tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21940558976911991642024-03-13T04:24:49.824+00:00People's Cycling Front of South GloucestershireUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger170125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-5263527798435015332018-02-19T12:48:00.001+00:002018-02-19T13:09:30.939+00:00DfT's "Pennies for Cycling" campaign —you can help!The DfT has just invited <a href="http://road.cc/content/news/237328-eight-cities-invited-bid-share-%C2%A365m-latest-round-cycle-city-ambition-funding">eight cities to bid for £6.5M for cycling</a>.<br />
<br />
That's less than one roundabout widening on <a href="https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/landmark-pub-bulldozed-create-controversial-1216036?utm_source=google_news&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=google_news&utm_content=sitemap">a £500M project to uprate a single trunk trunk road.</a> Consider that: one road gets 77 times the entirety of England's cycling funding. No "inviting eight roundabouts to bid for the money", no councils having six weeks for the bit, no ministers doing press conferences, the council teams scrambling to get their designs of roundabouts in by late march, hoping that by getting their roundabout they would be one step closer to having a wider road.<br />
<br />
It doesn't work like that, because the DfT knows that such a mechanism is utter bollocks.<br />
<br />
To do it for cycling is taking the piss.<br />
<br />
Why do it then?<br />
<br />
Because they have failed to provide anything other than 10p/head for cycling, and are now trying to exaggerate its size by focusing on a few cities, offering one or two of these a few pounds, instead of posting a small check to every council. After all, for rural areas, the cost of the postage alone would be more than the grant.<br />
<br />
Having it a bid process means that even more than two or three cities can feel part of the process, which allows the minister to do press events around more of the country, pretending that the DfT gives a fuck about bikes. They don't, as can be seen by their <a href="https://action.cyclinguk.org/page/20163/action/1">proposal to ban cycling from the A63</a>, There its either "We can't be bothered to provide safe cycling infrastructure" or, "we only have £1.72 for cycling here, so lets' spend it on a ban".<br />
<br />
The entire department is taking the piss, the minister standing up trying to keep a straight face while giving out roughly the same amount as <a href="https://www.royalmint.com/discover/uk-coins/maundy-money/">the queen gives out every easter</a>. That's a time honoured tradition, which, when you think about it, is exactly what Jesse Norman is dong: a minister from the government giving out a pittance to people who are expected to be grateful<br />
<br />
The People's Cycling Front of South Gloucestershire will not be involved in the bid process.<br />
<br />
Instead we have chosen to contribute to this campaign by posting in three pence.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2mHzizXiyKIOYMJdvuJcDDHi7O1N3jVut_k_mlMkyD8Cg94sCDxzXmiSt1s3nTefSCrj7kss5mnUrutbNegrTRMNkKcb1GBLZULidM1evbHTeLu4dUihii2MGQnPZ9Suqmm3ZcVIxOt0/s1600/Screen+Shot+2018-02-19+at+13.08.45.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" data-original-height="627" data-original-width="466" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2mHzizXiyKIOYMJdvuJcDDHi7O1N3jVut_k_mlMkyD8Cg94sCDxzXmiSt1s3nTefSCrj7kss5mnUrutbNegrTRMNkKcb1GBLZULidM1evbHTeLu4dUihii2MGQnPZ9Suqmm3ZcVIxOt0/s400/Screen+Shot+2018-02-19+at+13.08.45.png" width="297" /></a><br />
<br />
If every cycling campaign and activist posted in a similar amount, soon the DfT would be able to increase the amount they give out to councils, maybe even by two or three pounds! And if not, well, the fact that we are posting in more cash than the department is spending on cycling per head may make it clear that everyone recognises that the department is taking the piss.<br />
<br />
It also gives web sites and journalists who cover cycling a new question to ask Jesse Norman whenever they next encounter him at one of these events, "how much extra funding for your campaign was posted in in the form of pennies sellotaped to letters?"<br />
<br />
If you contribute to the Pennies for Cycling Campaign organised by the DfT, please let @cyclingfront know with a link to or photograph of the letter. We wish to track how successful this fundraising strategy is, and see whether it is a viable alternative to long-term funding of cycling infrastructure with minimum design standards and a spending per head measured in double-digits of pounds rather than single pennies.<br />
<br />
Here is <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T8p_Uremui3gsS20Fd-FtbY7MNc7sdIkuxMKyet0Vzg/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">our template response</a>, to get people started.<br />
<br />
Note: after the letter was composed, people informed us that the funding/head was 10p/head. The text here is consistent with that value, and the letter covering the donation also corrected, and €0.20 stuck on to fund a trip to Amsterdam or Copenhagen<br />
<span id="docs-internal-guid-dc8d5a31-ae1f-d434-4c79-571363862ad9"><br />
</span> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-72005929294123390842018-01-11T22:32:00.001+00:002018-01-28T23:15:27.442+00:00BBC Cycling Controversy Tracker 2018This post exists to track coverage of cycling on BBC, with special focus on regional services seeking controversy.<br />
<br />
As has been covered by Peter Walker, the BBC has a problem with cycling. In particular, regional radio talk shows like to use the topic for dial-in audiences the way the regional papers do it for click bait commenters.<br />
<br />
If you look at Peter's coverage, it implies that the BBC is actually getting worse.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>The BBC: still getting it wrong on cycling coverage (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/nov/10/the-bbc-still-getting-it-wrong-on-cycling-coverage">Nov 2014</a>)</li>
<li>The BBC has a problem with cyclists, and it doesn't want to talk about it (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2015/jul/17/the-bbc-has-a-problem-with-cyclists-and-it-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-it">July 2015</a>)</li>
<li>Why does the BBC feel it’s OK to demonise cyclists? (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/nov/17/why-are-cyclists-the-one-minority-group-the-bbc-feels-its-ok-to-demonise">November 2017</a>)</li>
</ul>
<br />
We are getting to the point where the difference between the BBC and LBC cycling is more on regional accents than the content or themes for dial-in and in-studio audiences.<br />
<br />
<b>Jan 4: <a href="https://twitter.com/AnnaCookson/status/948785757564661762">BBC Radio Kent</a>:</b><br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Should there be more laws for cyclists? Should they be made to wear high-viz and have insurance? And what's the answer to the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NHSCrisis?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NHSCrisis</a>? Join the debate on <a href="https://twitter.com/BBCRADIOKENT?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BBCRADIOKENT</a> from 6 x <a href="https://twitter.com/mrstevenallen?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mrstevenallen</a></div>
— Anna Cookson (@AnnaCookson) <a href="https://twitter.com/AnnaCookson/status/948785757564661762?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>BBC Radio Kent. <a href="https://twitter.com/BBCRADIOKENT/status/614331436351492096">A history there</a>, with topics like "Should cyclists be banned in cities?" designed to stir up click, and "Do we need more rules for cyclists?" <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00w5bym">(2012)</a><br />
<br />
BBC Radio Kent managed to beat even BBC Ulster for getting the first article in, though we can expect them to not only get in their themselves, but go to such extremes i<a href="https://www.bikebiz.com/news/broadcaster-pulls-hitler-salute-on-bbc-claiming-cyclists-are-nazis">t gets close to being a hate crime</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Jan 11: <a href="https://twitter.com/bbcpointswest/status/951424732531974144">BBC Points West</a></b><br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Cyclists. Motorists. What do you think of this? 🚗🚙🚲🚲 <a href="https://t.co/03LuRCWCUT">pic.twitter.com/03LuRCWCUT</a></div>
— BBC Points West (@bbcpointswest) <a href="https://twitter.com/bbcpointswest/status/951424732531974144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
Less vilificaton, but still on a theme of "is the cyclist in the wrong?", rather than, say "if you wonder why so few people cycle round Bristol, it's because they are expected to cycle with HGVs".<br />
Not radio, probably not even on TV. Just local-paper-class controversy-bait.<br />
<br />
<b>Jan 28:</b> <a href="https://twitter.com/StormHuntley/status/957298567244328961">Storm Huntley, Intermittent CBBC presenter</a>, Twitter.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Cyclist who take up the whole road pretending they’re in the Tour de France are the worst!<br />
<br />
Any more of that and you’ll be doing the Tour de hospital!!🤨</div>
— Storm Huntley (@StormHuntley) <a href="https://twitter.com/StormHuntley/status/957298567244328961?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <br />
The Cliche'd "Tour de France, Tour de Hospital!" attempt at wittiness. If she thought she was being original, <a href="https://twitter.com/tomhharrisonn/status/922120251646644224?lang=en">she wasn't</a>.<br />
<br />
Update: tweet deleted. Here is the original post<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAOBWSEZ9wL1Rwu3330LVny5TVMGdopVgtwywQxSmGuOVd5-AXIoWlYtkiA70jM2BC4_3S7raQ-P-VT_zB03KtNwEA1LO6EEHQZrhyAkrxFG4oJ8ieXEsEAJIw-PIKu9r0oAhpgALMtfc/s1600/DUpysUXW4AADbwM.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" data-original-height="230" data-original-width="654" height="140" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAOBWSEZ9wL1Rwu3330LVny5TVMGdopVgtwywQxSmGuOVd5-AXIoWlYtkiA70jM2BC4_3S7raQ-P-VT_zB03KtNwEA1LO6EEHQZrhyAkrxFG4oJ8ieXEsEAJIw-PIKu9r0oAhpgALMtfc/s400/DUpysUXW4AADbwM.jpg" width="400" /></a>
<br />
This on a week three teenage boys were killed by speeding Audi driver —clearly threatening people trying to cycle home alive matters more.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-29785757550208017122017-08-24T10:33:00.001+01:002017-08-24T11:05:35.682+01:00One and and half car lengths<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
According to the Highway Code braking distance charts, the "average car" is 4 metres long. The stopping distance available in the allinson crash was 6.65m</div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
Wait for a day when the road isn't wet and slippery</div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
Find a flat, traffic free road,</div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
Find two parked cars in a row. </div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
Not estate cars, or bloated SUVs, just what's left of what was "an everyday" car at the time the highway codet was written: an Astra, Focus, Civic, etc.</div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
Go up the road from them, 50 m away</div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
Get on your bike: one with a computer, accelerate to 18 mph and stay at that speed, pedalling at a cruising speed. </div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
As you approach that front car, brake. Hard. Can you stop before your front wheel reaches the end of that second car? Because that is what the guilty verdict in the Allison case turns on. </div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
Except: that's your stopping distance where you are anticipating the stop, where you know when to brake. Which is exactly what<a href="http://news.met.police.uk/videos/comparitive-stopping-distance-test-between-cycles-30256"> the police video shows they did</a>. </div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
Now go online to a braking distance calculator: <a href="http://www.brakingdistances.com/18Mph">http://www.brakingdistances.com/18Mph</a></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
Look at those numbers. 5m "braking distance" -that's in a car, where, as Martin Porter QC covers, can put a lot more braking force in. Your stopping distance in a bike is going to be worse, even with a lot less momentum to burn off.</div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
What's alongside the actual braking distance? Thinking distance. 5 metres. Giving a total stopping distance of 10 metres. Two and a half car lengths.</div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
Similarly, go <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/559afb11ed915d1595000017/the-highway-code-typical-stopping-distances.pdf">the official Highway Code stopping chart</a>, look at the closest numbers it has: 20 mph. Six metres for a car to stop, and equally critically, 6 metres of thinking distance.<br />
<br />
You cannot correctly estimate the stopping distance in response to something happening in front of you without including that thinking time. Which is precisely why it is included in the Highway Code numbers. </div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
So why has it been left out here?</div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
Charlie Allinson is the poster child of everything people hate about cyclists: a hate figure the press can vilify, that none of their readers can relate to. And the fuckwit took their front brake off. Which is used as the focal point of the prosecution, and the public condemntation of all cyclists today. </div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
If he had a front brake, would he have been able to stop in time? </div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
That is not a question the met office experiment answers, because it doesn't include that thinking time. </div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
So get out there, find that road, and measure your bikes stopping distance when you are anticipating coming to a halt. Then add five metres of thnking time. Is the total more than 6.65m? Or less? Because, if, our experience holds: there is no fucking way you can do it, even with a mountain bike in full emergency stop mode: disk brakes on hard, fat rear tyre locking up, rider pushing their arse out the back and low to keep that rear wheel weight up. Irrespective of bike, once thinking distance is added in, even that police experiment implies a collision was, sadly inevitable. The kind of crash where in a car or van, the "just came out of nowhere" defence would be wheeled out and the driver would walk out of court, as worse with a few hundred pounds fine from a guilty plea of "death by careless driving"</div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
If a collision seems inevitable the, what did the lack of a front brake do?</div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
it may have meant the rider was going faster when he hit Kim Briggs. A slower speed collision may have meant that her family wouldn't have got the worst news of their lives. It may also have given him some control in the crash: possibly even enough to steer around her </div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
But there is no way, front wheel or not, someone on a bike or car travelling at 18 mph can come to a unanticipated stop from in 6.65m. The sole defence there is for everyone, car or bike, to recognise when they don't have visibility, slow down and and be ready for someone stepping out. </div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
Which is something we all need to do: otherwise, it's us next in court, getting crucified by the press "they mowed her down". Or the far more frequent and equally tragic case, walking out of court with the "they came out of nowhere" defence working, nothing but a small mention in the local press -and a family left to mourn about the injustice of a road safety system where they can prosecute a cyclist for not stopping in under 7 metres, but let speeding drivers off with an apology "it wasn't your fault"</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-46339116256923747922017-06-18T22:51:00.002+01:002017-06-18T22:51:21.854+01:00Summer driving tips: bends on country roadsSummer driving tips: bends on country roads<br />
<br />
This is the time of year when leisure drivers go on leisure journeys on our roads, rather than restricting their hobby to motorways dedicated to it. These people are often unused to driving on country roads, and need to treated with caution. Often these people haven't yet learned their highway code -or worse, picked up third-hand misunderstanding of it from social media. <br />
<br />
For leisure drivers, here is some advice to help them enjoy their hobby better, by driving safely with the users of the road who are trying to use it for work, important journeys such as to shops, and family duties. <br />
<br />
<i>"What do it I do if I come round a bend and find a cyclist in the middle of the lane?"</i><br />
<br />
If you are asking this, you've already made the mistake. The question you should ask is: <i>given there will be other road users on a British Road, how do I safely go round corners?</i><br />
<br />
In a two lane road, you need to anticipate what could be behind the bend. Slow moving tractors, horses and cyclists heading the same direction and things to anticipate. You will implicitly be approaching them at a "closure speed" of the difference between their speed and yours. The faster you are going the, the more you endanger yourself -and, if it is a vulnerable road user, them. The secret here is to slow down for the bend, drop a gear to use the engine to help control yourself though the corner, and be prepared to break as soon as you see something in your lane. If, as you complete the turn, the road ahead is clear, you can accelerate out of it -as you will already be in a gear to do so. In a front wheel drive, this will straighten up the car's direction-so wait until the corner has been completed. Rear wheel drives will not straighten up this way, but you do still need to wait for visibility. The best cue here is actually the lines in the road centre: if the line on your side goes from solid to dashed, it means that visibility for a long distance is now considered adequate for overtaking, -time to speed up, if safe. <br />
<br />
You also need to plan for something completely stationary in the road: a fallen tree, a crash, a broken down vehicle. Here the closure rate is even higher than for a horse or cyclist, so be prepared to brake fast. <br />
<br />
The biggest risk in a two- lane road is coming round to find an oncoming vehicle heading towards you. Here the closure rate is your speed plus theirs, and any collision will be very destructive. This is a common problem when there are other leisure drivers on the roads, those without enough experience to have the judgment safe driving needs. These drivers may have overtaken a horse, tractor or car too late for safety. Motorbikes can be expected to do this too, especially on "classic" roads for their leisure rides, such as, near Bristol, the Wye Valley Road, and the Chepstow to Usk road followed by the A479 from Abergavenny to Mid Wales. <br />
<br />
These overtaking cars and motorbikes are very dangerous because they are coming towards you so fast. Again, a controlled execution of the corner in a lower gear, holding onto the wheel (no texting here!) and being ready to switch from accelerator to brake pedal is the best way to prepare. Motorbikers will, if given a moment's chance, slide into the main traffic stream. Drivers who have misplanned an overtake are a different problem: there is often nowhere for them to go. These drivers often lack experience and react badly by trying to complete the overtake. Brake hard, don't be afraid to engage the ABS, and don't worry about the strange feeling you get though the brake pedal. This is the ABS at work. You can still steer the car at this point, so do try, while slowing down, to get the side of your lane. If the vehicle/bicycle/horse being overtaken brakes/slows down and move to the side, there may be room to avoid a head on collision. If such an incident happens, if you have a dashcam, send the video to the police. Someone else may have a video you could use as evidence too: search for your registration number on youtube to see. <br />
<br />
If this all seems scary -don't panic! With practice and experience it will become easy. The key things are the "two-A's": attention and anticipation. If you look ahead, and anticipate the horse, the cyclist, the fallen tree -then every time you encounter this you are ready. And when you don't? Time to accelerate out the corner, getting to a safe speed for the next bit of road. Of course, if there is another bend, you should just stay at the current speed and plan the next corner. <br />
<br />
Looking at other vehicles is often informative too: if there is a vehicle in front, as you enter the corner, give it room to manoeuvre and brake, and look at its lights as a cue for braking yourself. If it's brakes come on, brake hard yourself, ready for what is ahead. It may just be they underestimated the size of the bend, and didn't approach it at the right speed. Just as easily, they may lack the experience to anticipate what is round the bend, and are now reacting badly. <br />
<br />
<b>Evening/night driving.</b><br />
Although these situations give you a good cue that a car is coming: headlights, the loss of visibility makes it harder to estimate how sharp a corner is. Assume it is tight and approach at a speed which you can sustain through a longer bend. If you are driving with headlights at full beam, drop the, before you enter the bend. This has multiple benefits<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>If there is an oncoming vehicle, they aren't blinded as you come round the corner </li>
<li>It can give you more warning of an oncoming vehicle, because their lights will now light up the bend better</li>
<li>Finding and using the dipper is one less thing to worry about if you do come round the bend and encounter an oncoming vehicle, so you can hold onto the wheel and complete the turn. </li>
</ul>
A key hazard is if an oncoming vehicle is driven by someone inexperienced, one who has not pre-emptively dipped their headlamps. As you come round the corner, there is a risk that their beams briefly interfere with your vision. Again, anticipating this avoids any surprise. If you see any vehicle lights after you dip your lights, unless you see any signs of them dipping their beams, be prepared. What to do? Don't t look at the lights: look to the dark bit to the left, where you need to go. You will automatically steer in that direction. At the same time, you need to anticipate other road problems, so slow down until you can see ahead. There may be someone on a bike: look for the red read right or reflector. It may also be a terrain feature, such as a continuation of the bend. Use the white lines by the sides of the lanes as as a guide. A big hazard here is the Z-bend: before accelerating out the bend look ahead for warning signs of a subsequent bend. And of course, any Z-bend warning signs before the first one -but remember there may be more than two!<br />
<br />
Dusk and dawn need special call out as dangerous. Why? Animals, especially deer. Dusk is when they come out and start foraging. Be particularly cautious near woods, especially if there are deep woods on either side of the road: a deer can easily jump out without warning. Again, for corners, anticipate them. Important: unlike sheep, a deer by the side of the road may well jump out in front of you. If you see a deer by the road-side, brake hard immediately. <br />
<br />
If you are following another vehicle at night, and you are in an area you recognise as hazardous, increase the distance between you and the car in front -this gives you more time to react. Otherwise: attention and anticipation will again, get you home. <br />
<br />
You also need to consider low sun at these times. It is straightforward to predict this: if the sun is low, and you are turning in its direction, at some point in the turn the sun will be in your eyes. Anticipate it, so you aren't surprised, and plan for the risk that there is a slow moving vehicle/horse, bicycle, deer or pedestrian you will need to avoid. Braking as you turn, before the sun hits your retinas, prepares you for such events. <br />
<br />
Driving on country roads, especially at night, is often one of the driving skills hard to learn. It's not just that it is never taught or tested when learning to drive, it is so unlike urban driving. Who sees a deer in town? Or comes round a bend to discover some pedestrians walking on your side of the road-as recommend in the Highway Code? Practice will help-but beware of overconfidence. <br />
<br />
<b>What to do if this is all too much?</b><br />
<br />
If you find this intimidating, and don't think you can safely drive round bends on country roads, in day or night, stick to motorways. These provide a low risk driving experience where bends are gentle, and separated lanes means that you will not encounter oncoming vehicles; segregation will keep you safely away from pedestrians, cyclists and tractors. You do still need to worry about deer: take care at dusk. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-44541153257499862722017-02-25T20:55:00.001+00:002017-02-25T20:55:21.211+00:00Nobody should be buying a new diesel carApparently in January there <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38880019">was a 4% drop in the sales of new diesel cars.</a><br />
<br />
This might seem a good thing, and while it's a start, it's not much of one. What you may be seeing is a change in purchasing decisions by those people who care about urban pollution —in a month when the NOx pollution in cities was at such a level that it got lots of press.<br />
<br />
What that is not evidence of is something more significant: a decision by the majority of new car owners to opt for petrol cars. And why would they, when the cost of Diesel fuel is little different from that of petrol, you get better mileage, and there's no penalty for opting for diesel? Especially as all the manufacturers are saying "EURO6 diesel is clean", meaning "ignore dieselgate and the fact we have until 2021 until cars actually meet the real world EURO6 tests". While the term "conspiracy" is usually a bad sign, here we are seeing the car manufactures of key countries in Europe: Germany, the UK, France, Spain(?), pushing hard for diesel against hybrid/e-car alternatives, their governments setting the EU standards. There's a big reason that US diesel limits are so much tighter than EU ones: the car industry there hasn't embraced diesel, isn't committed to it, and so hasn't been pushing for relaxation.<br />
<br />
Here though: the car manufacturers like diesel engines, customer sare happy to buy new diesel cars, and the governments have been going along with it. Take for example the UK being taken to court over NOx pollution. The entire policy of the government has been one of believing that EURO6 will fix things. They too fell for the lies, and we are suffering for it.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgznFQRce1IzqZpNbX8RudvF95WE5Gv7m-SKhiLJcbIEiKbUmxAoQjAPpp8em613cEDS73teN-icA3yUuNS1ylBUu3k7Jhzwz0RRAWlfp-VKIqKKUQ_1FepEUuxkg4O_Lx_ZjvJCbyhJXA/s1600/unhealthy.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgznFQRce1IzqZpNbX8RudvF95WE5Gv7m-SKhiLJcbIEiKbUmxAoQjAPpp8em613cEDS73teN-icA3yUuNS1ylBUu3k7Jhzwz0RRAWlfp-VKIqKKUQ_1FepEUuxkg4O_Lx_ZjvJCbyhJXA/s400/unhealthy.png" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
Last week, the 2016 <a href="https://www.smmt.co.uk/2017/02/more-than-8-million-used-cars-sold-in-2016-a-new-uk-record/">used car sales figures were announced</a>, showing a "healthy" market. Diesel cales increased 11.1% and petrol transactions grew 4.7% compared to 2015.<br />
<br />
Does that mean that second hand car customers all decided that they wanted to buy diesel cars? No: it was documenting the harsh truth: you don't get a fucking choice. For many types of car, petrol models are rare on the ground. Estate cars, MPVs: mostly diesel. The choices of engine you get three year are really the choices made by others in 2013. EURO5 diesel it is. Sell your car threes later and in 2019, people down the food chain, again, diesel is what they get.<br />
<br />
The longevity of modern cars means that diesel will continue to pollute our cities <i>even if sales of new cars diesel engines were banned tomorrow</i>.<br />
<br />
That's what the "Scrap a diesel" program admits. It admits that the cars built 15 years ago are out there, and rather than have any form of restriction on their use, they "may" even reward drivers.<br />
<br />
Except wasn't there a car scrap scheme a decade ago? Yes there was, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8135717.stm">in 2008</a>. Wasn't it meant to reduce pollution by getting dirty cars off the road. Was is meant to reduce pollution, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7530125/Scrappage-scheme-success-or-failure.html">yes it was</a>. At the time according to Paul Everitt,, SMMT CEO said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
CO2 isn't the only evil being scrubbed out. "There are other tailpipe emissions to take into account," Everitt says. "We're going to see the benefits of these extra new cars affect road accident statistics and the health of us all for years."</blockquote>
<br />
Well, times moved on. We aren't seeing those health improvements: urban NOx pollution has got worse. And now, in 2017, the SMMT are back cap-in-hand, saying "this time a scrappage scheme will work".<br />
<br />
Another scheme may work for the SMMT, but it scrappage scheme won't deliver, any more than the first one did.<br />
<ol>
<li>It's voluntary. People with aged, dirty diesels who don't care to upgrade can carry on as before. Which means some of the worst polluting vehicles will do nothing.</li>
<li>It's not focused on those vehicles which do the most miles in inner cities, so cause the most pollution: taxis, delivery vans.</li>
<li>A 1:1 replacement scheme will mean the congestion situation will be no better, so continuing the cause of much of the pollution.</li>
<li>It will take a long time for any possible benefit to surface.</li>
<li>It will reward the people who keep the older diesels around —and in doing so punish those people who bought petrol cars.</li>
<li>It takes away money which could actually do something, today.</li>
</ol>
<div>
#5 is key: if we are to have a "pollution cutting" scrapping scheme every ten years, then you may as well buy another diesel, expecting that another decade from now, the country will again give you a discount for getting a new one. Todays "clean" EURO6 diesel cars will be come 2028's "dirty" diesels.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And they buyers of second hard cars? Along with getting no choice, if you buy older cars, well, why not get a 2017 diesel in 2024, expecting a discount on replacing it you wouldn't get if you;;d bought the rarer 2017 petrol models?</div>
<br />
<br />
There is a better way. Abandon the carrot, point out the stick on the horizon, and bring it out on emergencies today.<br />
<br />
Imagine if the government worked with a set of cities to set a timetable, today, for a ban on EURO5 diesels by 2020, EURO6 by 2024, charges for petrol cars higher than those of electric and hybrids. It may seem a long way off, but what it says for today's purchasers of new cars, "petrol cars will be worth more when you sell them"<br />
<br />
Because that does matter, today: the perceived depreciation of the cars you buy. If, after ten years, a diesel car is unusable in town, its going to depreciate far more than a petrol one. That changes the running costs, as unless you drive lots and lots of motorway miles a year, getting the most of the MPG difference, a diesel car will cost you more per year.<br />
<br />
And before that scheduled ban is rolled out, the government can give cities the right to roll out emergency diesel bans, which will block all diesel cars on "critical days". The standard for those could be kept high —what matters is their very existence and intermittent use. Every day one happens, it highlights how big a problem NOx pollution is, how much traffic is to blame, and again, scares people off buying diesel cars —new and second hand.<br />
<br />
Returning to those second hand diesel sales: the ratio of petrol:diesel is meaningless, all it reflects is new car sales 3+ year ago. What is informative will be selling price —whether or not diesel cars depreciate faster. As every sign that diesels depreciate faster is another sign to new car buyers that diesel isn't a cost saving —its a financial mistake.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-50962512249221599192016-12-17T12:11:00.004+00:002016-12-17T12:56:43.500+00:00Roadkill Grayling doors himself into a cornerThe <a href="http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/transport-secretary-doors-cyclist-but-doesn-t-exchange-details/020467">timeline appears to be as follows</a>:<br />
<ol>
<li><i>Roadkill</i> <i>Grayling</i> knocks someone off a bike by opening a door on his ministerial LR discovery, while it is stuck in stationary traffic.</li>
<li>After telling off the injured Londoner, Roadkill Grayling continues on his way-unaware that the whole incident was videoed.</li>
<li>Roadkill Grayling has <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/chris-grayling-i-use-a-phone-to-buy-lunch-so-why-do-we-still-queue-for-rail-tickets-a3413296.html">an interview with the evening standard</a>, is fairly critical of cyclists in London, still unaware his footing of him knocking someone down was videoed.</li>
<li>The holder of the video, sees the interview, recognises the speaker, reads the patronising bollocks and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/15/chris-grayling-sent-cyclist-flying-with-his-car-door-video-shows">hands the video to The Guardian</a>.</li>
<li>Roadkill Grayling's minions are left struggling for excuses, in what must have seemed like an episode of The Thick of It for those involved.</li>
<li>BBC Radio 2 has a dial in debating who is to blame: the person on the bike or the person committing a criminal offence?</li>
<li>Cycling UK has <a href="http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/cycling-uk-offers-help-prosecution-transport-secretary-dooring-incident-304307">offered to fund a private prosecution,</a> to compensate for the indifference the Metropolitan Police show for such incidents.</li>
<li>Other politicians are saying "<a href="https://twitter.com/NadineDorriesMP/status/809879657445212163">Guaranteed to backfire on cyclists in terms of public opinion</a>"</li>
</ol>
No: it isn't bad for cyclists. It is a documentary of the failings of our streets and our elected representatives.<br />
<ol>
<li>It has shown precisely how today's streets don't work for vulnerable road users.</li>
<li>It shows how those politicians who could make our cities safer don't give a fuck about safety.</li>
<li>It shows how politicians are prepared to dismiss and ignore their own crimes, when blaming people on bikes for their injuries.</li>
<li>It shows how free parking and chauffeured driving isolates senior politicians from the ways people get round cities: foot, tube, bus, bike and, when they can, Southern Rail.</li>
<li>It shows how modern cities don't even suit people trying to drive, to the extent that the passengers just give up and walk to their destination.</li>
<li>It shows that helmet cameras are so ubiquitous that "getting away with it" is over. The CMP prosecutions from helmet videos will only encourage this and shame those police forces who currently don't give a fuck into some form of action.</li>
<li>It shows how rapidly even the BBC comes to the defence of a criminal caught on camera injuring someone. The DM? Predictable. But the BBC? They could have taken the opportunity and looked at how cities let vulnerable people down, how councils from Westminster to Coventry are doing nothing for pedestrians or cyclists —and link that up with our pollution crisis.</li>
</ol>
Roadkill Grayling's attitude to all cycling infrastructure proposals are now going to come in the spotlight, and be reviewed in the context of his own actions. The ES interview must be the last time where his response to questions about cycling safety is dismissed. Whenever he tries that, someone needs to go for the jugular: <i>"how do we protect cyclists from people like you?"</i><br />
<br />
It is certainly the last time he can say "we don't need safe space for cycling" -whenever he tries someone needs to point him at the video of of his own actions, which show how critical that need is.<br />
<br />
Congratulations, to Roadkill Grayling, who, in one single action and a followup interview, has shown to all the failings of our cities and our politicians, and has implicitly committed him on a path of atonement. Because now he has no choice. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-68178571948723209102016-08-07T21:33:00.002+01:002016-08-07T21:33:33.930+01:00When you call cyclists arrogant -look in the mirrorIf you make a list of cliche terms to appear in articles and tweets, "arrogant cyclist" and "selfish cyclist" come up a lot as a way of defining why people hate cyclists —it's because they are "arrogant and selfish".<br />
<br />
What does that actually mean?<br />
<br />
<div>
<a href="http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/arrogant">Cambridge Dictionary</a>: <i>unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more important than, or know more than, other people:</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/arrogant">OED</a>: <i>Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities:</i></div>
<br />
Now, what appears to constitute arrogant and selfish behaviour? Generally, holding up traffic. <br />
<br />
Exercising your right to cycle between two destinations: arrogant.<br />
<br />
Placing yourself in the position of the road recommended by the government to make it slightly more likely to reach your destination: arrogant<br />
<br />
A parent cycling on the outside of the child so that passing cars will only endanger the parent, not their child: arrogant".<br />
<br />
Whoever is using the term arrogant to describe cyclists should look in the mirror. <br />
<br />
The very act of denouncing a cyclist for holding up your driving makes it clear that you are the ones with the over-inflated sense of self importance. The fact you consider it more important to arrive at your destination to your unrealistic timetable than it is for everyone to arrive alive is arrogant.<br />
<br />
As for "selfish"? Surely wanting the roads for driving and being unable to share it with anyone on bicycle, horse or foot counts there.<br />
<br />
Cyclist haters: the word you are looking for is : <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insolent">Insolent</a> — <i>rude or impolite : having or showing a lack of respect for other people</i>.<br />
<br />
Because yes, we have no fucking respect for people who try to kill us as they squeeze past at pinch point, so will insolently get into the middle of the road to stop all but that 5% of drivers who seem criminal psychopaths on day release community tasks from school run to delivering parcels. Because yes, we have no fucking respect for anyone who beeps their horn repeatedly when we are on the school run and want to get their child there alive —and will insolently slow down just to piss you off. And because yes, if councils are going to build bicycle infrastructure that is utterly laughable, we aren't going to use it —and will continue to hold up your journeys.<br />
<br />
<br />
Yours: the insolent cyclistsUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-31279109453165470182016-02-26T18:14:00.001+00:002016-02-26T18:14:52.970+00:00SMMT and the UK Government: Don't mention #dieselgate, buy a low tar carSMMT and the UK Government: Don't mention #dieselgate<br />
<br />
The SMMT has a new video up, claiming the EURO6 diesel is reducing pollution, and that new cars are cleaner.<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/hsOH0se9cn0?rel=0" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
What does this video ignore? <br />
<br />
It ignores dieselgate, repeating the utterly discredited claim that EURO6 cars are better than before.<br />
<br />
NOx Pollution in our cities is <i>not getting any better</i>. No doubt manufacturers will say "cities must address traffic flow" —but that's just a way of telling cities that congestion is their fault.<br />
<br />
While it highlights the "real world" tests, it conveniently omits how the manufactures have pushed for "tolerances" on the test, so that they can keep driving cars that would otherwise fail the tests<br />
<br />
It ignores that Paris is closing its roads to cars on alternate days, because pollution there is so bad *and their government recognising and acting on the problem*.<br />
<br />
It highlights that "with Diesel, CO2 emissions are down", while failing to cover the consequence, "with Diesel, NOx emissions are now an unacknowledged public health crisis"<br />
<br />
The reason for VW cheating was <a href="http://europe.autonews.com/article/20150927/ANE/150929837/bosch-warned-vw-about-illegal-software-use-in-diesel-cars-report-says">to save 300 Euros/car</a>. That's all. <br />
<br />
VW Audi Group <a href="https://lwn.net/Articles/670488/">chose to poison people</a> across Europe and the US to save £200 per vehicle. That shows how little manufacturers value the lives of their customers and their families. Because if the claims that in-car NOx is worse than people away from the road, it's actually their own customers who are dying. If dieselgate spans more companies, car companies will have shown that same cynical willingness to kill their customers as the tobacco companies.<br />
<br />
And what do they do? They produce videos claiming that their "low tar" cars are not poisonous, that their "filters" work, ignoring "passive diesel smoking". And they fill the press and TV with adverts implying that driving is a status symbol. This is of course, exactly like the tobacco adverts of fifty years ago. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://171.67.24.121/tobacco_web/images/tobacco_ads/psy_exploits/angry/large/angry_13.jpg"><br />
<img border="0" src="http://171.67.24.121/tobacco_web/images/tobacco_ads/psy_exploits/angry/medium/angry_13.jpg" title="Click to View Larger Image" width="370" /></a> <br />
<br />
For anyone reading a paper this weekend, look out for the car adverts, <br />
<br />
Adverts highlighting how the new models are less polluting than the old ones<br />
<img src="http://171.67.24.121/tobacco_web/images/tobacco_ads/light_super_ultra/low_tar/medium/tar_01.jpg" /><br />
<br />
Adverts <a href="http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/subtheme.php?token=fm_mt012.php">targeting women</a><br />
<img src="http://171.67.24.121/tobacco_web/images/tobacco_ads/light_super_ultra/light/medium/light_10.jpg" /><br />
<br />
Adverts <a href="http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/subtheme.php?token=fm_mt018.php">associating cars with sports</a><br />
Adverts <a href="http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/images.php?token2=fm_st129.php&token1=fm_img3764.php&theme_file=fm_mt011.php&theme_name=Psychological%20Exploits&subtheme_name=Sex%20Sells">associating SUVs with extreme outdoor activities</a><br />
Adverts <a href="http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/images.php?token2=fm_st179.php&token1=fm_img5348.php&theme_file=fm_mt022.php&theme_name=Cultural%20Icons&subtheme_name=Landmarks">in front of national landmarks</a><br />
<br />
Nowadays we'd look at those adverts and laugh at the naivety of the adverts and their audience, but we still expect and accept papers and magazines full of glossy adverts for products which are, en masse, killing thousands of people a year.<br />
<br />
Accompanying the fantasies of the SMMT comes the silence from central government. Even if Cameron gave a fuck —which he doesn't— the EU negotiations would have forced him to do whatever was needed to keep Angela Merkel happy. Now that's done, is he going to suddenly roll out some emergency anti-NOx measures? Not a fucking chance. The environmental legislation that is forcing the government to act comes from Europe, its exactly the kind of "red tape from Brussels" that the Brexiters will be railing against. <br />
<br />
Instead the SMMT, the UK government, the main London mayoral candidates are all quietly pretending Dieselgate was a minor US detail, that there is nothing to worry about.<br />
<br />
If there's one thing which will break this calm its a pollution crisis which can't be blamed on the saharan desert or pollution from the EU. If that situation arises, pro-city activists need to be ready to draw awareness to the issue. Hold a protest outside a VW showroom, get hold of any form of mobile pollution sensor and start visibly testing cars in parliament square.<br />
<br />
This summer: demand air fit to breathe<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-62778428288600711882016-02-14T17:49:00.002+00:002016-02-14T17:49:43.256+00:00Diesel drivers blaming cycling infrastructure for pollution: STFUA regular theme with the "no cycling facilities" campaigners is the "causes congestion" claim, which they follow through to "creates pollution".<br />
<br />
<br />
Here is the official response from the People's Cycling Front of South Gloucestershire:<br />
<br />
<b>Nobody who drives a diesel car has the right to accuse cyclists of causing pollution</b><br />
<br />
People who voluntarily bought a diesel car, are the ones causing pollution. Now, it's not their fault: the car companies lied, and governments clearly covered it up. Why did people do it then?<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Lower fuel cost</li>
<li>Car tax benefits, due to CO2</li>
<li>Combined message from car companies and governments that "diesel was good"</li>
<li>Claims in the early 2000's that EURO3+ was going to fix the PM particulate pollution, by burning the particles off, albeit giving off NOx in the process.</li>
<li>Claims that EURO6 was going to fix all pesky NOx problems that surfaced in the Mid 2000s.</li>
</ul>
<div>
The promise then, was clean diesel: fuel economy, fun cars, no pollution. This is what the EU car industry focused on, and what VW tried to sell to the US</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It turns out that that this fairy tale had one small flaw: <b>it was bollocks.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We know that now. Post-dieselgate, diesel car drivers can't point to the cyclists and say "it's your fault! you are to blame for pollution!".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
They should be pointing at the car companies and said "you lying bastards, you told us these cars were suited to cities, when in fact they are killing them." Then they should turn to the UK and other EU governments and say "Why did it take the US government to find this out? What did you know —and why did you cover it up".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then they should look at their beloved car, point at it and say <i>"I'm sorry, you have to go"</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Except for some special cases(*), there is no law in the UK that says cars and vans have to be diesel. We've always had a choice. Well, it turns out one choice, "clean diesel", was a lie —and that can only be corrected by the individual action of car owners.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sell the diesel car! Buy a petrol one! If you have the money, go for a hybrid petrol one. And then start campaigning for something to be done about diesel in our cities. Because it's poisoning you too.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yes, selling off your diesel car will pass the problem down the chain, it will probably get picked up by someone else. But at least now you can say "I've done my bit". And if you aren't prepared to even start with that —you can shut the fuck up when it comes to saying bike lanes cause pollution. Your decision to drive a diesel car in our cities causes pollution. Either get on a bike, a bus or get a petrol/hybrid/electric car.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Finally don't even think about buying a diesel car or van in 2016, new or second hand. Anyone who does that is either choosing to ignore all the press coverage of dieselgate and NOx pollution, or choosing not to give a fuck. Whatever choice, if you now buy a diesel vehicle, you have publicly surrendered your right to complain about: cyclists causing pollution, road tax changes which penalise diesel, fuel tax changes that increase cost/mile of diesel, and any future ULEZ zones across the UK which either ban you from driving your diesel car in —or may you pay for the privilege of causing pollution.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The car manufacturers and EU governments have shown that EURO6 won't deliver; that all those spreadsheets and timetables for NOx pollution going away are as fictional as WMD-in-Iraq dossiers. Which means that city-by-city, controls will have to go in on diesel car use. Don't wait for that to happen, get rid of diesel today. And if not: STFU.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[There's one notorious exception: london black cab drivers who really are made to drive diesel taxis. And TfL is dragging their heels about affordable replacements. That doesn't mean they can point to the cyclists and say "it's your fault"; they should point at the vans, at the commuters, at the cars and say "we don't have a choice —you do, and you still choose to drive diesel". In particular, cabbies should STFU about slagging of Uber drivers for driving Priuses. Smacks of jealousy there.]</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-61204181689340152922015-12-12T12:41:00.001+00:002015-12-12T12:41:24.938+00:00LHR: missing the fucking pointThe entrance to Heathrow is three lanes of traffic. Motor traffic: cyclists are not allowed<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbBq_MaG4s5Qr1IhMbt8ll0crADY7lJHNlvAQZZ5Ij870lpLQnY03pwj2JX-9fbBe29qnHZLAlefV7a_HzfM0DZHrkHKLgdGb3SBLrsH4T8ZyinAWfQAx_1P7k6WOL_8tTodj7Xv5d6L0/s1600/Screen+Shot+2015-12-12+at+11.33.15.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="245" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbBq_MaG4s5Qr1IhMbt8ll0crADY7lJHNlvAQZZ5Ij870lpLQnY03pwj2JX-9fbBe29qnHZLAlefV7a_HzfM0DZHrkHKLgdGb3SBLrsH4T8ZyinAWfQAx_1P7k6WOL_8tTodj7Xv5d6L0/s400/Screen+Shot+2015-12-12+at+11.33.15.png" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
That's because what was a cycle lane, got turned into a narrow, high-restricted traffic lane instead.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPhyt4Z235T3TLr3LeJ1Cc-kQd7U-BRtbFo9S0ZuAmlK29PFHglkYhBX_iAdPHRElLO840NLlB56sP_N45DQocXPsgm4cXPiSRBQTXvksCIyXFrkXrpG-RL0h8fKIz7w-VahDjxPRXIRo/s1600/Screen+Shot+2015-12-12+at+11.32.40.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPhyt4Z235T3TLr3LeJ1Cc-kQd7U-BRtbFo9S0ZuAmlK29PFHglkYhBX_iAdPHRElLO840NLlB56sP_N45DQocXPsgm4cXPiSRBQTXvksCIyXFrkXrpG-RL0h8fKIz7w-VahDjxPRXIRo/s400/Screen+Shot+2015-12-12+at+11.32.40.png" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
Notice how, along with the signs for the terminal there's one for "short stay parking"<br />
<br />
That is: in order to cope with the number of cars entering the area, including private cars doing dropoff and parking in short stay parking bays. And of course the multi-storey staff parking in the central mess of what just another pedestrian and cycling hating 1970s gyratory.<br />
<br />
They have added a "cycling hub"<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvxUWfiS_19jT5iazWa99Yu3XXfpBqL-WH-vhczk5ylfiv0v9HD_9t-Ym3_rVTU3Sz99xJxu96Ql5GpTgMKy5MhTYHHZUdIo45-a7qGCu0L1Uabq-vS6jKJ2-sHaiItij_HO_S51vDvuM/s1600/Screen+Shot+2015-12-12+at+11.38.37.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvxUWfiS_19jT5iazWa99Yu3XXfpBqL-WH-vhczk5ylfiv0v9HD_9t-Ym3_rVTU3Sz99xJxu96Ql5GpTgMKy5MhTYHHZUdIo45-a7qGCu0L1Uabq-vS6jKJ2-sHaiItij_HO_S51vDvuM/s400/Screen+Shot+2015-12-12+at+11.38.37.png" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
That's not a hub: its a fucking spoke —and if Heathrow management are proud of it they haven't spoken to a single person who has ever tried to cycle to the airport. <br />
<br />
The approach? That'll be on road on the A4<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiH1jKcQqTdwm6PrtPB0tTYP9chPlKMJeFn9bFFaWiiYisJij-hlpERBkpF6-aT24sDhu5YB0AxvQKmIEqBJsEZbbtMXpGEBSWf0NEhpm7ENUWij0KtG6awjfApL3Z5HDErnd7HEDCh_mw/s1600/Screen+Shot+2015-12-12+at+11.40.58.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiH1jKcQqTdwm6PrtPB0tTYP9chPlKMJeFn9bFFaWiiYisJij-hlpERBkpF6-aT24sDhu5YB0AxvQKmIEqBJsEZbbtMXpGEBSWf0NEhpm7ENUWij0KtG6awjfApL3Z5HDErnd7HEDCh_mw/s400/Screen+Shot+2015-12-12+at+11.40.58.png" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
It's worth remembering at this point is that only a few years ago, LHR promised "No third runway".<br />
<br />
They lied. They probably had it on a roadmap at the time. This shows that (a) LHR can't be trusted and (b) if you want a binding commitment from them, you need to include a penalty in the T&Cs. If they really had meant "no third runway", the government should have said "you wont mind signing this clause that says £5000 pounds to everyone in the flight path plus £5B to central government". <br />
<br />
Because all of this is about profit. Why do LHR have short-stay parking? Because its so fucking profitable. Why do LHR expect government to fund the M25 tunnels, refuse to pony up for Crossrail: it would hurt their profits: "Heathrow has repeatedly said it is not willing to pay more than about £1 billion, though the costs are estimated by Transport for London to be £15 – 20 billion." (source <a href="http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2013/01/no-basis-for-baas-economic-claims-inquiry-inspector-told-by-sse/">airportwatch</a>)<br />
<br />
LHR's business is about flying passengers in and out the airport. They like the hub idea, as it gets more people through: on the planes, in the shops. The airlines and the business love it too.<br />
<br />
Those are the business in the "Greater LHR", the sprawl of companies nearby. All notable by their vast car parks, roads of death and lack of cycle parking.<br />
<br />
This street view, for example, is facing 180 degrees away from Hatton Cross tube station. There's a tube station right behind, yet a vast car park for staff to drive to. <br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtxE2-_j_wCv3AvV38u0lb4cjbjLSUPiKb8Ql5ABIqpt22cFPDlFI9MIxDgq1EMUWmD5jPkmby5hFO5S67QdMAttVXyx3ybdGfzMpAADyjWoH3rRkLGbFhXZoXhuC9D2Lk39sIKKUTcBw/s1600/Screen+Shot+2015-12-12+at+11.34.14.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtxE2-_j_wCv3AvV38u0lb4cjbjLSUPiKb8Ql5ABIqpt22cFPDlFI9MIxDgq1EMUWmD5jPkmby5hFO5S67QdMAttVXyx3ybdGfzMpAADyjWoH3rRkLGbFhXZoXhuC9D2Lk39sIKKUTcBw/s400/Screen+Shot+2015-12-12+at+11.34.14.png" /></a><br />
<br />
This is the mindset of every company supporting the 3rd runway: <i>we want more planes near the offices which we drive to</i>.<br />
<br />
It's why the airport and the roads around it stand out as the outer london pollution hub (source: <a href="https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/in-which-the-eu-nudge-the-coalition-to-quietly-save-a-lot-of-lives/">war on the motorist</a>)<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYu9_nKXuMJUD4nV_7dLRypXugjo7ngbkXPtZBBwJIS-qK2Vi4cJZ8uH8953wzgIiW_YLAoDht3EPe45-Qxvw4mXb90lXbHhAkRWaQNQuu9UoP-fe06Y9vgf1gvW0EW-L7kvflqmegDVE/s1600/cal2.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="305" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYu9_nKXuMJUD4nV_7dLRypXugjo7ngbkXPtZBBwJIS-qK2Vi4cJZ8uH8953wzgIiW_YLAoDht3EPe45-Qxvw4mXb90lXbHhAkRWaQNQuu9UoP-fe06Y9vgf1gvW0EW-L7kvflqmegDVE/s400/cal2.png" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
Yet LHR think their proposal will not make things worse: things are already fucking awful.<br />
<br />
What's their vision? <i>NOx is Somebody Else's Problem which will magically go away</i><br />
<ol>
<li>Crossrail: this does nothing to discourage the "Greater LHR" staff/business traffic which forms the inner ring of pollution, nothing for the core, nothing for the new and expanded runways. And priced such that it will be a luxury option from the West Country.</li>
<li>Euro6 and EVs on the M4. Euro6 has been shown to be a line. That part of the proposal needs to be taken out of the spreadsheet.</li>
<li>The cycling hub</li>
</ol>
<div>
Which shows that they don't give a fuck, aren't prepared to do anything about it except pretend on spreadsheets that the actions of others will address it.</div>
<br />
What's their problem? <b>Failure to recognise that they are the central cause of the pollution, and should act on it.</b><br />
<br />
A key point must be for them to recognise that they themselves are directly and indirectly responsible for all the pollution caused in Greater LHR, and they have to address it.<br />
<br />
They need to understand something simple: every vehicle driving on heathrow related business is four less passengers. Make it that simple and they would start to think about what they should do.<br />
<br />
Why are any private cars coming into the airport? Why not taxi only and dedicated disabled access (enforced) only, with special dropoff points for outside the central hub? Remove that traffic, converting one of each direction's tunnels into an electric tram the way other airports do, and you boost the capacity of the tunnels, and provide something for the commuters to get on their bikes with. Commuters —because every single staff parking bay needs to go. That's for the executive down: everyone who drives to work is costing the airport three passengers.<br />
<br />
The airport could take baby steps immediately<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>impose a toll on all private vehicles driving through the tunnel. A pound would be a start.</li>
<li>remove that staff parking</li>
<li>fix the fucking cycle access</li>
<li>give all staff free bus and tube travel.</li>
<li>get rid of the magic paint on the A4 and provide cycle routes for the staff from hounslow that are on a par with what central london is rolling out. If there is room for it in Central London, there's room for it by the A4. Boris has shown that.</li>
</ul>
<br />
Then turn to every business nearby whose livelihood depends on the airport and say "every one of your vehicles costs us for passengers: act". Again: close the car parks, offer free public transport, cycle parking. There's a wrinkle there: company funded train or TfL transport is treated as a taxable benefit, employees pay for it. Staff parking is not. That's something that central government could address, but in the meantime, what few parking bays remain could be billed for at significantly more than the tax-per-day of staff commuting by public transport. That will get people to prioritise.<br />
<br />
Those trade unions saying "we need this!" —go to them and say "if your employees need this, they're going to have to stop driving". Make it clear there's a fucking choice.<br />
<br />
From the perspective of Bristol —which would benefit a lot more from LHR expansion than Gatwick— LHR need to come up with a story. If there is more than one passenger, renting a car to drive from the city to one of those vast airport rental dropoff points is cheaper than two coach tickets, and avoids sitting in that central bus station which is as awful as a Banksy's Dismaland. LHR hate bus passengers. That's in the central hub, its almost as bad at T4 and T5 where you sit in a little bench and are expected to feel grateful.<br />
<br />
If there are three passengers from Bristol, a private hire vehicle is less than those coach tickets; a PHV whose driver will come in early, wait in that short-stay parking and so give you a journey home whose experience outshines anything else.<br />
<br />
If you are on a company trip and going for less than five days, you can get from the Bristol/S Gloucs North Fringe in under two hours, drop your car off right in front of the airport for a driver of Purple Parking or similar for them to park off-airport, bring it back to you. Because if you can get a private car right up the terminal -you would, wouldn't you? And of course, in a world of autonomous cars, anyone can do this, reading emails to the airport, sleeping on the way back after a long-haul flight to a new BRIC destination<br />
<br />
Today the train from Bristol to Paddington and out doesn't cut it. While the LPAD->LHR stage is fast, you go past the airport and back again, on a train which can stop just outside paddington for 15 minutes because "they weren't expecting a train". And on the return journey, miss your reservation and you'll be fighting with all the reading commuters for space. Currently, the Bristol-paddington-LHR route is a premium option which can go horribly wrong. Crossrail will help with the logistics —but do nothing for the pricing, which will still be more than driving to the airport in a diesel car. With an electric car, the cost per mile will be so low that you really won't bother. And while that may reduce your personal NOx, it will create the M4 congestion which boosts pollution of all the diesels on the road.<br />
<br />
Now look at Frankfurt airport, one of the big competitors<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>The Frankfurt AirRail terminal has its own baggage pickup: you can walk to the terminal and pick up your bags there.</li>
<li>You can check in at Frankfurt central train station, getting issued with a train ticket and the flight boarding card.</li>
<li>You can drop your bags at the station too. At heathrow: its trollies, queuing for elevators, pushing them up slopes, walking about half a mile underground.</li>
<li>If you get a flight with Lufthansa, you can <a href="https://www.lufthansa.com/uk/en/rail-and-fly-in-germany">buy a return train ticket to anywhere in germany for 29 €</a>.</li>
</ol>
<br />
Imagine if you could do the same in the UK? At Paddington, Reading, Bristol, and at Kings Cross/St Pancras you could check in while waiting for the next train, get on the fast electric train to the airport, arrive at the station, drop off your bag and walk straight to security. For less than today's cost of a Heathrow express return ticket.<br />
<br />
That would transform airport access for passengers from places in driving distance to the airport —suddenly it would be both cheaper and easier to get the train.<br />
<br />
Finally, it's notable that LHR cite Paris and Amsterdam as the other key competitors. That's paris which bans cars on polluting days, which is trying to go car free. And Amsterdam, which has so many people cycling that their NOx map doesn't resemble other European cities. LHR need to look at London at a whole and conclude that anything done to reduce NOx and CO2 pollution in the city itself benefits them. If flight is so essential, then they need to think about offsetting flight pollution through a reduction in road pollution throughout the city —and work towards it with TfL.<br />
<br />
Do Heathrow see that? Do they look at mainland europe and think "we should copy Frankfurt"? Go to BA and FGW and say "copy Lufthansa or we won't give you extra runway slots". Do they go to the business round the airport and say "what are you doing?"<br />
<br />
No they fucking don't. They produce PDF files with the usual "empty road" bollocks you always get, fingers pointing at EURO6 cars, which, when that fails, LHR can say "not our fault", and build a cycling hub in the bit of the airport the furthest from the centre of the airport as it is possible to build.<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-44270740015719363972015-12-07T21:30:00.005+00:002015-12-07T21:31:51.677+00:00Cabbies: Tavistock Place is not what will destroy you<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">This is a letter to taxi drivers. </span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">It's not going to argue about the merits of Tavistock Place, the Embankment cycle superhighway or the other things coming. You might not like them —you may resent the fact they represent changes to the city that you cannot control, but they won't destroy you.</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><b>You face an existential threat</b>. Britain dodged one in the Battle of Britain; humanity dodged one in the Cold War. The dinosaurs encountered one and lost. You? You run the risk of being a historical note -like the Viking colony of Greenland. More likely, the brand of the black cab will remain, just like those other icons: the routemaster bus, policemen with helmets too: something for the tourists to have on postcards and tea-towels.</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">What is this existential threat? If you thought "Uber" you'd be getting warm —but its more: it's the Internet and the devices attached to it.</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">When was the last time you popped out to rent a video or a DVD? Do you ever reminisce about going to the video rental store as you sit down in front of BBC iPlayer, Netflix, or Amazon? Do you still take photographs on a camera with a roll of film? If so —you can't take them down to a local camera shop to get printed —that shop will be gone. Along with the record shop and possibly the bookshop. </span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<b><span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">They faced the existential threat of The Internet and lost.</span></b></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Nobody set out to destroy those shops on the high street; it just happened. The new companies brought new opportunities to people, and we all embraced them; those stores were simply collateral damage. </span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Thats what threatens you. Not just Uber, but the other companies building the stuff that Uber depends on. Uber needs Apple and google for the smartphones. Apple and google need users attached to their phones. Everyone driving is lost revenue, to these companies. And when you look at how much time people -especially in the US- spend in cars, that's a lot of lost revenue. And what are google working on now? Autonomous cars.</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Uber are <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/04/uber-app-valued-62-billion-general-motors">now valued at more than General Motors</a>. That way more than if they took every single taxi journey on the planet and got 25% commission on that ride. So why the valuation? It's because Uber have general motors in their sights —along with Ford, VW/Audi, and the other car companies.</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><b>Uber have a simple ambition: to get the money everyone spends on buying and running cars</b>. Why own one when you have a phone, and whenever you wave it, a car appears? It's the magic wand of motoring. No more need to worry about parking by your house, at your destination. No more maintaining it. And, assuming it's electric: no need to worry about range. You'll tell uber your destination, and they'll bring up a car with the range. If something goes wrong, well, Uber can send a replacement out to meet up. And it'll be their problem to worry about charging points, having vehicles ready at pickup etc.</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">To Uber then, you may be today's competitor —but you are a stepping stone to their greater goal: to replace today's car manufacturers.</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Apple and google? They don't care about you one way or the other. But the phones, the cars they work on, the satnav maps they provide —that's the underlying technology that's threatening your business. And there's nothing you can do about that.</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">It's not just the scale of these companies you have to fear —it's their growing political power. The cash reserves Uber has means that they can start funding the election campaigns of US politicians. Once they do that, Taxi Licensing Authorities in the relevant cities are going to have anything they've done to block uber reversed, while legislation enabling self-driving cars gets pushed through.</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">In the UK, London is the big target for Uber: you've got the money, you've got the journeys, and, in the centre, an interesting mix of public transport and high-density destinations they can aim for. Your livelihoods. Get that cash flowing, keep the funders happy, destroy their direct competitors (e.g Lyft), and build a future for a transport company bigger than GM <i>which has no drivers whatsoever.</i></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<b><span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">So what can you do? How do you face down this existential threat?</span></b></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">That's a problem which you and your organisations —like the LTDA— have to worry about. </span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">It is probably the greatest threat you've ever encountered: <a href="http://cyclingfront.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/google-apple-uber-tesla-and-future-of.html">it's got the car companies scared</a>, and you've never managed that. </span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">Get together. Get out your phones and arrange a meeting —not Nokia phones, obviously— they lost to Apple and Google. </span><span style="font-size: 12px;">Drive to that meeting past the streets that had video shops, record shops and booksellers. If you see an Uber driving in a crash, use the camera on your phone, post up the image —but spare a moment's thought to all those people who loved cameras and made a living selling them and the developing and printing business. But get together with your colleagues and work out how to survive.</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace; font-size: 12px;"><b>Can you survive?</b></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace; font-size: 12px;">Maybe a better question is how long can you survive —and what help do you need to achieve this?</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><b>TfL are a possible ally</b>. But you need a compelling vision of a real Taxi for the 21st century: one that doesn't pollute, one that recharges at taxi stands, one that is integrated in a world of booking by phone, touch to pay, co-ordinated booking systems with handoff between you and other cabbies. You might even think about changes to the pricing model.</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><b>TfL are also an enemy</b>. It's not just their licensing of minicab drivers, or the fact that they are allowed into the city centre for near nothing, it's their sheer inertia and lack of innovation. You need to take the lead there —but it has to be compelling. "Like it was before Uber" is like a VHS shop saying "like it was before iPlayer". That time is gone.</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><b>You might find the Uber drivers can be your allies here</b>. They are in even more trouble than you. They're not employees of Uber: they are expenses —and there is no space for them in Uber's long-term vision. Start getting them to unionise, to demand salaries and rights, and get TfL to set those minimum standards, and maybe it will level the playing field. </span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">You need to keep them out the bus lanes. Uber, Google, Tesla and others have their autonomous car's <a href="http://cyclingfront.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/prepare-to-fight-electric-motoring-lobby.html">LIDAR scanners scoping them out already</a>; in their home cities, <a href="http://sf.streetsblog.org/2015/03/10/fantasizing-about-self-driving-cars-sunnyvale-opposes-el-camino-bus-lanes/">bus lane plans are on hold for this very reason</a>.</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Which brings this essay back to us: the cyclists. </span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<b><span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">We are not the ones who will destroy your very livelihood.</span></b></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<b><span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">You may look at changes in the city, at the Junctions of Death, along the Embankment, at Tavistock place, and elsewhere —and resent this change, a change to the city you love and which you can't control. Maybe so: but they are coming so that Londoners on bicycles can reach their destination alive.</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<b><span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">None of those cyclists are building autonomous cars with a vision of taking over from the car companies, crushing your business as a stepping stone or a mere side-effect of the vision.</span></b></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Protest about the changes if you want. Put money into a lawsuit over a conversion of what was essentially coach parking into a safe mass transport option if it makes you feel better. Complain about the cyclists whenever you get a journalist, a councillor or an MP in the back of the vehicle. Go to TfL and try to bully them into changing their plans. But in doing so, you are not only getting distracted from what really is going to destroy you: you are using up money, time and political capital which you need for your fight for your very survival</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace; font-size: 12px;"><b>Maybe, just maybe, cyclist could even be allies.</b></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace; font-size: 12px;">Do you think we are happy that autonomous driving tests don't seem to include cyclists? Do you think we are happy that Nissan and Tesla want their car in bus lanes? Do you think, as we cycle round Westminster looking for one of its six cycle racks that we are pleased to see recharge docks in a part of the city where the congestion charge exempts them?</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">At the same time: we want to set off on a journey knowing we will get their alive. We want our children to be able to cycle to school and not worry about them. We will fight tooth-and-nail to preserve what little bits of safe infrastructure TfL and some of the councils are slowly adding to the city. Because we know what matters to us: our lives</span></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-26661161138391670552015-11-22T13:59:00.004+00:002015-11-23T10:18:29.340+00:00Prepare to fight the electric motoring lobbyIt's easy to view "the motoring lobby" as one vast mass of lobbyists, all pushing for the same thing: more roads, cheaper fuel, no parking/waiting/loading restrictions, no road use charges (c-zone, bridges), no speed tickets, etc. And of course: no "unrealistic" pollution controls, such as EURO6 diesel testing in real-world scenarios.<br />
<br />
That's a simplistic view —and by identifying the different groups and their agendas, it helps to recognise the threats and opportunities.<br />
<br />
<b>Freight Transport Association</b> (and their mouthpiece <b>fair fuel UK)</b>: these want the £15B in road upgrades, and may be the main beneficiaries. Along with the fuel escalator freeze and raising of HGV speed limits on single carriageway roads, they're really getting their way these days. The FTA have a conflict of interest related to tipper-truck killings in London. Do they admit that the tipper truck industry, with its pay-per-delivery business model and utter lack of enforced regulation is broken, that more regulation is needed. Or do they blame the cyclists. Take a guess.<br />
<br />
<b>HGV truck drivers are, long-term, fucked</b>. Autonomous driving will be easier to roll out on motorways due to the simpler road structure. Given the tangible safety benefits of self-driving trucks versus truck drivers on illegal 18 hour shifts watching iPlayer videos to keep awake —legislation legalising autonomous trucks will target motorways first. The FTA members own those near-motorway distribution centres, and if they can reduce costs by eliminating those truck drivers, will gain a better return on investment that individual commuters. Destroying those truck driver jobs is going to be a traumatic change for those employees, especially in the US, where <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-the-most-common-job-in-every-state">its the #1 job in many states</a>. Should the cycling campaigns care? Maybe they should support roll-out of autonomous HGVs as fast as possible, even to the extent of setting a timetable for banning manual trucks.<br />
<br />
<b>Uber</b>. Uber want to be able to run the world's largest minicab system without the need to pay tax or perform any oversight of their staff. They'd love to get into bus lanes in London, as Addison Lee desire. They benefit from the fact that there's no per-mile billing of car use in cities. If, say, TfL and other regulatory bodies did use GPS unit to (a) add some such taxation and (b) charge more when breaking the speed limit, we'd see a more realistic cost model along with elimination of that problem which exists outside london: aggressive minicab drivers trying to drive at 40 mph in a shared use bus lane. The licensing authorities should also be more aggressive about insurance. Ideally, they'd actually have some fitness to drive standard —but we know that isn't coming.<br />
<br />
<b>Uber drivers are, long-term, fucked</b>. Uber has no loyalty to their "associates" and are funding research in self-driving cars because it will keep their costs down and customers happy. Should we care? Yes, if its goal is increasing the number of vehicles on the road, and if Uber want to get those cars into bus lanes.<br />
<br />
<b>The LTDA</b>. These are the representative of everyone who resents a millimetre of space being allocated to survivable cycling in the city. Their view is that they've got a livelihood to maintain, and it is threatened by Uber, congestion, and every attempt to make cities better to live in. The addison lee protests shows that there is common grounds with cyclists over defending bus lanes —but that was because of mutual interest. They don't see the same way about keeping cyclists in lanes away from themselves, or in reducing congestion and pollution by getting people to cycle. A militant organisation with discreet backing from their OMIL users in canary wharf and elsewhere.<br />
<br />
<b>Taxi drivers are, long-term, fucked</b>. Self-driving cars will take their jobs away too. As somewhat independent drivers, they don't have their employer actively working to eliminate their jobs (contrast with: Uber, FTA), but the same technical trends hurt them. Short term, they are crippled, especially in London, by the cars they are required to drive. That's the cause of a lot of diesel pollution in inner London —the taxis that they are forced to use. TfL and others need to think hard about how to move them to electric/hybrid. Where there is an opportunity there it may be to work on inductive charging in taxi bays. Rather than have the taxis sit their with their diesel engines running, poisoning the air outside train stations, hospitals and other places, those could be charge points. Or they could embrace hydrogen fuel early: you don't need nationwide fuel infrastructure for London's taxis, just a few dedicated stations which they can visit. Yet to think about things like that needs the LTDA and peers to lift their heads out of the daily mail, stop cutting op the cyclists, and think about the future.<br />
<br />
<b>SMMT</b>. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders want to sell more cars in the UK. That's all they give a fuck about, and anything related to urban pollution is something they pretend their current cars address —and future cars address even better —<a href="http://www.smmt.co.uk/2015/09/smmt-releases-new-report-on-air-quality/">including EURO6 diesels</a>. Same goes for safety: future cars won't kill people.<br />
<br />
If the dieselgate scandal grows their stance will be predictable —offer owners of dirty diesel government kickbacks/reduced tax on new models. We need to be prepared to respond to that by demanding that diesel owners get the same discount on new bicycles. Want to turn in a diesel car for £1000 of a new car? The owners should get the same government cash to buy bicycles for the whole family, or a season ticket from Woking to central london for a year.<br />
<br />
The SMMT are keeping so quiet on dieselgate —they are clearly hoping it will blow over and people will keep buying today's cars.<br />
<br />
Where SMMT are weak is that 2016 will be a stupid year to buy a car, especially a diesel one. The next generation of engines are going to have to be hybrid petrol or electric —dieselgate has shown that. Today's electric cars have atrocious depreciation, but Tesla's future models promise to bring costs down. If you want a new car, hold off until then.<br />
<br />
Equally critically, self-driving cars will transform what a a car is. Buy a 2016 car and you will have to drive it yourself. Put off buying a new car for 2-3 years, and you'll have one that drives for you. That's fundamentally different in a way that today's self-parking and lane-tracking models won't come close to competing with. A new car will be obsolete as fast as a windows phone. So will older cars —but if you let them depreciate more, you can put aside money for the new models. Or just buy a 2016 model at a massive discount.<br />
<br />
The SMMT dare not admit this, because they depend on sales today. They want their customers to buy a new car in 2016, —and then upgrade to a self-driving one in 2018.<br />
<br />
A key problem they have is demographics. Their real customers are getting older; the younger generations are the ones most fucked by global warming -and the most likely to want to not make things worse. That trend towards urban living is even more disastrous. If you live in the inner city, you don't need to commute by car, you don't have space for one anyway. And in particular, you don't have the need to own a short-range commute-only electric car, or the driveway or garage needed to charge the car overnight. Car clubs and maybe weekend rentals are all these people need, which can free up space in the cities. That's space which is going to be fought over. We need to make sure that it goes towards cycling and not charge points or dedicated lanes for electric cars.<br />
<br />
<b>The current car retailers are, long term, fucked on a number of fronts</b>. As well as demographics, Tesla have shown that they aren't needed at all. Why go through an independent dealer when you can go straight to the manufacturer? No matter how hard the dealers talk about how they care more, how they offer independence and servicing, online shopping and continuously integrated monitoring and maintenance changes the purchasing and maintenance story. As will self-driving cars. Why drop a car off for repairs when your tesla is booked in for a charge and service at 4am to 6am on a Tuesday evening? It can go and do that itself and a Tesla station 50 miles away. You just don't need those local dealers any more.<br />
<br />
<b>The european car manufacturers</b>. These are in trouble but can survive if they adapt fast. They've focused on diesel as the solution, because they know how to make engines, and think they can keep tweaking them. Dieselgate has given the game away. Now they need to play catch-up with tesla and the Japanese manufactures. They're pushing hydrogen powered cars as the future, as it retains those old skills: engines. But it needs a whole new infrastructure in fuelling cars to be rolled out. They'll be asking for government cash to do this: we need to make a better case for uses of the money.<br />
<br />
Again, demographics threatens them. They need to keep people commuting from the suburbs to the towns. And there they are also their own worst enemy. Congestion destroys the value in driving. And no matter how hard Audi and others <a href="http://cyclingfront.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/car-manufacturers-swapping-one-myth-for.html">claim their Urban SUVs make being stuck in a traffic jam fun,</a> it isn't.<br />
<br />
To survive there they need autonomous driving to make those hours stuck in jams useful. They need to make sure there are parking places in the city for those commuters, short-stay parking outside shops, school runs where you can drop your kids off.<br />
<br />
Anything which changes cities for walking, cycling and public transport threatens their very existence. We have no common ground here —we are competing for the same roadspace.<br />
<br />
Anything which threatens urban car use threatens them. ULEZ zones, especially any that block out rigged EURO6 diesel engines will say "you can't drive here". Congestion zones rolled out across more inner cities will do for them what they've done for London; made driving into the city centres a luxury. 20 mph limits remove even the illusion that driving in a city is fun, no matter what the adverts say. Expanded resident parking zones (hello Bristol!) even making parking a premium option. It's not a coincidence that the people who hate RPZ parking hate 20 mph zones, and that <a href="http://bristolcars.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/those-pro-speed-petitioners-do-their.html">it's the commute-by-car suburbs who are most up in arms about it</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>The secondary motor industry</b>. The petrol stations, the Halfords of this world; the cheaper-than the the approved-retailer garages. They are fucked already. Improving fuel economy (when real) reduces visits to petrol stations. While congestion may increase fuel use, hybrid cars kills that, and if it suppresses driving, even conventional engine'd vehicles will use less. The increasing technical sophistication of modern engines and cars means that home-maintenance is dying —look at Halford's numbers to see this. Look at how those shops selling aftermarket car stereos and alarms have gone. Fucked, all of them.<br />
<br />
Common ground? Halford's have embraced cycling. Petrol stations? The supermarkets have fucked them. There are other uses of that city space.<br />
<br />
Where we have a new threat is <b>the electric motoring lobby.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
These are the car companies sluggishly embracing electric power; seeing it as the way to get round restrictions on urban car use which will be rolled out for pollution reasons. They've gone to central government for cash for the factories, they've gone to central government for the cash-backs on overpriced 2nd cars —and you can be sure they are now going after local governments for special treatment too.<br />
<br />
Because it doesn't matter what engine type you have —it still takes the same amount of time to sit in the same traffic jam.<br />
<br />
That's why they have their greedy eyes on the bus lanes. There's room for more cars there, and if you can drive in them, you get a tangible benefit in commuter times, in exchange for a car that d<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/green-motoring/10473637/Why-prices-for-used-electric-cars-are-shocking.html">epreciates faster than a Fiat Pinto</a>. If your car is worthless in five years, you wan't to use that car every day. And of course, with a range of 100 miles that will only decrease over time, that commute is essential to getting those miles in.<br />
<br />
TfL <a href="http://legacy.london.gov.uk/electricvehicles/docs/Electric%20Vehicles%20in%20Bus%20Lanes.pdf">are against it</a>, so are<a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/4552/etro1438a_statement_of_reasons.pdf"> Edinburgh Council</a>.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
What the electric car lobby can do is brief the press, which is what they do<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/16/how_practical_is_an_electric_car_in_london/">The register</a>: "one trick TfL hasn’t tried – and really should – would be allowing electric cars to drive in bus lanes. "</li>
<li><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10794158/Park-for-free-and-use-the-bus-lane-if-you-drive-an-electric-car.html">The daily telegraph</a>: "Drivers of electric cars could use bus lanes and park for free under government plans."</li>
<li>Renault, <a href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2014/02/04/renault-chief-calls-for-londons-bus-lanes-to-accept-electric-cars/">"Leading cities should do more to encourage the use of electric cars by investing in charging facilities and allowing zero emission vehicles to use bus lanes, says the head of Renault UK</a>".</li>
</ul>
<br />
They also get to the politicians, where they can say "we've invested so much, you've invested so much —let's open up the bus lanes".<br />
<br />
They've clearly got to Zac Goldsmith, who now thinks he can retain some green credentials while appealing to the suburban driving voter.<br />
<br />
This needs be stamped on fast —as what happens in London will serve as a role model for the rest of Britain.<br />
<br />
At least here Oslo is now providing an example of why not. Even though the number of electric cars is <35K, they're filling up the bus lanes enough for their privileges to be slowly reverted, and now they have a plan to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/19/oslo-moves-to-ban-cars-from-city-centre-within-four-years">make the city centre car free</a>. Those can be used as as arguments, along with the same one used by central government to slash funding for all renewable energy sources, "the cost of electric cars has fallen enough they don't need subsidies"<br />
<br />
Even so, those bus lanes will remain a juicy target. For the new electric motoring lobby, and perhaps companies like google and uber, who will be able to say "autonomous cars can replace buses'<br />
<br />
That's already happening in the US, where a bus lane near google is being blocked <a href="http://sf.streetsblog.org/2015/03/10/fantasizing-about-self-driving-cars-sunnyvale-opposes-el-camino-bus-lanes/">because it won't be needed</a>. You can be confident Google, Tesla, Uber and others did a lot of lobbying there. —and they'll be doing the same in the UK.<br />
<br />
What can we do?<br />
<ol>
<li>There's common cause with the taxi drivers again. They may hate the cyclists, but they hate Uber more. Some protests outside Zac Goldsmith election events may get that point across -and with both cyclists and taxi drivers there, it'll appear less of a single special interest group protesting.</li>
<li>Ask for the electric car and diesel replacement money. Now. Put out press releases saying "if the government is planning any funding to replace dirty diesels, people should be allowed to buy bicycles and public transport season tickets with it.". Mention the season tickets, so anyone who commutes from south london from distances too far to cycle will be supportive of the idea.</li>
<li>Have quotes ready for anyone in the press who is briefed by the electric car lobby. The TfL and EDC papers are good —they are independent data which shows that bus passengers are hurt as much as cyclists.</li>
<li>Finally, it highlights why bus lanes cannot be considered cycling infrastructure. They last only as long as the next mayor of a city. The embankment bike lanes, the bridge crossings -they will endure. Bus lanes: they have to be fought for, again and again —just so cyclists have the right to cycle behind a diesel taxi with a bus up their arse.</li>
</ol>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-59336756924169152832015-09-26T13:55:00.000+01:002015-09-26T13:55:26.994+01:00dieselgate: The death of "clean" dieselWhat has Dieselgate shown us this week?<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>European Car manufacturers don't care about the long-term health of their customers.</li>
<li>You can't do low-end diesel cars that aren't polluting in the real world —or if you do, their power profile doesn't match modern customer expectations aggressive driving</li>
<li>The car manufacturers are prepared to systematically deceive governments and their pollution tests.</li>
<li>Self-regulated tests don't work in this world —no more than the cigarette vendor's smoking trials.</li>
<li>The US government's extended test regime eventually caught this —though it took the threat of the 2016 models being blocked for VW to own up. They must have known about the crime in advance, but were just pretending "different driving conditions"</li>
</ol>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>All claims that diesel cars are getting cleaner are complete bollocks</i></blockquote>
<br />
Cars have not got cleaner, they haven't got more fuel efficient. Instead the car companies have rigged the tests.<br />
<br />
<div>
The current EU certification regime, models a 1970s driving style, and, being self-certified, has been utterly abused to the point where it is meaningless —in both pollution and mileage. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now, what is the good outcome of this? <i>Diesel is doomed.</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The fact the mileage figures are rigged for all vehicles is now going to become obvious. Everyone who bought a car based on mileage numbers has been ripped off.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Europe is going to need new tests, and soon. These will have to be strict and done independently. The EPA regime of testing real cars is now the only test process shown to work. There is no way the car companies can defend proposals to test this way, as they can't claim the existing process isn't utterly meaningless. And, they can't put it off.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
They won't be able to have nice little meetings with Angela Merkel, Cameron, or Francois Hollande and say "cut us some slack". The politicians will know the situation is metaphorically and literally toxic —and want to put some clean blue air between them and the car companies. Now comes a chance to have some real-world tests, and force diesel cars to become cleaner or get taken off the price list.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Same for the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Their September 3 paper, ‘<a href="http://www.smmt.co.uk/2015/09/smmt-releases-new-report-on-air-quality/">Air Quality; The Automotive Industry Contribution</a>’ is full of coverage of diesel engines, how EURO6 will deliver a 50% reduction in NOx pollution, and some statements which we now know to be untenable</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Under Euro-6, diesel cars are the cleanest in history</i><br /></div>
<div>
-no, they are no cleaner than before. They've just cheated the exams better.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>An EU policy review in 2013 confirmed Euro-6 will deliver key air quality objectives by 2020</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A review written on the assumption that the car companies weren't lying through their teeth. That assumption is now shown to be false, hence the conclusion untenable.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There's one little mention of cycling in there:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Planning policies, which recognise changing mobility trends in urban areas and offer an integrated range of choices to suit journey needs, including cycling, walking, car sharing and public transport, will also be paramount, and must keep traffic moving.</i></blockquote>
<div>
They do accept cities are changing, but retain that phrase "keep traffic moving", which comes just after "Managing traffic to smooth its flow can significantly reduce air pollution.". That's the old "smoothing traffic flow" bollocks. Well, we can now point to people talking about "Smoothing traffic flow" and say "it's not going to deliver"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The DfT must be in a quandry here. They can't use the rollout of EURO6-certified cars as their roadmap for pollution levels in cities dropping, so they can't hope the pollution problem will go away if they wait long enough. Unless radical action is taken, the cities of 2020 will be as polluted as the cities of 2030 —if not worsened by more road traffic and increased congestion.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
They're going to have to act, and that means read that Defra paper on NOx pollution and not say "wait long enough and it will go away". Cities are going to have to act, and they're now able to go the central government and say "you have to fund this".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
London could be first, as the C-zone is the infrastructure. In particular, someone needs to look at all the diesel models that scraped in at under 100g CO2/km. How many are really doing that —and if not, is it fair for a diesel car that chucks out NOx pollution to get in free, while a petrol-engined car gets billed? The next mayor of London is going to have to look at that issue, and set a timetable for the end of the diesel exemption, as well as perhaps one for non-hybrid, non-electric cars in general.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Dieselgate has shown the world how dangerous diesel is, and how it won't go away. This is too big an opportunity to waste.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-76368901164126649792015-09-22T14:39:00.001+01:002015-09-22T14:39:52.283+01:00#Turbogate: the demise of Diesel?Two weeks ago, Defra snuck out a report saying that Diesels were a key source of urban pollution, that aggressive action was going to be needed —despite the fact that Euro6 cars were significantly less polluting than their predecessors.<br />
<br />
It was pushed out on a Saturday, while the labour party elections took the headlines, and primarily got coverage <a href="http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/defra-calls-for-cycleways-after-admitting-motoring-s-noxious-air-kills/018382">in the bike press.</a> Some of the press coverage called out the fact that car manufacturers could ship cleaner cars in the US showed that they could do more.<br />
<br />
It's interesting to wonder why Defra stuck it out on that Saturday. You'd think that this was a significant enough crisis that they'd want to highlight it, to create action. Yet they didn't. Assume there's been some power struggle between DfT "more roads are good", the Treasury, which also believe that more roads are good and clearly chose not to offer any mitigation funds, and the cabinet, who recognised that a crack down on diesels was going to be politically toxic. My delegating it to a local-government level, it's the councils that get the blame —not central government.<br />
<br />
Since then, VW's Turbogate scandal has arrive, showing that<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Cheating on emissions tests is ingrained into the companies to the extent they deliberately program their cars to cheat.</li>
<li>Claims Euro 6 diesels will reduce urban pollution are bollocks.</li>
<li>European car manufacturers don't give a fuck about the health of European and US citizens —let alone those in other countries.</li>
</ol>
<div>
The final point shows that Diesel car manufacturers are the new cigarette companies: willing to let their customers die in exchange for short-term profits.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well, turbogate is here, and VW will be in the "who knew what, when" phase. The higher up the company the decision to cheat has gone (or the current position of those who knew of the cheating), the more serious it will be.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The UK and the rest of Europe cannot ignore this. They cannot lie to themselves that diesel pollution will go away as the fleet of cars, vans and buses upgrades. The governments are going to have to rush to do real-world tests, to identify which cars really are the most polluting —and push those that most diverge from the rigged tests to get fixed. It's going to reduce fuel efficiency and performance, so reduce the merits of diesel —but that is fine, because there are alternatives. Petrol and petrol hybrid cars in particular.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This cannot be brushed under the carpet.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And VW? Fucked.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Do you know their 2011-2014 model was <a href="http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/volkswagen/passat/saloon-2011-2014/review"><i>only</i> available in the EU in a diesel form</a>. In the US, alongside the rigged diesels, they were <a href="http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=8907">happy to sell a petrol version</a>, but here in the UK, diesel only. Models that we now know to be 4-40X more polluting than the US standards. Anyone who owns one of those cars has just taken a hit on resale value. With warnings from Defra of likely restrictions on diesel cars to come, all modern diesel cars are equally at risk —especially while there is suspicion of other car manufacturers cheating. With the EU companies being the ones who embraced diesel the most: VW, BMW, Mercedes, Renault and Peugeot in particular, French and German cars just took a hit. People selling off their petrol cars, on the other hand, are probably going to see an increase in resale value —there's less of them nowadays, and they are about to become more popular.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Meanwhile: nobody in their right minds should be buying a diesel car.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As for cyclists, maybe its time to stage some protests outside VW shops, "stop killing us' would make a good slogan.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-54070708784282275492015-06-28T19:57:00.002+01:002015-06-28T19:58:52.277+01:00when "cyclists follow the highway code" means "get out of the way"Twitter is notable in that it allows politicians to engage with their electorate.<br />
<br />
Here is Sarah Wollaston, MP, <a href="https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/615090206270750720">praising the PM </a>for promising the attend the all party cycling working group —and who should come out the woodwork but someone someone with the <a href="https://twitter.com/patsilawson/status/615108491297091585">old "highway code and license" distraction</a>.<br />
<br />
yet ask the for more detail on what particular "safety issue" and why not license and tests pedestrians with it, and it comes out that the key reason to single out people on bicycles is "<a href="https://twitter.com/patsilawson/status/615192448902561792">pedestrians on the whole do not block roads"</a>.<br />
<br />
which gets you into the real meaning of what "follow the highway code is", along with the classic "when I did my cycling proficiency test "anecdote of<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://twitter.com/patsilawson/status/615192289200238592">"when we learned to cycle we were taught to go single file to safely allow a vehicle to pass'</a></blockquote>
And that's really it isn't it. You can look at actions of people cycling and point to some that endanger themselves or pedestrians, and make the case for better training. But not use it as a complaint for cycling two abreast, for as the highway code rule 66 says<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>You should never ride more than two abreast, </i></blockquote>
That's right: the highway road says "you can ride two abreast", and even more than three abreast is a "should never", not a "must never"<br />
<br />
Which means that anyone who thinks having "cyclists learn the highway code and be tested" is going to have their expectations of not being held up not met.<br />
<br />
And why do they say it? It's clearly not about safety, it's purely about the inconvenience caused by having people cycling in front of you, and a mistaken belief that it is beholden on the cyclist to get out of the way of people driving —and because of that belief, irate frustration that all those cyclists in Britain "don't follow the highway code"<br />
<br />
Here then, is a message for people complaining about being held up by people cycling:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
we are allowed to ride wherever in the lane we feel safe, and if we do that two-abreast, it is still legal. If you find yourself unable to accept this, please return your license to the DVLA with a covering note about your own unwillingness to co-exist with other road users.</blockquote>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-56599046602815445352015-06-11T09:34:00.001+01:002017-09-13T15:53:12.553+01:00That pittance we promised? We lied. Now fuck off.<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><span style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">Late last year some coalition politicians </span><a href="http://cyclingfront.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/crumbs-before-dinner.html" style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">turned up in Bristol </a><span style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">to reannouce old promises of cash and add a few more pennies. Why did they do that?</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><b>Generous</b>: they wanted to help our cities. This is maybe one which the Libdems could rightfully claim. Note, however, the cities targeted included those with LD MPs —not just Bristol, but Sheffield.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><b>Realistic</b>: we'd been making lots of noise and they wanted to keep cycling on the back burner during the election. This is probably the thinking of the Conservative party.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Now the election is over the coalition is dead. The cash? It's gone, a "projected underspend". </span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Projected underspend? They held out a £10 note and as the councils reached for it, it was snatched away.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">How can you expect the councils to have spent the money on anything meaningful when they only had a short time to get their proposals in, the wait for approval, then the slow process of actually designing and building things? When cash comes out on a "spend it now or lose it policy" you don't get well designed schemes. You get minor projects to make junctions worse, paint under parking bays and "mutual respect" bollocks which don't need any design or planning, so can be rolled out in hours.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Well: it's happened. What now?</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<b><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1. Ask for more.</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">That's not "ask for our money back", or even a "ask for some figure like £10/head". Because those things can only be negotiated down, and any cutback would savage the plans.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Instead: ask for our fair share of the entire road budget. 10% of journeys? That'll be 10% of the money. £1.5B is the number we should ask for. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Yes, we'll be laughed at, yes we'll be dismissed. But the key point: <b>our fair share</b>, is valid. The more we repeat it, the more it'll get taken up. It can set the opening position in negotiations, negotiations which will only take the value down. Fine: we will take £1 billion instead. The only way we stand a chance of getting anything serious is by everyone asking consistently and asking for big numbers.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<b><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">2. Fix the legal system. </span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">There's funding issues there too, the police and the CPS want to save money. Cycling deaths, pedestrian deaths aren't seen as worth a prosecution. That means our lives are seen as worth defending. What to do there? shout. protest. Make the case. We don't want to see cyclists die, we don't want to be the one. Who hasn't looked at their bike then got on it one morning and thought: is this the day? Is this the day I change from a person to a statistic? Is this the day a policeman turns up at your family's door to bring the news that a loved one won't be coming home? Is this the day I change from a person to a police case that nobody can be bothered to bring to court?</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Strict liability is a distraction. What fucking good is it if you've just been run over by a truck? We need something serious in the criminal court.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Prosecutions must begin with assumption of dangerous driving you killed somebody course it was fucking dangerous. Maybe then they can negotiate down to come to careless -let's be precise, death by careless. Oh and let's raise the penalty there too, while treating any decision to drive without a license as a wilful attempt to kill other people. It's not careless if you weren't even allowed to drive.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Near-death incidents caught on camera need to be prosecuted. Again dangerous negotiated down to careless. And for those where everyone agrees the case is too weak for a prosecution that's where ASBOs come in. Give a driver one of those and is actually issued with a warning low-cost one for the police to issue. And if they they endanger cyclists again that's when the car is at risk. Even those bastards are trying to squeeze past or punishment pass you will throttle back once I've had the first warning. And if not : they'll be off the road. The ease of issuing an ASBO and the lower cost means that it should be a default action.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">If we are going to ask them for more laws then let's ask for a safe passing distance. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">People will laugh -how can we be expected to give cyclists three feet of passing space? To those who say that you have to get back and say "well what is a safe distance then?" "4 cm?" "4 mm?" "Anything that doesn't actually knock the cyclist off or "clip" as they like to call it in court to minimise the implications and pretend it's no worse than banging a wing mirror against a parked car?". If you "clip" a cyclist then you've actually driven into them. If you did that as you go past you went too close to them —and if you did it deliberately that's attempted murder. Having a legal minimum passing distance will resolve ambiguity on those videos. It will also set the way for how the autonomous car is going to have to pass the cyclist. Because if we don't set those rules self driving cars will go past with centimetres to spare and manual cars will follow them to the millimetre. We need to set those limits now and we need to make them safe.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">How will we get the legal standards? We need to get the MPs on board. There's a lot of new ones now that's Conservative as well as SNP. Let's start talking to them. Once you've asked for £1.5 billion asking for some changes in the legal system seems like a nice compromise. It isn't —but it's a starting point.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<b><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Demand good infrastructure from councils with vision and competence</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">As for the infrastructure projects we need a good national standard. We don't want another Sheffield route where the council cites obsolete documents produced by another local government authority as an excuse for junctions that will end up killing someone.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">We need mandatory design standards coming out of the Department of transport. How can they deny us that? We have them for roads, we have them for railway lines. You don't have the railway near Sheffield with a different gauge from the rest of the country. We don't have South Gloucestershire making up their own road signs or designing their own roundabouts. National standards must lead the way so that council planners cannot weasel their way out of abandoning you at junctions. And it's those junctions that matter it doesn't matter how good your segregation is on the stray bits it doesn't matter about your floating bus stops if all it does is get you to a multi lane gyratory where only the bold survive.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">To get those guidelines we need to push the DFT for them and we need to push back against the council mediocrity. Say no to shite. If you get something shite that's all you get for 20 years. To make things worse, it sets the example for everywhere else. We need better examples. We need council's to be embarrassed about how awful their new work is. We can do that by naming and shaming. Through ridicule and protest getting into the press. And we need to get our house in order by having a consistent message. That includes from Sustrans and the CTC. Something is particularly wrong with Sustrans here: they've gone from an engineering organisation to one that produces the bollocks the councils are happy to build. We need to get them to recognise that their designs are flawed and to move on.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">We should also direct the remaining pittance pittance to those councils that are making good use of it. If your council produces shit then don't support their proposals. For example it is better to give it to Bristol then it is to Bath. It's not that Bath doesn't need that infrastructure -it's that they need a nearby city to look at and think "we could do something just as good". If all we have is mediocrity across the country there is nothing good to look at, and designs from abroad can be dismissed as Dutch or Danish culture or reduced to the travesty that is the Bedford turbo roundabout. Restrict it to a couple of towns cities where the council can lead, means that the residents not only get safe cycle infrastructure, they can get one that spans the city. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">As far as English cities go, that means:</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Bristol excluding S Gloucs apart from some key routes (railway path, ring road)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Brighton</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Let them lead the way and don't waste that limited cash.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Other places? Well, Horsham shows the problem. New roads and housing estates are being built which will implement a ban on cycling for decades. That's anti-bicycle infrastructure. Local groups do need to protest and try and stop those things, and again, our fair share of that road budget has to go into building cycling into the junctions, rather than building it out.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">There you have it. Yes they have taken away our money. But it was a pittance that was going to be frittered away by incompetent councils.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: -apple-system-font; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">So let's not sulk. Let's get angry. Let's get out there. Let's demand our fair share of the road budget a police system that that will protect our lives, and those central government design standards which will stop the mess we get today.</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-17508093074865858982015-05-03T13:30:00.003+01:002015-05-03T13:30:57.056+01:00Where are the Fucking Husky Dogs?So far during the this election period, while the politicians have been bickering on twitter and appearing in staged events we have had<br />
<ol>
<li>Air pollution so bad that <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/10/smog-across-england-prompts-defra-issue-health-warning" rel="nofollow">the government has been telling some groups of people to stay indoors and not do strenuous exercise</a> (i.e. breathing heavily).</li>
<li>The supreme court telling the UK government to actually do something on air pollution -an action which <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11571615/Dirty-diesel-cars-could-be-banished-as-Britain-ordered-to-cut-air-pollution.html">would have profound implications for cities and urban motoring</a>.</li>
<li>CO2 levels not getting any lower. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/us/california-drought-tests-history-of-endless-growth.html" rel="nofollow">Massive droughts in California</a>, worse predictions of the impact of global warming —including <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32534488">more heatwaves in the UK</a>.</li>
</ol>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And what do we see in the election?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Absolute fucking silence</b></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Public Transport</b><br />
Tory promise to fix costs of train commuter fare rises to inflation. Does nothing for those off-peak tickets, does nothing about the amount of space on an bristol-london train dedicated to first class travel, with impact on the total train carrying capacity. Nobody who has ever taken a 7pm train from Paddington to either of the Bristol stations will want to do it again.<br />
<br />
Buses? Nothing. Their contribution to diesel-related pollution (along with that of taxis) ignored.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Cycling?</b><br />
Nothing but some fatuous promises, "strive to achieve". from the Tories, Labour saying something when asked about cycling, but something different when speaking to the press about cars. UKIP: same old bollocks. Lib Dems: enough to show that the pittance which did come out towards the end of the last parliament came from them.<br />
<br />
<b>Driving?</b><br />
No mention of air pollution issues. Using fuel duty rises as an attack, pointing at the other saying 'they will raise fuel duties'. Osborne using Labour's proposal to stop the least economic road in the £15B road project as a sign of an anti-motoring party. Cameron saying the SNP won't care about road dualling in Cornwall (though given their record on the A9, dual carriageways is not something they oppose).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Heathrow and the third runway</b>? </div>
<div>
Something kicked into the long grass last term, but which will surface this time. Does the silence LHR <a href="http://www.airqualitynews.com/2015/04/30/heathrow-plans-ultra-low-emission-zone/">thinks their ULEZ plans will help</a>, —which is not only ignoring the contributions air travel makes to global warming, its ULEZ plans are fucking hypocritical given <a href="http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/Heathrow_Commuter/Downloads/Tunnel-Refurbishment-Project-Cycle-Route-Closures-FAQ-07-May-2014.pdf">they've banned cycling into the T1-T3 zone</a>, with some out of area "cycle hub" that may benefit some staff, but does nothing for convenience of that staff or indeed anyone actually trying to cycle to the airport for a trip.<br />
<br />
<b>Renewable energy?</b><br />
Again, it's only UKIP that have much to say there -none of it positive. They like their fracking as it doesn't imply that there is anything wrong with the current lifestyle.<br />
The tory party are moving beyond a block on wind turbines, to <a href="http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/editors_blog/the_escalating_politicisation_of_solar_farms_2356">actively discouraging solar farms </a>—an action that would be more negative on Cornwall than a dual carriageway that will only fill up with caravans pulled by diesel crossover SUVs every summer weekend.<br />
<br />
Whatever coalition ends up in power is going to have to act on some of these. The December 2015 air pollution deadline is a one that cannot be ignored. LHR expansion will surface —again— hence the adverts from Gatwick appearing in the press recently. Climate Change? It's not going away.<br />
<br />
These things are going to shape Britain. What our cities look like. How we get between them. Where electricity comes from. Even the shape of the shoreline: will Somerset end up underwater in 50 years time?<br />
<br />
<b>But nobody is making a fuss of this stuff, at least not enough to get into the press.</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Times; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Times; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
One party has been making a fuss about global warming —at least enough to get into the press. That's UKIP, with their plans to abolish the Department of Energy and Climate Change. No doubt once they get the human rights laws abolished and leave the EU, they'll be able to ignore those pesky supreme court judgments which they disagree with.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
The Tory party has good reason to keep quiet. All their "greenest government ever" claims were clearly bollocks; Cameron hasn't seen a Husky dog since that one press event. </div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
But Labour? Why aren't they exploiting this? With the air-pollution warnings they could have got up and blamed the conservative party for their inactions. With the supreme court judgement they could have got on stage and said "this has to stop". This would have made for headlines, as there were events in the country people could relate to.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Either their campaign team is fucking incompetent or they've made a deliberate decision to shut the fuck up. In the latter case —why? Don't they wan't the green vote? As they need it in some places, such as Bristol West, <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/so-how-worried-should-we-be-about-the-ashcroft-poll-on-bristol-west-45622.html">where the greens appear to be in second place.</a> Why the showing? It's a university area and the students care about their future. The fact that after interviewing Ed Milliband, Russell Brandt went on to endorse the Green Party shows that having a green agenda would be progressive.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Instead, what do we have? The UKIP, the party of the past, one that cares more about death (abolish inheritance tax) and <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/01/the-ars-technica-guide-to-science-policy-for-the-2015-uk-general-election/">funding dementia research over any other science</a>. The tory party chasing that UKIP vote (inheritance tax, pensions). And the Labour party? Following the Tory party -into the grave.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-44906177491509962802015-04-24T15:19:00.001+01:002015-05-03T12:17:42.823+01:00The eternal roadworks of the BBRPRejoice! The<strike> Stapleton</strike> Staple Hill Tunnel Railway Path closure "6-10 weeks" is due to be complete next month. That's <strike>five</strike> seven months after it began.<br />
<br />
This is good news for cyclists as it means they don't have to suffer cycling through parts of the city that are so unused to cyclists they have to have warning signs up, parts of the city <a href="http://cyclingfront.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-s-gloucs-problem-attitude-to.html">where locals put tacks out in their way</a>. As for the locals —the S Gloucs Electorate— they can stop being held up by cyclists, park their crossover SUV on the pavement outside their house, sit in front of the TV and go read Bristol Evening Post about how an anti-car city is at war with them.<br />
<br />
With this tunnel re-opening, those cyclists now only have to deal with<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>The <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-32377994">Lawrence Hill widening</a>: 10 wee</li>
<li>The Bitton-Saltford Resurfacing</li>
<li>The Destructor Bridge dismantling.</li>
</ol>
<div>
These things actually make the Tunnel closure seem like well thought out. It was scheduled over winter, there were signs from the outset, and eventually the council came up with a route that worked: no main roads, no mad residents, low stress.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Lawrence Hill: </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ten Weeks, goal being to widen the path on one of the busiest stretches of the route. This will be good for walkers and cyclists, though there's one question: why wait for spring, so closing this stretch until June?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Bitton-Saltford</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Four weeks.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As the BCyC note, the cyclists actually had to <a href="http://bristolcyclingcampaign.org.uk/news/475-another-section-of-railway-path-closed">push to S Gloucs council to postpone the roadworks until after the whitsun bank holiday</a>. That's the most popular cycle route in the country, and a council proposing to close it over the first weekend of the school half term. Even closing it for the rest of the week is bad enough. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Apparently S Gloucs council say "Alternative routes will be posted whilst maintenance work is carried out between Bitton & Saltford"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The fact that they have to promise this shows how little thought goes into the work. Imagine the M4 was being shut for repairs. Would they come up with a plan to deal with the traffic volume, or would they have a couple of arrows pointing you to somewhere (The A4? A431? Something that beanders through the back roads which will takes ages but will ensure you rejoin the path alive unless some S Gloucs chav who likes doing country roads at speeds comes round the corner too fast and "loses control". Then, after killing the family, they'll try the "there was nothing I could do gambit" and get off with a light tut-tut from a jury.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Because we can be confident of this</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>No attempt will be made to provide a safe alternative route, if that route impact the traffic flow of motor vehicles in the area.</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
you can see that even in Bristol centre: you can get across via staggered toucans —but have they increased the cycle times of the lights to let the cycle traffic through? If they have, it's not working.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Bath</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is a "temporary" closure of six months of the river path joining up the railway path with the centre of bath.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIu4LbaSLm0hBJam6TfBZe9-nYJOMhd46rsazpIUdTXmTFbhSHGKIGckCoPEXsugftLEtU_Dmo9ZqI1gCJAW1_ToNY7fXh_pflSeQHV7lFWLxwGLsejw458a20-g8DAxPXt5oevMx-isc/s1600/sign.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIu4LbaSLm0hBJam6TfBZe9-nYJOMhd46rsazpIUdTXmTFbhSHGKIGckCoPEXsugftLEtU_Dmo9ZqI1gCJAW1_ToNY7fXh_pflSeQHV7lFWLxwGLsejw458a20-g8DAxPXt5oevMx-isc/s1600/sign.jpg" height="320" width="239" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Which a pretty lose definition of "temporary". </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And where do they take you on this closure?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
they take you from a quiet path</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYgvNG4ePdC8hmpY-rJ6D6kglrSgj0E6n_Qy0T_J7IOPONOKO9tgsdObziaPxh90-RBlVEiHdALiZe3_o1eUiRsbNsGjs7Xnwal8I2nj-yoRbE3AJ7gJfVRfam9KUqR7yt44xxeWqi1LE/s1600/path.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYgvNG4ePdC8hmpY-rJ6D6kglrSgj0E6n_Qy0T_J7IOPONOKO9tgsdObziaPxh90-RBlVEiHdALiZe3_o1eUiRsbNsGjs7Xnwal8I2nj-yoRbE3AJ7gJfVRfam9KUqR7yt44xxeWqi1LE/s1600/path.jpg" height="320" width="239" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Onto the A4</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
via a gravel strip</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9GGFqBHeE5fS4re5-J9hLKnxh1Ccy-RCjXLmDP9_uV2u-RcMytylUE0xpQ_Dp1ssgpT2xjDqJmyeyyOnwd_UWYbBpiqzpt5rema3J0pF0t9LNQBiOyOIrLo41Ysx2HNewUgMqbWeKris/s1600/gravel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9GGFqBHeE5fS4re5-J9hLKnxh1Ccy-RCjXLmDP9_uV2u-RcMytylUE0xpQ_Dp1ssgpT2xjDqJmyeyyOnwd_UWYbBpiqzpt5rema3J0pF0t9LNQBiOyOIrLo41Ysx2HNewUgMqbWeKris/s1600/gravel.jpg" height="320" width="239" /></a></div>
<div>
BANES council can't even be arsed to lay down a strip of gravel to ensure that any cyclist diverted to the Bristol Road doesn't get a puncture en-route to fighting for space with buses and tipper trucks. Furthermore: why hasn't it had tarmac already? Does someone want to preserve the "rural"nature of a link to a river from a main road which oozes diesel pollution? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Were it not for the fact that it'd close the exit for twelve weeks for resurfacing, it'd be worthwhile complaining about this.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What do all these roadworks have in common.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>They shut down the railway path -the sole pleasant route between the two cities</li>
<li>They abandon you on alternative routes.</li>
<li>No attempt is made to make these alternative routes safe to cycle on. At best you get yellow signs showing you where to cycle. At worse (Bath), you are left with some random diversion signs on the way in to town -and nothing on the way back.</li>
<li>All but the tunnel have been scheduled over the summer.</li>
</ol>
<div>
If there is a fundamental problem here it is: the BBRP is the only way to get between Bristol and Bath that people on bicycles actually enjoy. It's family friendly, its flat, and nobody fears for their lives. Whenever its closed, then, the councils dump you on the mediocre unpleasantness that lurks alongside the path. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The presence of the path has allowed the councils to avoid making any infrastructure improvements in parallel. The growing popularity of the path is forcing them to take action, but it's signs and PCSOs telling cyclists to slow down, rather than providing alternative routes.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Why doesn't the A4 Upper Bristol Road into Bath have cycle facilities? Because it's been possible to push the cyclists out the way into a slow-motion conflict with pedestrians. Why will the Bitton-Saltford detour —inevitably— involve one or more of : random back roads with inadequate signage, cyclists-dismount signs, points where you have to pedal for your life across the A4 or along the A431?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's because the councils don't care. IF S Gloucs council cared about cycling as transport, they'd have more to spend their money on than resurfacing the one path in the region people use, and if they were to do the resurfacing (to be fair, the surface is bad), they'd do it over winter, and/or make sure the path was open on weekends.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As for BANES, they almost make S Gloucs look good. They still look better than North Somerset, but N Somerset are the rural equivalent of Westminster City Council, so that's not saying much. Their sole contribution to cycling is the fact that most one-way streets in the core have formal cyclist contraflows -not that van drivers on phones recognise or accept that. There's nothing to stop them painting bicycle signs on their road for the six months, or to put signs up on the A4 warning drivers of lots of bicycles ahead. But they don't, because they don't care or caren't be arsed.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Welcome to bath: don't cycle<br />
<br />
(update: errors in first paragraph corrected from commenters)</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-32802305705807002512015-04-09T20:21:00.001+01:002015-04-09T20:21:09.128+01:00Westminster Council killed a cyclist todayNorth Yorks County Council have just settled in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32215664">a lawsuit where an unmaintained pothole killed a cyclist</a>. Martyn Uzzell, from North Somerset, may have died from injuries sustained from a collision with a car, but it was the council who was ultimately at fault.<br />
<br />
Which is something in common with Westminster Council, <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/woman-cyclist-dies-after-being-hit-by-lorry-on-lambeth-bridge-10164447.html">who killed a cyclist today</a>.<br />
<br />
TfL's decision to not go ahead with their (somewhat inadequate) proposal clearly stated that it was Westminster Council that was against the proposal:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Having considered responses to consultation, and following concerns voiced by Westminster City Council, we have decided not to proceed with these planned initial improvements at Lambeth Bridge northern roundabout.<br />"Instead, we will concentrate our resources on developing more substantial improvements that meet the expectations of Westminster City Council and other stakeholders."</blockquote>
<i>"Meet the expectations of Westminster City Council and other stakeholders? </i>This is bollocks that shows up how much power WCC have —and are using it to Keep London Lethal. Cyclists who cross that junction are the biggest stakeholders: their lives are the ones at stake. Yet WCC "voicing concerns" was enough to stop the proposal.<br />
<br />
And as a result, a woman, a Londoner, has died. It's important to use those terms, not "a cyclist', as that puts her in the box of "a cyclist", right next to the belief "cyclists break the laws, it's their own fault". It's not. It sounds like it is directly the fault of the lorry driver -that's something that may surface in court. Though given the Met Police's history, that will only happen because of the witnesses, and even then, it'll be some "careless driving" offence, probably downgraded to 200h community service, without even a driving ban, because the lorry driver would lose their job.<br />
<br />
What is predictable is that WCC isn't going to be in the lawsuit, fielding damages. Because opposing change is a more subtle form of wilful neglect than not filling in a pothole. Yet it is just as deadly.<br />
<br />
WCC killed a cyclist. They now have no justification for any new proposals for making this junction safe for Londoners to cycle over. Any attempt to do so will highlight just how much more they care about through traffic than safety of Londoners.<br />
<br />
TfL need to go back to their CAD tools and come up with a design that is tangibly safe. Then they need to go back to WCC and say "shut the fuck up" when the WCC transport team mutters on about traffic flow. Will TfL do this? It's up in the air. If Boris becomes just the MP for Uxbridge: maybe. If he goes on to become Leader of the Opposition in a parliament where the government is Labour in some form or other, he may be distracted. And without him doing nearly-fuck-all for cycling, unless he still backs Andrew Gillingham, TfL will back down, Westminster will carry on as usual, and more Londoners will die.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-42402618528119157012015-03-25T09:46:00.002+00:002015-03-25T09:46:36.268+00:00What do we want? A legal system that worksTurn on a television or iPlayer. Look at what the police shows are on in their drama category. go to IMDb see what's there in a collection of detective and police dramas it'll be about murder cases policeman trying to solve them, prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves, lawyers trying to defend the guilty or the innocent. This is what exciting. This is what policing about. This is what the legal system is about. This is why people joined the police.<br />
<br />
Now try looking for something about cyclists being run over. Nothing. Maybe lurking in documentaries is something on Britain's shittiest teenage drivers -entertainment. Alongside Top Gear -a comedy that claims to be the BBC's men's show.<br />
<br />
Turn on the news. There may be some dramatic stories on their there. Then maybe some tragic deaths but unless it is particularly dramatic it won't be about somebody being hit by a truck, car or bus.<br />
<br />
Death by car is not interesting.<br />
<br />
Imagine you are a police force. government cuts are coming down telling you you have to save money where are you going to do it? will it being road policing? Or will it be from those incidents which the press will cover and condemn you if you're seen to fail? Road safety doesn't stand a chance.<br />
<br />
Imagine you are a CPS prosecutor. You want to do well in your career. You want recognition. you want things on your resume you can be proud of. You don't dream of prosecuting traffic classes -those are the kind of things you get assigned to when your career is going downhill. <br />
<br />
The safety of cycling, the prosecution of cyclist deaths? It's not going to get a look in.<br />
<br />
Which is of course precisely where we are today.<br />
<br />
It's not just the police don't give a fuck -it's that nobody does: nobody in the legal system, and almost nobody in the national press. And the politicians? They don't have all their constituents clamouring for justice, and would rather talk about the "war motorists" than the war by tipper trucks against people.<br />
<br />
The Michael Mason case is going to be a showcase issue. The inaction of the Met police is a story on its own. Their PR department knows it's disaster, which is why they put out that "we will prosecute" press release out. Too bad the rest of the police don't see that and are still doing fuck all. No doubt somebody senior gave the press Department a hard time saying "why did you publish this!" -missing the point that management should been saying "why you do nothing". All the police have to do is hand it on to the CPS. Yet they refuse to do that. It's becoming a point of principle: they don't want to surrender to the pressure we are placing on them.<br />
<br />
We can all do something here that start by giving money to the justice for Michael campaign. If they get enough money for prosecution that will get the press we need that will show at the Met for who they are: a police force that doesn't care about the lives of cyclists.<br />
<br />
Do it now: <a href="https://www.justgiving.com/justiceformichael">https://www.justgiving.com/justiceformichael</a><br />
<br />
High publicity events in London can also be part of this. If one protest was enough to get the press release issued, bigger ones may actually stir the met into action. Hold one over a weekend and the rest of us across Britain can join in.<br />
<br />
Getting the police to refer murder-with-car to the prosecution is only the first step. We need decent prosecutors who recognise that road deaths are the primary non-accidental cause of death in the country. We need investigators the care about the problem and do decent investigations for those prosecutors. We need expert witnesses for the prosecution themselves that don't believe "the sun in my eyes" is a valid excuse for killing people. <a href="https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/">Bez's articles</a> showing up the utter failings of the legal system are a start here. He is documenting the wrongness. Now we need to get the rest of society to read those articles, to recognise the crimes that have been committed and how the police and the legal system are letting killers drive around the streets.<br />
<br />
We need a legal system that gives a fuck about cyclists.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-44351019188809059262015-02-11T10:44:00.003+00:002015-02-11T10:44:39.537+00:00The E-W CSH: A disaster for London and Great Britain. Apparently<br />
Last week TfL voted in the E-W CSH.<br />
<br />
From the perspective of liveable British cities, this is significant event. It means that Londoners crossing the city by bicycle will be able to do so, confident that they will reach their destination alive. At least once they get to the CSH. <br />
<br />
That guarantee "cross London alive" is the same guarantee that the city extends to anyone driving, taking the tube, a bus, or a train across London(*). A guarantee that was not, until this week, available. Until now: hope. <br />
<br />
(*) Pedestrians. You are still fucked by TfL and Westminster Council.<br />
<br />
If you look at why cycling in London is restricted to the city centre, to bold people (usually 20-25, male), it is that: only people bold and confident would cycle through London, usually with a compelling reason such as "didn't want to wait sit in traffic jams or pay to be crushed in the tube every day". Which is why cycling in the suburbs is less than in the busier, riskier, city centre. There's millions of commuters in London. It only takes a small fraction of them to be bold enough to cycle and you end up with the peak-hour numbers London gets today. <br />
<br />
The credit for this should be spread wide. A unified front pushing segregated cycling, rather than vehicular cycling advocates hoping for safety in numbers. If the cycle lane achieves its expected success, then the VC advocates will have little to say. The London cycling bloggers and the reporters in BBC, the Times, the Evening standard and Guardian kept cycling and its safety mainstream. Everyone who protested, saying "this is unacceptable!"<br />
<br />
The effort everyone put in to get so many businesses behind it has also to be viewed as critical -it stopped the campaign being viewed as "the metropolitan elite cyclists" vs "the businesses of London".<br />
<br />
That is, unless you are the Canary Wharf company, the GMBpro union, the London Taxi Drivers Association and delivery companies, all of whom appear to be using the same text: too sudden, need a trial.<br />
<br />
Which as Cyclists in the City notes <a href="http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/make-no-mistake-it-is-not-taxis-or.html">is not a coincidence</a>.<br />
<br />
Canary Wharf appear to be leading the attack. One possible justification is for their CEO's drive to work. There's a more generous one, which is: if it increases the effective distance of Canary Wharf from the City or Westminster, then it potentially reduces the value of Canary Wharf. Is it really going to hurt them? No. It's what it represents: change. <br />
<br />
Change that they are not in control of.<br />
<br />
The vote signifies <i>the establishment</i> losing a control of the City of London. Arguably, it represents this establishment, the elite of the Baby Boomers, discovering that their power is over, generation X, Y and the Millenials setting the agenda.<br />
<br />
Last week, Schroeders <a href="http://www.schroders.com/tp/home?id=a0j5000000ANPx2AAH">published a report</a> arguing that peak car was a generational shift in lifestyle and hence transport; that repeat sales to baby-boomers to result in a static market. <br />
<br />
The CSH is open to baby-boomers: it'll be open to anyone. Only, the elite of the baby-boomers don't want to cycle, they're <b>not dutch</b>. They are happy with their motorised lifestyle -apart from the congestion and delays, obviously. The CSH is a complete attack on their way of life: something that represents the future, shows that the future is not the status quo -and that this future is being designed by others.<br />
<br />
They feel threatened, they don't want it, and presumably expected to kill this. Except they haven't. They've tried the classic tactics: discreet words in people's ears, off the record briefings and lobbying at party conferences. Not only has it failed, that lobbying and briefing itself has shown up the old guarded. Canary Wharf's management are tainted.<br />
<br />
Which is why, presumably, Canary Wharf itself didn't personally email the TfL board. Instead they appear to have drafted the letters for others to send. It's notable here that the timing is similar, they all had the email addresses of the board, and there's a few recurrent phrases. <i>"laudable"</i> is a key one, as "its sweet but unrealistic to care about the lives of cyclists". There's also that classic "environmental impact" phrase. It's not the cyclists causing the pollution problems, so stop trying to make them or TfL feel guilty about it. No organisation that drives diesel vehicles in city centres is in a position to complain about the environmental impact of cycle paths. Then there's the introduction, which usually starts with <i>"support in principle, however..."</i> ,as a way of making clear they don't support the idea if it comes anywhere near them.<br />
<br />
Let's look at the letters that came in. <br />
<br />
<b>Jan 29th: Federation of small businesses. </b>Welcomes work to improve cyclist safety. <i>However</i>... Makes the point that 3 months is hard for them to plan around it. Of course, they've really had 6+ months.<br />
<br />
<b>Jan 30th: Dr Leon Mannings, Motorcycle Action Group.</b> Cites PhD, then "greatest level of new constraints on vehicular road use ever to be imposed anywhere in the UK". (Clearly Leon's PhD missed the "what is a vehicle?" section). Assumes that motor traffic is inelastic/only going to rise, CSH will cause congestion, air-pollution and misery for all.<br />
<br />
"The <i>laudable</i> objectives are to improve safety for riders of a mode that currently facilitates around 3% of transport by road in London, and to deliver a dramatic rise...in the centre. [Dr Manning uses city-wide numbers, not c-zone numbers, to minimise cyclist percentage]"<br />
<br />
"However...laudable...the negative impacts on the other 90+% of road users <b>will be greater than poosal in the history of UK transport policy</b>...moreover increase congestion and environmental and economic problems."<br />
<br />
...Discusses impact of safety to motorbikes, segues into motorcycle based paramedics/police and how lives are threatened. More specifically<br />
<br />
<i>this scheme as currently proposed will increase the risk of injury of death for PTW riders -and significantly resuce the avantages that PTW's offer for essential journeys</i><br />
<br />
Leon could have made a better argument focusing on the safety of motorbikes. As it is, his "biggest UK transport changes, restrictions on vehicular movements and congestion & pollution" claims make him sound like he hates the very idea of cycle paths.<br />
<br />
<b>Jan 30th: British Beer and Pub Association</b><br />
<br />
This organisation comes over as odd. No organisation claiming to represent supermarkets, chip shops and kebab vendors has criticised the proposals. Yet those businesses need to unload their products. The BBPA claims to represent owners of 40% of pubs and 90% of the beer produced. This implies that they are the beer manufacturers with their tied/owned pubs. These are not the independents and the microbreweries.<br />
<br />
"support the improvement of road safety for all road users in London and elsewhere, <i>however</i>"..."100 delivery accounts"..."dangerous to cyclists"..."and to delivery staff who will need to cross busy cycle lanes". "pub businesses will be affected as it is conceivable that distributors will find it simply too risky to deliver"<br />
<br />
<i>"we support cycle superhighways but feel there should be a hold on development until there's a resolution"</i>..."cycle superhighway safety from deliveries"<br />
<br />
Then they propose: a trial with removable markings.<br />
<br />
The behaviour of this organisation has to be called out as outstandingly bad. They are arguing that the fact that they don't know how to deliver beer over a cycle path as a reason to halt the most transformational cycling project in Britain. And, given their objection is to delivering beer over <i>any cycle path</i>, they are against segregated cycle paths in Britain. What do they want instead? Presumably they want shit-paint cycle ways which their vans can park in. For years they've been doing that, yet only now, as safe cycling routes get delivered, do they suddenly start claiming to care about cyclist safety.<br />
<br />
They could do some research here. Two obvious tactics spring to mind.<br />
<ol>
<li>Look at <a href="http://www.beerandpub.com/membership/our-members">their member list</a>, identify any who have major NL or CPH operations and say "find out what they do". Heineken UK, for example. Or Carlsberg.</li>
<li>Ask cyclists: "would you prefer sharing a lane with an HGV, or have to deal with some vans delivering beer across the path?"</li>
</ol>
<br />
But no, they call for an immediate halt and the bollocks "trial with cones" story. That won't offer tangible safety, won't get serious takeup, and will let them say "it's a failure: stop it everywhere".
Should cyclists boycott pubs in retaliation? No: only the big brewer's beers and their tied houses. Look up members of the <a href="http://siba.co.uk/">the society of independent brewers</a> and drink their beers at independent pubs. Indeed, that could be a good national protest couldn't it: a "<b>cyclists don't let friends drink BPA-member's beers" </b><br />
<br />
<b>Feb 2: CBI</b><br />
"<i>support in principle</i>"...<i>"want more information for planning"</i>,
All well and good, until the phrase <i>"any threats to London's transport network must be fully communicated in advance".
</i>
What the fuck?<br />
<br />
The CSH is considered threat to London's transport network? And of course they close with <i>"balanced network for both motorists and cyclists"</i>. Fine. Let's count the number of roads with safe cycling facilities, the number of roads without them: and push for balance. The CBI have said that balance is what they want, so lets call them out on it. For every lane-mile of road within then M25 ring, cyclists deserve the equivalent. Anything else would be an unbalanced network. From that perspective, the E-W CSH constitutes a fraction of the lane capacity of the Chiswick Flyover: there's going to be a lot more cycle paths out there before balance can be achieved.<br />
<br />
<b>Feb 2: GMB Professional Drivers Branch</b><br />
<br />
This is clearly the diesel-head part of the GMB trade union. This branch doesn't like change.
<i>"request your reconsideration" </i>... <i>"major flaws"</i>...<i>"increased journey times"</i>, "<i>increased emissions"</i>
Notice how its always people on bicycles that get blamed for "<i>increased emissions</i>".<br />
<br />
<b>Nobody driving a diesel vehicle in the city has the right to blame the cyclists for their increased NO2 emissions.</b><br />
<br />
With the exception of black cab and red bus drivers, everyone had a choice of what kind of engine to drive. Don't blame the cyclists for GMB pro members going for diesel.
They eventually get round to concluding that it "<i>could prove disastrous on the economics of London and indeed of the whole of the UK"</i>. This is potentially the first time that anyone has accused a cycle path of threatening the economics of Britain.<br />
<br />
<b>Feb 2: Freight Transport Association and Road Haulage Association</b><br />
This is the letter known to have come from Canary Wharf.
"<i>support the superhighway approach in principal"</i>, <i>"improve safety for cyclists"</i>...<i>"however"</i>...<i>"a sensible balance between the needs of different road users".</i>
OK. Let's have some balance. Here are some basic needs of different road users.
<br />
<ul>
<li>Londoners on bicycles: get home alive.</li>
<li>Londoners walking: get home alive.</li>
<li>Londoners not walking or cycling: get home alive.</li>
</ul>
This is currently unbalanced. The people not on bicycles or foot don't have to worry about dying before they get home. That puts the "sensible balance" needs into perspective doesn't it?<br />
<br />
If you oppose safe cycling options in the city you are saying "your journey time matters more than the lives of others"
Their letter goes on to talk about deliveries, emissions, costs etc. But assuming that the whole letter was ghost-written by Canary Wharf, who gives a fuck what the rest of it says. It's just Canary Wharf choreographing opposition with a list of talking points.<br />
<br />
<b>Feb 2: UPS</b><br />
<br />
Notice this flurry of emails on Jan 2? Often with that opening phrase "we support in principle". These could all be a sign that Canary Wharf management provided the bullet points to use when drafting a message.<br />
<br />
Here's UPS's
<i>"not opposed in principle"</i>...<i>"but are concerned"</i>..."<i>damaging impact on our operations"</i>..."<i>will ultimately hinder business growth in the capital</i>"
Got that: the barrier to business growth in London is UPS's delivery timetable. Delay that and London will fall. Therefore the UPS delivery schedule is more important than the lives of cyclists.<br />
<br />
<b>Feb 2: Association of Internation Courier and Express Services</b>
...<i>"supports TfL's objective to ensure that cycling in London is safer and where possible to ensure properly segregated lanes"</i>.
This is calm, balanced request for some time to help get their issues about more delivery space resolved. Of all the letters, this is the one that does not imply that the CSH will destroy London. Even so, that, "where possible" is a warning sign.<br />
<br />
In contrast, the RAC foundation:<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Feb 3: RAC Foundation</b>
Argues that the 38M investment will cost London 200M, and that it is real damage to <i>"bus users, business and commerce in the heart of a world financial centre which is a vital engine of economic prosperity for the UK economy."</i>
There's not even a mention of saved lives. There's no "We support it in principle, however..". The RAC foundation has just come out and argued against it on economics.
If ever anyone felt that the RAC foundation cared about people: if you cycle, they don't. They care about press and TV, are happy to make press events to discuss a future of self-driving cars, but don't care about the live of of cyclists, today.<br />
<br />
<b>Feb 3: DHL</b>
"<i>we support your work"</i>, <i>"however we share the concerns of the FTA and RHA"</i>. As it arrives a day after, they may have just been cc:'d a copy of the FTA/RHA "canary wharf" letter, rather than had this drafted by canary wharf.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Feb 3: London Chamber of Commerce</b>
<br />
Want more details on economic impact. No mention of cyclist safety.<br />
<br />
<br />
There you go: CBI views this as a threat to the London transport network, GMB Pro a threat to the entire country. Brewers and Pub association a threat to the very existence of pubs in his country. And the RAC foundation: they don't give a fuck about cyclists and use the "economic prosperity of Britain" as their argument against.<br />
<br />
The good news: their letters didn't stop the vote. The briefings failed, the "lets have a trial" arguments dismissed.<br />
<br />
Nor did the people who sit on the board -and didn't need to bother with the letters. There's no emails from the LTDA, nothing from Canary Wharf itself. With their members on the board: no need.<br />
<br />
Yet something profound happened instead. The people who have influence changed. And the old guard? They may have just pissed off Boris. Who may be leader of the Conservative party in six months, while still Mayor of London. <br />
<br />
While the vote went through, it's highlited the difference between that old guard and the future inheritors of the city. The business "spokesman" organisations: CBI, London Chamber of Commerce -they come out as particularly out of touch, criticising the moves as if the CSH project is not for the benefit of the staff of its member, or indeed its customers.<br />
<br />
Every organisation that came out in support of the CSH needs to check their membership of these organisations, then get in touch and say: <b>you didn't speak for us.</b> Ask them to start qualifying your statements or change their position, because they are not representative of the future economy of London.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-56006609562523643822015-02-08T14:40:00.000+00:002015-02-08T14:40:23.513+00:00Tesla vs Dinosaurs, the new Apple vs Nokia<br />
<div>
We recently argued that car manufacturers were essentially engine manufacturers, or more precisely, <a href="http://cyclingfront.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/google-apple-uber-tesla-and-future-of.html">engine factory manufacturers</a> —and that e-cars rendered obsolete their core skills</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Designing petrol/diesel engines that deliver "acceptable" performance, fuel economy and pollution numbers, engines that are cost-effective to manufacture.</li>
<li>Designing manufacturable vehicles around these engines, with the features needed to allow that engine to translate into movement: transmission, steering, braking, air intakes, exhausts, cooling.</li>
<li>Having a cost-effective supply chain with 3rd party suppliers capable of on-demand supply of everything needed for those vehicles.</li>
<li>A service chain capable of bringing in the cars & their motors for local service, with supplies available on a timely basis. Servicing and parts are a long-term revenue stream, especially pre-emptive annual services.</li>
</ol>
<div>
We also claimed the centre of the automotive universe had moved from Detroit and Southern Germany to Silicon valley</div>
</div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
To back this up<br /><ol>
<li>Ford <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/kbrauer/2015/01/22/ford-opens-new-research-and-innovation-center-in-palo-alto/">announce their "innovation center" in Silicon Valley</a>. Google is sucking them into a new orbit. </li>
<li>More press on the "surge" of electric cars, motor manufacturers saying <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/06/uk-led-europes-electric-car-surge-in-2014">"more must be done to encourage this"</a>. Except in the NL, where the number sold actually fell. <i>In a city with safe cycling and functional public transport, electric cars are a distraction.</i></li>
<li>Schroeders publish an investment analysis which argues <i><a href="http://www.schroders.com/en/uk/adviser/insights/markets/the-end-of-the-road-has-the-developed-world-reached-peak-car/">that Peak Car has arrived in the west</a>.</i> Sales in the EU US and elsewhere will be replacements, especially to the (ageing) baby boomers, who will need autonomous vehicles to adapt to their age and to introduce planned obsolescence to vehicles that would otherwise outlast their remaining years.</li>
<li>The Register <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/11/tesla_s_p85_review/">review a Tesla Model D</a>, a four-door family hatchback e-car that can out accelerate a Ferrari if desired. A car whose per-wheel motors under software control deliver optimal traction for the conditions and operation. A car whose large battery delivers range; a battery the car is built around for handling. The reviewer notes that a Nissan Leaf has an out and back "journey range" of 25 miles. The Tesla: 200. Out and back trips work. No more plugging in to recharge every night.</li>
<li>The register compare it to the <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/25/review_porsche_panamera_s_e_hybrid_car/">Porsche Panamera "c-zone exempt" hybrid</a> and say you'd only choose the latter if you cared about the branding . Their Panamera view highlights how Porsche are behind in battery engineering, and have a convoluted mechanical transmission mode for performance alongside </li>
<li>The register review a "Renault Twizzy" e-car and <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/31/living_with_a_renault_twizy/">sneer at its sheer uselessness</a>.</li>
<li>Tesla push-out an over-the-air software update their P85D cars that <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/30/tesla_boost_p85d_acceleration_over_the_air/">cut the 0-60 speed from 3.2s to 3.1s,</a> While this number is fucking irrelevant except as a status symbol amongst the wealthy, the fact that Tesla can do this upgrade in software tells Porsche, BMW, Ferrari: this is the future. The fact that they push it out to all their existing customers adds insult to the injury. They also release a youtube video <a href="http://youtu.be/eObSjtU6YXc">showing how their per-wheel electric drive delivers better snow traction than "all-wheel drive"</a>, just to let their competitors SUV units know that they are next.</li>
</ol>
<div>
<div>
Tesla have shown that the core skills of the future are radically different:</div>
</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Designing batteries which charge fast, hold charge across temperatures, can discharge on demand.</li>
<li>Designing charging systems to charge those batteries fast.</li>
<li>Building out the charging infrastructure. Whereas the existing motor industry demands more government concessions: free parking for e-cars, bus-lane access, etc. Tesla build performance charging stations as their solution to the range problem. With cars that can do 300-400 miles per charge, Tesla don't need that many, especially if a 15-30 minute recharge is all that is needed.</li>
<li>Designing full size, everyday cars which make the battery an integral part of the vehicle, a vehicle built from the groundup around motors which can provide per-wheel traction and 0.60 performance on a par with even more expensive sports cars. </li>
<li>Integrating battery charge management with instrumented vehicles and wireless communications, so that giving all owners of the P85D car a performance boost is an automatic feature "Good morning! your car just got faster"</li>
</ol>
<div>
As a result, the Tesla model S wins the best ranking ever for a car by <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/09/autos/tesla-model-s-consumer-reports/index.html?iid=EL">the US Consumer Reviews magazine</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The existing manufacturers, the dinosaurs, have a problem. Their existing plant is obsolete, their existing skill base obsolete. And they are not the cool places to work for if you want to build future transports. Would you rather help Renault do the Renault Twizzy 2 or go to Tesla, help build their next cars, and maybe earn a sabbatical on Space-X to work on space launcher management.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The existing car manufacturers are the new Nokias.</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>They need to recuperate the sunk costs of those factories by continuing to build <i> and sell </i>p- and -d cars. </li>
<li>They need to sell replacement cars to their declining customer base in the west</li>
<li>They know that most cars are used daily for short-range commutes</li>
<li>They know that pollution and congestion means that p-car and d-cars are being viewed as unwelcome in modern cities.</li>
<li>They have to target the emerging economies with variants of their existing models, using the hand-me-down factories.</li>
</ol>
<div>
So they've all had the same idea: "let's sell electric cars as the number two car in a two-car household! One they charge up every night and use for commutes. We can then sell the "open-road-luxury tourer/crossover SUV" as the long-range toy!"</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Except they've been so good at producing small petrol cars that they can't produce e-cars to compete. They have to keep costs down by (a) retrofitting the batteries and electric motors into vehicles that are built for combustion engines with transmissions, exhausts, air intakes and the like, and (b) skimping money on batteries.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Fitting small batteries keeps costs down, and while it meets the range of "most" journeys, it adds journey anxiety, —and is still very, very expensive. Furthermore, e-cars still have a key disadvantage. If you are driving one you still end up in stationary traffic wondering where you will park that day. Every evening you need to remember to plug it in somewhere to charge.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So what do the manufacturers do? They send their lobbyists to the government and say "we need lots of charging points for our limited range vehicles", "we need money to help build battery factories", "we need you to subsidise every e-car otherwise they won't compete with the combustion cars (dinocar?) we make", and of course "can we let them drive down bus lanes?"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
Now consider</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Nokia's <a href="http://www.schroders.com/en/uk/adviser/insights/markets/the-end-of-the-road-has-the-developed-world-reached-peak-car/">most successful phone</a>. While it helped the developing countries, it did nothing for Nokia, which now only exist as a unit within Microsoft. </li>
<li>Apple, who in sheer volume of smart phones sold do not dominate the market, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/apples-iphone-the-most-profitable-product-in-history-10009741.html">make 50-70% profit on an iphone</a>, and the majority of the smart phone profits.</li>
<li>Apple, despite selling only a fraction as many laptops as the PC vendors, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/09/pc-value-trap-windows-chrome-hp-dell-lenovo-asus-acer">take all the profit from that business</a>.</li>
</ol>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
Apple have shown that if you can produce the most compelling products —you can get the majority of the profits. And that technology and its packaging lets them do it in the markets they compete in.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Tesla have the potential to do something similar —especially if they can move fast, to be the rapid mammal against the lumbering sauropods.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You can talk about e-cars and people will say "they are too expensive", to which you can agree "yes, those 20-mile range leaf toys are useless all round." Irrespective of motor type, it's the wrong transport option for a city. And with such limited range, its useless outside of a city. Which makes them fundamentally useless.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There's always the hybrid option, "the best of both worlds". For today's car manufacturers, it leverages their existing skills in engine and transmissions, and adds a battery and regenerative braking to it. But go look at <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/25/review_porsche_panamera_s_e_hybrid_car/">that Porsche Panamera review</a> and think "nobody would seriously design a vehicle like this if they had a clean slate". A petrol engine and transmission, as well as a battery and motors? At least Toyota have pure electric motor transmission in their Prius designs. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Hybrid cars like the Prius may compensate for the inability of the existing car manufacturers to produce compelling electric cars, but all they are doing is retaining all the limitations of a combustion engine (engine block, cooling, lubrication, fuelling, exhaust, pollution management, serviceability) and adding the problems of an e-car (battery placement and management, motor management, effective regenerative braking). And, by having both kinds of engine in the same vehicle, your luggage capacity is in trouble: the longer the electric range, the less stuff you can carry.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's a stop-gap solution for companies that aren't in a position to go fully electric.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But it is all they can do while they struggle to catch up. They need to build the skills Tesla has, build the manufacturing plant and supply chain, the software for managing engines and batteries and the experience in building vehicles out of them —experience where Tesla are now three cycles ahead on a development process that is iterating far faster than modern "5-7 year" car model cycles. They also have a sales channel, the dealership model, that is no longer relevant in a world of online sales, apple-style direct sales stores and continuously instrumented vehicles. Yet that dealer channel is one of their assets they don't dare abandon, because without it, they can't keep reselling their existing models.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Which brings this article back to the subject of peak car.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Today's manufacturers, <i>the dinosaurs</i>, need to resell cars to their existing customers at a 1:1 rate. Households moving from two cars to one don't do that. They aren't in a position to make or sell electric cars at the price point they sell cars for today, low-end electric cars suck and hybrid cars are clearly stop-gap toys. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
They are in trouble. Nokia management holding an iPhone saying "what are we going to do now?", while a subordinate says "we still have the market share!"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Tesla don't need that market share.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Tesla don't need 1:1 replacement sales of the existing automobile fleet to keep their plant busy and repay massive government loans.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What Tesla need is what Apple has: the profitable bit of the business. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Which explains how they are working. They are producing cars that get great consumer reviews. Now, rather than go down to that "e-car for the commute" business, they've gone up to compete with the sports cars, creating a brand image. Tesla are making Tesla cars desirable, with the fact that they electric an incidental detail; no more relevant than whether its a petrol or diesel engine in a BMW 5-series. What you are buying the car for is not the ability to recharge it after 20 miles, but the ability to fill it with luggage, your entire family, then go for a long journey —overtaking those BMW 5-series cars you get stuck behind when needed.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Nokia: meet Apple</div>
<div>
Dinosaurs: that little thing at your feet? It's called a mammal.</div>
<div>
Combustion engine manufacturers? We've got some bad news</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Incidentally, Tesla <a href="http://www.teslamotors.com/en_GB/findus#/bounds/51.5416079,-2.515866599999981,51.4962281,-2.6036609999999882?search=supercharger&name=BS34">have two charging stations in South Gloucestershire</a>. One close to the M4/M5 Cribbs Causeway interchange, one off the A4174 and in range of those north-fringe commuters who make the mistake of living somewhere in extended-M4/M5 congestion commute zone.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-6095738534346699672015-01-28T21:55:00.002+00:002015-01-28T21:55:36.827+00:00Bingo card #2<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Based on the recent London Taxi Drivers Association commentary on the proposed london cycle routes, here is an updated version of <a href="http://cyclingfront.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/were-not-dutch-bingo-card.html">our original bingo card</a>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtNobyd_QbFhHztnMuxuAw0NYLAYd7CeJZrJgpZXF4QPn5UV7Svo2t59He5OzFdQWQye5laNnfByOlgOT0DjWGGml3zeWCdZR3Eogkqy0KhKb5kYtT9kb5QwteeDz3pO0LG4k6EDaniNA/s1600/Screen+Shot+2015-01-28+at+21.50.40.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtNobyd_QbFhHztnMuxuAw0NYLAYd7CeJZrJgpZXF4QPn5UV7Svo2t59He5OzFdQWQye5laNnfByOlgOT0DjWGGml3zeWCdZR3Eogkqy0KhKb5kYtT9kb5QwteeDz3pO0LG4k6EDaniNA/s1600/Screen+Shot+2015-01-28+at+21.50.40.png" height="640" width="502" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
If you listen <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gs13n">to the interview</a> (35 minutes in), you can hear the taxi driver spokesperson say the entire checklist except for the "mutual respect". Nobody else has ever done this unintentionally before —the LTDA deserve to be nominated for the award for "most backward looking organisation", alongside the New Forest National Park Authority.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-87636591539032564542015-01-27T16:54:00.000+00:002015-01-27T16:55:53.604+00:00Google, Apple, Uber, Tesla and the future of cars<br />
A comrade from abroad visited the People's Cycling Front HQ over christmas. As he works for a european motor manufacturer, his debriefing was very informative.<br />
<br />
What scares them? Tesla and Google; to a lesser extent Apple and Uber<br />
<br />
<b>Apple</b>: for providing expensive status toys that don't have wheels on them. Phones are the new coming-of-age accessory, the thing you need to stay in touch with your friends. Ask people which they would do without, car or phone, and the under 30s say: phone. It's the 50+ who say "car". And, like tobacco company customers, their over-use of the product is causing them to die out.<br />
<br />
Apple have done more though: set the expectation on how easy devices are to use, and how fast devices evolve. A 3 year old phone? How ancient! Yet car manufacturer "in car experiences" are designed to stay in a car for its entire life, and take years of effort beforehand. The car companies just aren't nimble enough here. Their user experience sucks: go to a car shop and either stare in horror at the number of buttons, or in a different kind of horror at a touch screen that requires attention.<br />
<br />
<b>Google</b>: for leading the self-driving car work. Mercedes may have been showing off their self-driving car, but it still likes to offer the "driving experience", while allowing you to rotate the seat 180 degrees for a meeting with your colleagues or family. Google don't care about driving experience, and don't see their users caring either. They want the Apple market -and if you go online via the phone on a train, bus or car: they're happy. They don't have the myth of the open road or their motoring heritage brand to sell. They have something useful: extra online time with your friends. If there's one thing the car companies like about Google is that it may be possible to work with them. Though there the android experience scares them. Google own Android; phone companies come and go.<br />
<br />
<b>Uber</b>: not a direct threat to the car companies, yet. What they represent though is is the driving accessory to the iPhone. Uber relies on all their customers having a smartphone. Which means it is OK to spend the money you'd spend on a car on a phone, a bike, public transport and Uber. Throw in car-club and boris bike and provided you live in a city: no car is needed. That is only going to get worse. Every time someone takes a ride with Uber, they know the pickup and dropoff points, and can start planning ahead. Taxi drivers may know that London Paddington is busy when the trains from Bristol arrive, but Uber can know more: that there are 12 customers heading in from Reading, with regular routes for 6 of them.., so start pre-emptively shifting vehicles.<br />
<br />
Where Uber really have power is the money behind them. That lets them go beyond evolving the application to be better than anything competition can do, and get into a world that until now only the taxi and car organisations have done: get involved with government. They need to do that to overcome the barriers that some cities are putting up. The LTDA have got power in london by regulatory capture of the TfL taxi licensing authority, <i>and access to press and politicians when in their cars. </i>They can be individual lobbyists for their causes. Except who wants a conversation with a taxi driver when you can be on your phone doing interesting things? Meanwhile Uber has the strength to go to state and federal governments in the US to overcome city restrictions, restrictions which start to come over as anti-consumer.<br />
<br />
But Uber can do more, because of their near neighbours in Silicon Valley. The LTDA represents Taxi Drivers. Uber represents Uber. If Uber could roll out a service with a fleet of self-driving electric cars, they would. Their customers aren't paying for 20th century driving experience, they are paying for a ride to wherever —and the chance to catch up with things on their phone while it happens.<br />
<br />
<i>With international scale, Uber have the opportunity to work with google for self-driving cars that meet the needs of today's customers. They are also building up the skills needed to lobby in cities and countries, initially to make Uber legal...but those skills and contacts will help with any transition to self-driving vehicles.</i><br />
<br />
Which brings us round to the one that impresses yet terrifies the car manufacturers: <b>Tesla</b>.<br />
<br />
Mikhael and the copenhagenize crew may emphasise the "auto industry" as sellers of an obsolete brand, fighting back against demographic and social change, but Tesla threatens to render the existing car companies obsolete, even while driving itself remains a valued tool.<br />
<br />
It comes down to this: <b>what is a car company?</b><br />
<br />
More precisely: what are the core skills of a car company, the <b>barriers to entry</b> which keep competition out?<br />
<br />
The answer: <b>engines</b><br />
<br />
Car companies may have brands and marketing, different sub-brands (VW Audi group being the big EU example with Audi, VW, Seat and Skoda), but what takes up most of their R&D budget today, and most of their capital costs is engine plant. Which is why all vehicles in VAG share motors from the same common pool of engines: shared NRE costs and CAPEX for plants that can cost hundreds of millions of pounds.<br />
<br />
What Tesla say is: so what?<br />
<br />
New mechanical engines are incredibly expensive to develop. It's not just a matter of designing something powerful, efficient, quiet, not-very polluting, reliable and easy to maintain, it's about designing engines that are cost effective to manufacture. Its those factories that take the capital.<br />
<br />
The existing car companies may have some of the best mechanical engineers in the world, capable of designing the engines and the factories, but Tesla have come along and said: its no longer about petrol and diesel engines —it's about batteries, electric motors and the software around them.<br />
<br />
The existing car companies may have manufacturing and supply chains optimised to keep stock down to a minimum, partner with their suppliers to get exactly the right number of spark plugs to the factory floor when needed —but that's a supply chain for mechanical parts. Tesla have come along and said: those moving parts? You'll be needing less of those. Stop worrying about engine cooling, focus on keeping batteries at optimum temperature —and how to recharge them fast.<br />
<br />
The existing car companies may have the dealers that nobody else can use to break into a market, but again Tesla have looked at apple retail outlets and said "we like that". Tesla don't have dealers, they are a vertical business, from battery to customer.<br />
<br />
That vertical business model transforms servicing. If Toyota have to do a recall, it's expensive, some cars will be missed and its a massive hit to the company. Whereas Tesla have all their cars online, with telemetry and the ability to take software updates. Tesla didn't have to do a recall to (temporarily) disable a suspension-lowering facility while questions existed about its safety. Tesla pushed out the change, later on reversing it. No other player can do that.<br />
<br />
In ten years, Tesla have gone from being a company with nothing to being a car company whose battery, charging and vehicle monitoring and management skills make those incumbents look like dinosaurs. And they back up those skills with factories that are far more modern than what the incumbents have. Yes, Tesla cars are expensive today: but they are the new status toys. And those costs can only come down, as Tesla scales.<br />
<br />
And guess who are within range of each other: Google, Tesla, Apple and Uber.<br />
<br />
The centre of the motoring universe has moved, from Germany and Detroit to California, where it has the potential to do for the incumbents what Apple did for Nokia: destroy them, not out of maliciousness, but because they weren't agile enough, because they stayed in the old world —rather than see the future.<br />
<br />
Think about that when the LTDA protest about the cycle superhighway, when a taxi driver cuts you up: Google, Apple, Uber, Tesla<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2194055897691199164.post-90597525283706266192015-01-22T21:21:00.004+00:002015-01-22T21:21:45.063+00:00NFNPA: is actually war that they want?<br />
Only last week, we were <a href="http://cyclingfront.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/the-new-forest-npa-criminalising.html">slagging off the New Forest charter as bollocks</a>, with those final changes showing the real opinions of the group<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>The cause of the charter is "concerns from some local people"</li>
<li>The issue is not "Impacts on the Forest", it is "inconvenience to other road users"</li>
</ul>
<div>
Our summary was: <b>The whole thing is bollocks and the NFNPA should be told to fuck off.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Which is exactly what the CTC and <a href="http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/newforest/news/11742186.Refusal_to_support_cycling_events_limit/">the organisers of the Wiggle event have done</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And the reaction of the NFNPA? Parish business as usual. <a href="http://road.cc/content/news/140934-new-forest-passes-events-charter-despite-cycling-group-opposition">According to road.cc</a>, the "amended minutes" are:</div>
<div>
<div>
<ol>
<li><i>The NPA will only support the draft Charter if it is amended to include cap of 1000 cyclists and to require that rides wear rear numbers and</i></li>
<li><i>If the Charter is not adhered to … the NPA will look to persuade the Government to change legislation so that local authorities will have control over the events.</i></li>
</ol>
<div>
They recognise that the charter has no teeth to it —and rather than say "never mind, please work with our SAG to ensure we all get on", they say "If it is not adhered to we want laws to give local authorities control over events".</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
They would fucking love that control, wouldn't they. No doubt driving somewhere to their meeting where they set the limit on cycle groups for the season. The <a href="http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11742844.Controversial_New_Forest_cycling_charter_agreed___despite_opposition_from_key_organisations/">Bournemouth Echo says</a> </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
NPA member Maureen Holding, said: “If this doesn't work we should call in the MP and pursue rules and regulations that are enforceable. We want safety in our forest and we want everyone to be able to enjoy the area, not just cyclists.”</blockquote>
<div>
Meanwhile, road.cc adds "Our source at the meeting reports that Ms Holding said she believed a limit of 500 would be more appropriate"</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This woman is still claiming the "safety in the forest" myth, even though the final charter admits it is inconvenient, then says "well, let's just call our MP"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's Maureen <a href="http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/News/11735116.Cycle_event_company_refuses_to_support_voluntary_charter/">"I'm not anti-cycling but"</a> Holding, who is "not anti cycling, but " ... “I’ve always said the cycling charter needs more teeth – it hasn’t got the bite that it needs.”</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
She's the one who has been saying for months that "a change in the law is needed". And clearly she thinks that 500 should be the limit. Remember though: that limit is not "per ride", it is "total number of participants in sportives that day". </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If Maureen "I'm not anti-cycling but" Holding, gets her way, she'd have a limit of 500 bicycles/day in <i>her forest.</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
Sadly for her: it's not going to happen. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What will happen?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The next Wiggle sportive will be a test.</b> Will the uncontroversial bits of the charter be followed, and will it go down well? If not, what are the problems? Will there be locals putting up posters? Criminals putting down tacks at risk of causing injury? Or just some gripes about "too many cyclists"? Regardless: if there are any issues, the cyclist haters in the NFNPA will be blaming the cyclists, saying there were too many of them, etc, etc. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>There will be a summer</b>. The forest will grind to a halt on holiday weekends, animals will get killed by cars, there will be multiple crashes and possibly some deaths related to it. Hopefully none, especially any involving cyclists. If a cyclist is on the KSI statistics, this will reinforce prejudices "they shouldn't have been there". The presence of large traffic jams most weekends will not be considered a problem.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Cyclists will cycle round the forest.</b> As is their right. They will spend money in cafes and restaurants, B&Bs. Anyone planning to visit the forest should try to spend money ostentatiously "I wanted to visit the forest while it was still legal to cycle here", or "I know the forest has got a reputation for hating cyclists, but having visited it I can see it's just a few parish councillors and not the majority of the people". There's no harm in making clear that you are aware of and don't approve of the NPA members' actions —while recognising it doesn't imply the rest of the area is so narrow minded.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<b>The Bournemouth Echo will print cycling scare stories.</b> This paper could say "we're not anti-cycling, but..." as the opener to their weekly editorials. They've printed articles on <a href="http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9372056.Bike_rage_threatens_to_take_hold_in_Forest/">"growing number of cyclists 'frightening' people in the New Forest"</a>. They've consistently used resentment to sportives to support the killing of the Boris Bike plans: sportive photos over family ride photos, no attempt to even defend the ideas. Presumably they will repeat their tired, repetitive agenda. Which is a shame as there's another big story they havent looked at: how a small clique of parish councillors took over the national park authority, lost the region £1.6M of government funding and are now threatening the sole tourism mechanism that the forest could realistically sustain. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The NFNPA members will remain in power</b><i style="font-weight: bold;">.</i> The power group that got in on the basis that <i>something must be done</i> will stay in their committees, have a meaningless piece of paper and will have their supporters fuming whenever they are held up. These are the same people that lost the forest £1.6M already. What they will do is refuse to recognise the loss is their fault "the government' didn't accept our reasonable proposals from local people," and double-down on their efforts to have some kind of legislation to put teeth behind their bollocks. What they've probably underestimated is how hard it would be get any legislation through. It's one thing to set lighting up times in a parish, to push through your agenda in a park authority for which membership has not been contentious in the past —another for a clique of NIMBY parish councillors to try and set the laws of a country.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<b>There will be an election.</b> It's too late for the NFNPA to ask for local authority "regulation" before that election. After it, there's a new queen's speech and then "100 days" for the new government to make a visible impact. Possibly, if the new government is conservative majority, or Conservative+UKIP+DUP, the new forest MP has a chance of going to them and arguing that some form of regulation is worth listing. If its Cons+LibDem, he can ask, but there's less chance of it flying. If it is labour: they won't even sit down to talk to him. He's not on their team and they have other things to worry about.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>The only way some form of regulation on cycling on public roads will come about is tacked in to some other general bill, such as some road traffic one. So look out for them.</i></div>
</div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
And cyclists who care? There's the sportive, there's day trips. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There's also the option to stage a mass informal protest.</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Agree on a single day to visit the forest, some time in spring, post sportive, before peak season.</li>
<li>Plan to come over to the forest, ideally on a weekend trip, staying nearby and spending money locally.</li>
<li>Even if there is only 1 or 2 of you: contact the SAG, announce that you are coming, check to make sure that you are below the "1000 limit" for aggregate event attendees, ask what numbers you should wear. Do this to make a point that an aggregate limit is unworkable.</li>
<li>Turn up and ride. Maybe plan in advance some meetup points. Maybe not: the key thing is a mass visit of cyclists to the area, riding down every road, enjoying themselves. </li>
</ol>
Because this sends a message to the NFNPA</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It says : <b>we will not be intimidated.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It says: <b>you can make up whatever charter you want, you can't stop us without making cycling in the forest illegal</b>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It says: <b>you are outnumbered</b>.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1