, and on-going. There are, of course, still some town planners out there who genuinely believe that cyclists mixing with traffic on busy roads is something to aimed at (!) and these people should have their eyes opened to best-practice in countries like Holland and Denmark. All this can hopefully by now be taken as standard by anyone interested in improving cycling rates in London.

What I am saying is that if the political climate is not yet sufficiently bike friendly to get a cycle lane installed, then campaigning for the inclusion of your residential area in the BCH scheme (and the altering of tariffs to encourage more cycling - e.g. first 60 minutes free instead of first 30 minutes) could, after a year or two, change the political climate sufficiently to get that cycle lane installed in the future.

Boris Bikes getting large amounts of love from a range of different people, none of whom resembles your 'typical cyclist'.

Furthermore, if we saw the BCH scheme expanded to 30,000 bikes over the next few years (not an unrealistic aim given that 12-14 million live in Greater London) we just might see a lane of the Euston Road being given over exclusively to cyclist traffic and much bigger concessions granted to cyclists in Central London (through which the majority of BCH users travel).

So, if the BCH scheme doesn't include your local area, why not write to your councillor and ask for it to be included (you could also add that it was socially unfair that only rich areas of Central London currently had the right of residential access to a scheme that all tax payers are funding); Islington, a very cycle friendly borough, has already realised the importance of getting better BCH coverage implemented; they're even clever enough to start an online petition.

If your local Docking Station is always empty/full, why not write to your councillors and MP (using the brilliant wesbites: www.writetothem.com and http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/) asking for it to be expanded.

If you have friends coming to visit in London, why not suggest they have a bike ride around Hyde Park, or even use Boris Bikes to travel about in town. Or, if you're making a journey for which you can't use your regular bike, consider using a Boris Bike instead. If you can do the journey in under 30 minutes, at £2, Boris Bikes are (almost) the cheapest form of transport in London (even without a yearly registration!). If you can do the journey in under 60 minutes, at £2 + £1, Boris Bikes are still cheaper than many other modes.

Sign any petitions you can to increase Boris Bike cover, such as:

• Large Boris Bike Docking Station on The Mall: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/tfl-royal-parks-bring-boris-bikes-to-the-mall-3
• Kentish Town/Camden Town expansion: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/mayor-of-london-put-nw5-on-the-cycle-hire-map#bikes4nw5
• Brixton expansion: http://campaignengineroom.org.uk/bikes2brixton
• Islington expansion: http://www.change.org/petitions/transport-for-london-and-islington-council-roll-out-the-london-cycle-hire-scheme-to-the-whole-of-islington
• Steele's Village expansion: http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/bikesforourvillage

Lastly, when you're on the streets, show a little bit of love to your blue-cousins, because like it or not, they might represent one of the best chances of getting the government to implement the Dutch-style of cycling infrastructure that all London cyclists desperately want.

(comments welcomed)

P.S - For on-street evidence of increasing numbers of cyclists causing a lane to be created to accomodate them (rather than vice-vera - both methods are good!) please see this.

P.P.S - After politically campaigning for the extension and intensification of the BCH scheme, the second best way to support its expansion is to actively promote usage as much as possible. This is because the higher the usage figures are, the easier it is to persuade local  and central government to extend the scheme since it can then be shown to be benefiting a larger proportion of voters and tourists.