Where 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

1. Air pollution so bad that the government has been telling some groups of people to stay indoors and not do strenuous exercise (i.e. breathing heavily).
2. The supreme court telling the UK government to actually do something on air pollution -an action which would have profound implications for cities and urban motoring.
3. CO2 levels not getting any lower. Massive droughts in California, worse predictions of the impact of global warming —including more heatwaves in the UK.

And what do we see in the election?

Absolute fucking silence

Public Transport
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.

Buses? Nothing. Their contribution to diesel-related pollution (along with that of taxis) ignored.

Cycling?
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.

Driving?
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).

Heathrow and the third runway? 

Something kicked into the long grass last term, but which will surface this time. Does the silence LHR thinks their ULEZ plans will help, —which is not only ignoring the contributions air travel makes to global warming, its ULEZ plans are fucking hypocritical given they've banned cycling into the T1-T3 zone, 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.

Renewable energy?
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.
The tory party are moving beyond a block on wind turbines, to actively discouraging solar farms —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.

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.

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?

But nobody is making a fuss of this stuff, at least not enough to get into the press.

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.

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. 

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.

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, where the greens appear to be in second place. 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.

Instead, what do we have? The UKIP, the party of the past, one that cares more about death (abolish inheritance tax) and funding dementia research over any other science. The tory party chasing that UKIP vote (inheritance tax, pensions). And the Labour party? Following the Tory party -into the grave.

Crumbs before dinner

Thursday and the politicians meet in central Bristol to announce a couple of hundred million for improving UK cycling over a few years —no guaranteed of continued funding, and such a pittance that it has to be focused on a few towns to show any sign of delivering anything useful

This is the meeting going on, behind the cyclist in the hi-viz and the man smoking

Turn 180 degrees and you see the cycling-in-Bristol bit of the council —all wearing hi-viz themselves. If even the council can't say it's safe to cycle unless you dress up like a christmas tree, then it's not safe to cycle.

And four days later: same politicians get up and show where their promised billions will be wasted. Billions. So that people from London will have the traffic jams on their drive to Devon moved a bit. So that people trying to get on or off a motorway in the north of England will have to weight slightly less. At first, anyway. The S/W of england want that widened A303 precisely because they want the traffic generation. It doesn't matter to them if the existing holidaymakers have to wait 30 minutes on a friday; they want more visitors. The alternative —a good electric train service via Bristol— doesn't get a look in.

That £15B announcement puts the crumbs of Bristol into perspective: a pittance to retain votes in a few cities where the green candidates threaten the libdems. £200M is all the libdem coalition partners could get out of Osborne, enough for their candidates to claim to care come election day. Well, now for those people in the city who have the campaigners come to their door in Stephen Williams's constituency have an answer: how can you promise £15B to road building within four days of £200M for cycling and keep a straight face.

The cyclist-killer bill: why its time to get our voices heard!

More details on the raised HGV speed limits are coming out, particularly that the DfT are saying that it will lead to an increase of KSIs. And who else is going to be involved in that KSI statistic? Go look in the mirror before you do a ride on a rural road.

The DfT are effectively saying "we are prepared to kill cyclists to satisfy the needs of the motoring lobby" -a lobby that consists of the FTA (happy to attend party conferences and talk to politicians), and the general motoring public, whose views are summarised by those of Gemma Doyle MP: don't ever hold us up, even on dual carriageways, and even if you are training for the commonwealth games..

The DfT then think they've got something to keep the politician's lobby groups happy, and for all their voting drivers who view being held up by a lorry from the "natural" road speed limit as a personal affront.

Yet when announcing this they pretended it was a "safety feature"' to sell it on all front: money for the businesses, happy drivers, and less people in A&E and the morgue.

They lied about the safety features.

The DfT report being discussed in the guardian shows that they know they are lying.

Yet the politicians —and this is a political decision— went ahead for the following reason

The lives of cyclists are not considered important

Which from a political perspective comes down to

They felt they would win more support from faster driving than the political cost of allowing a few more cyclists and pedestrians to die.

This shows where we are today. The parliamentary cycling group may publish reports asking for money, but the UK is not only 40 years behind the NL in infrastructure, it is 40 years behind the NL in caring about the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and other "vulnerable" road users.

We can ask all we want for cash, but first the DfT has to care about cyclists lives —which means the politicians have to care.

Which means we have to make them care.

The good news is that there will be an election next year. We need to get organised and make those politicians care, to feel that their positions are threatened if cyclists lives are threatened. Then maybe they will back down from the cyclist-killer bill —and lets start calling it that, shall we? If we keep calling it that, the name will stick, the consequences will be clear.

Maybe they will even go beyond that, and start to look in their wallet.

But first: stop the cyclist-killer bill!

It's lethality not only makes the roads of Britain even more dangerous to cycle, it makes it something that we can publicly campaign against and get our voice heard.

A few thousand cyclists arriving at parliament square demanding money is something that can be dismissed in the press, waved away by the politicians with fatuous words.

But imagine tens of thousands of cyclists, holding mass protests outside the DfT? At rush hour? Imagine cyclists blocking every bridge across the thames. We'd get heard.

And we need to get our voices heard —as if we don't, things won't get better: they will get worse.

Full/partial banning cyclists: talking points

For anyone advocating a ban on cycling, here are the questions you have to answer (based on ban type) before your proposal can be taken as anything other than a piece of ill informed bollocks from a fuckwit who doesn't know what they are talking about but merely has a set of irrational prejudices and projected resentment on an outgroup from spending too much time in a traffic jam in their car

Assumptions

1. Peak hour cycling traffic is primarily utilitarian: school runs, commuting
2. out of hour traffic can include utility activities such as shopping, trips to doctors, social calls.
3. Cyclists on utility journeys will not "vanish" just because of the ban -they will merely switch transport options.

Full cyclist ban

1. Will this be on road, or include shared use, dedicated cycle lanes and off-road paths?
2. Will it include private roads and private spaces?
   Yes: you can't cycle in your own garden
   No: what about: universities, hospitals, MoD land, public parks, royal parks, 
3. How are the cyclists expected to do school runs, get to work?
   Public transport: how do you address the issue London Underground is already at peak capacity,  while other cities lack functional public transport systems?
   car: won't this make congestion and parking worse?. 
4. How will this be enforced? Mass confiscation of all the unregistered bicycles in the country? Or simply fining/arrest of anyone cycling on a public road? And potentially anyone cycling on a shared pavement, dedicated cycle path, or private property? 
5. Will cycling be a fixed penalty offence, or a crime? What should the penalty be? 
6. How will mass protest be addressed?
7. If someone who cycles does not own a car, or live in an area with public transport, how will they get around?
8. Given that there are tangible health benefits from cycling, how will you address the issue that the health of the UK population will actually get worse?

Cyclist ban at "peak hours"

1. How will peak hours be defined? 
2. will this include bus lanes during their hours of operation?
3. will it include off-road paths, private roads, public parks, etc?
4. In London there's no rush hour per se, just continually busy? Will there be a 100% ban in London? If so where does the border begin? North Circular? Inside M25?
5. In other cities the peak hours vary by region -will we have regional peak hours, or a blanket 08:00 to 09:00 and 16:30-18:00 ban?
6. What about areas that don't have peak hours -like country roads? What about country roads near cities?
7. What if someone is still not yet at their destination when peak hours begin?
8. If cyclists are unregistered,  how can you enforce it if the cyclist doesn't stop?
9. How are the cyclists expected to do school runs, get to work? Drive?
10. If someone who cycles does not own a car, or live in an area with public transport, how will they get around?
11. Given that there are tangible health benefits from cycling, how will you address the issue that the health of the UK population will actually get worse?

Ban "leisure cycling"
The challenge here is distinguishing "leisure cycling" from "utility cycling?"

1. Will saying "I'm on my way to the shops" suffice?
2. Will it be based on clothing?
3. Will it be based on type of bicycle?
4. Will it based on attributes of the bicycle, such as a basket or a rack?

Make "holding up cars" illegal

1. How do you define "holding up a car" if there is congestion further up ahead?
2. Is there likely to be a time threshold above which a bicycle is deemed to be holding up traffic? If so: who measures and enforces it? How can it be shown that the car was "held up" by the bicycle merely because they failed to overtake
3. Would the ban be on the number of motor vehicles being held up by the bicycle? 
4. Would it be legal if someone on a bicycle was cycling at the speed limit.
5. Would it be legal if someone on a bicycle is cycling at the speed of a vehicle in front.
6. Will it be an offence irrespective of the goal of the vehicle driving behind? Example: cyclist is going to work, driver is simply driving "for the fun of it"?

The trouble with this approach is that in a congested city it becomes impossible to point to any bicycle and say "they held me up", even if they are the vehicle directly in front of you -especially if they have a camera and can point to congestion ahead of them. Enforcement would be very hard. In particular, in a 20 mph zone, it is likely that a fit cyclist will be cycling at the speed limit -even if there is no congestion ahead of them.

Make cycling two abreast illegal.

1. How will one cyclist pass another? (The HGV passing problem)
2. What if it is a parent and child and the parent is positioned on the outside to make cycling to school safer?
3. As it is already illegal to pass someone on a bicycle too close, on a road that is too narrow to pass one cyclist , what difference will it make?

Some people think this already illegal. It isn't. 

Make cycling in large groups illegal.

1. How do you distinguish a number of individuals cycling on a route from an organised group of people cycling? (The Surrey Sportive problem)
2. What would be threshold?
3. Would it be legal for in individual on a bicycle to cycle past a group of cyclists one bicycle below the threshold?

Make cycling in cycle lanes by the side of the road compulsory.

1. What do they do when the lane is blocked by roadworks?
2. What do they do when the lane is blocked by an illegally parked vehicle?
3. What do they do when the lane is blocked by a legally parked vehicle?
4. What do they do when the lane is unsafe due to the quality of the road surface, state (water, snow), closeness to parked cars?

The problem here is that as well as being regularly blocked, it is near impossible to define when a cycle lane is safe. When Oregon introduced a mandatory cycle lane law, they required the lanes to be assessed as "safe", which is near-impossible to do.

make cycling on shared pavements alongside roads compulsory

1. what do they do when the shared use path is full of random street furniture, 
2. what if it is blocked by road works.
3. what if there is a vehicle illegally blocking the path?
4. what if there is a vehicle legally blocking the path?
5. what if it is in a condition that it is -in the belief of the cyclist- unsafe?

The problem here is a large proportion of shared use paths are shit.

Ban bicycles from certain roads.

1. which roads would bicycles be banned from?
2. if country roads: why? 
3. If urban roads: why?
4. If roads with a speed limit above 20 mph, will 20 mph zones be exempt:
5. if dual carriageways, will functional (safe, direct) alternatives be provided?

There is a legal ban on motorways, and roads such as the A1(M). There is a near de-facto ban on dual carriageways, though a recurrent problem is the lack of a safe alternative. Oftentimes it is safer to get onto the road of a dual carriageway to negotiate a roundabout than a multi-traffic island crossing where the cyclist has no right of way.

Make Cyclists Dismount signs mandatory
(UKIP transport policy, 2010 election)

1. Why? Is there a rational reason for this? 
2. Can a cyclist, when dismounting, stop in the road and hold up traffic? If so, is there a time limit?
3. Once dismounted, what is someone on a bicycle expected to do?
4. Will it be legal to walk across the road outside of a pedestrian crossing? 
5. If not -will pedestrian crossings be provided at every cyclists-dismount sign?
6. Can a cyclist, when remounting, stop in the road and hold up traffic? If so, is there a time limit?

This may seem a simple idea, but it assumes the cyclists will be docile and somehow jump onto the pavement and walk across. It does not address the situation where someone on a bicycle stops their bicycle in the middle of the lane, slowly dismounts, walks their bicycle over and then slowly remounts. This would actually impose more delays on the vehicles behind -unless you place restrictions on the dismount/remount process and require the dismounted cyclist to use a pedestrian crossing (which must therefore be provided).

Economic cost? 

1. Before this bill became law, cities would experience the most dramatic peak hour protests ever seen. What would the economic costs of mass cycling protests at rush hours be?
2. If the number of people driving increases, so will congestion and pollution. How will the economic cost of this be measured?
3. Given the health of the nation decreases from a reduction/elimination of cycling, what will be the impact both on productivity and NHS costs
4. If no economic benefit can be shown, and the pre and post legislation cost models show that were will be economic cost -is the cost threshold at which point the legislation will be cancelled?

Political cost

1. Even a partial ban during peak hours would directly impact everyone who cycles to work. There's a lot of professionals in that category, who can be very effective when it comes to political campaigns. Is it politically wise to take them on?
2. A full ban would impact everyone who cycles for leisure. As cycling is one of the main forms of activity in the country, is it politically wise to take them on?
3. Will MPs who vote for a full or partial ban likely to see more or less votes in the next election?
4. Will a party that pushes through legislation on a full or partial ban likely to see more or less votes in the next election?
5. Given there will be widespread opposition, the opposition parties will immediately seize on repealing the law as a manifesto item. How long is a full or partial ban on cycling likely to last?

Questions for anyone proposing cyclist registration

Again, we have someone mandating compulsory cyclist registration, though this time it isn't someone dialling in to a daytime local radio channel, or adding comments in the bottom of some local daily-mail substitute paper in a classic newspaper columnist unpunctuated sentence that even Joyce would avoid:  "all cyclists should be licensed and have an MOT and have third party insurance and mandatory helmets and hi viz and use cycle paths and keep out of the way of cars" in those

This time, it is an EU MEP, Nikki Sinclaire MEP.

Apparently the cycle lobby has been insulting and using "silly" examples like wheelchairs and scooters.

Here then: no insults, no silly examples. Merely simple questions about execution.

Assumptions:

1. A law is being written that will require all UK residents who wish to cycle to be registered, with their registration number on hi-viz. These questions below look beyond the headline to "implementation details"
2. Bicycle registration, "MOTs", and tax disks are ignored.
3. Britain is still part of the EU
4. A independent Scotland may exist; if so it is part of the EU
5. At the time this legislation is proposed, a national ID card does not exist.

Section 1: Nationality

Will visitors from other EU countries be allowed to cycle in the UK without being registered?

NO:

1. how will this be legal within the framework of a EU legal system which already recognises EU drivers licenses and vehicles within the UK? 
2. Will it become illegal to cycle across the border for Ireland to NI without paperwork, or perhaps soon, over the Tweed from Scotland to Berwick-upon-tweed?

YES: how will you distinguish EU visitors from UK residents? Passports?

Passport-based exemptionIf you use passports to recognise who is allowed to cycle without registration -how will you handle UK residents with other EU passports -in particular the millions with/eligible for Irish passports (nearly everyone in Northern Ireland?)
No checks:
How do you stop any UK citizen who qualifies for an Irish or (soon) scottish passport can get one and so cycle without hi viz?
UK Citizens must be registered, even if dual national. How do you prevent someone rejecting their UK citizenship and yet remaining resident due to their Irish/Scottish residency rights?
Check against list of UK residents:  Require all Irish/Scottish citizens living in the UK to register for one. This implies the roll-out of a national ID card to track all UK residents, otherwise it would probably be illegal.

The implication here is that significant controls will be needed on EU nationals being resident in the UK, with an ID card and tracking for all UK residents needed to distinguish visitors from residents. 

Section 2: Age

Will children be required to be registered?

YES: age limited.
This implies at a specific child's birthday they will be required to register and start wearing hi-viz. How will this be enforced? Will police be required to stop children who look "too old" and ask them for ID? If so: requires national ID card. 

YES: "kid's bikes are exempt"
Implies a rigorous definition of "Kid's bike"

• Small wheeled bikes only: adults folding bikes will be exempt, kids bikes with 26" wheels will require registration -and police to be able to recognise wheel sizes.
• Frame size: at what point will frame size transition from "small adult" to "large child" take place? 
• Child's bikes marked at point of sale: fails to address existing fleet of bicycles

The implication here is that there is too much ambiguity unless it is 100% mandatory for all children to be registered

Section 3: Access restrictions

Where must cyclists be registered before they can cycle?

Public Roads: Unless private roads are included OR clearly marked, how will you will differentiate public roads from private roads. 

Private Roads: How to distinguish "private road" from "driveway" or "garden path"? Implies registration is required to cycle on any private property. IF not, issue of distinguishing from public & private road arises.

Public shared use pavements: Again,  how to distinguish this from private shared-use pavements

Public parks: if not, again, requires distinguishing from private grounds to which public access is granted.

Royal parks: see above.

Bridleways across private land?  if yes, implies mandatory registration/hi-viz across private land. If not, implies private land to be clearly distinguished from public land, even in wilderness areas. 

BOATs and RUPPs: Yes: unless Bridleways also require mandatory registration, will need some way to distinguish these from Bridleways. No: need a way to distinguish BOATs from public roads.

Schools and hospitals. These are state owned properties with access restrictions. Would they be private land or public land? 

MoD land: example -much of Salisbury plain? 

Canals: property of British Waterways.

Council paths on council land: if mandatory, will need to include council parks

The implication here is that there is too much ambiguity unless it is 100% mandatory for anyone to cycle -anywhere, even on private land and their own driveway- without registration and hi-viz.  

Section 4: Roll out

How would this be rolled out? 

Personal application without ID. There would be no way to prevent fraud and someone applying for more than one, hence being able to ignore penalties

Personal application for registration with ID: implies all UK residents who wish to cycle must have some form of photo ID. Drivers licenses would not cover any children, nor any adults without them. Passports are not ubiquitous. The only 100% available document would be a birth certificate -however northern ireland and scottish certificates are managed independently from English & Welsh, so validating these is hard and expensive.

This also requires proof of residence to stop someone registering with a false address -and so being unreachable for any enforcement

By post without ID: Acquiring multiple registrations in false/stolen names just got simpler

By Post with ID: Add cost and logistics of securely managing ID postal.

The implication here is that a national ID would be the only effective way to manage to roll out.

How would a lost registration hi-viz top be dealt with?  User receives new top with new number. Old one "invalidated". Police now required to stop cyclists to verify that they are not cycling with a stolen hi-viz top. 

Section 4: Cost of execution

How would this be funded? 

1. General Tax: is there anything better that could be done with the money
2. One-off registration fee:  How much would it have to be to not only cover one-off costs of registration, but all ongoing costs of enforcement? 
3. Annual registration fee: If someone says "they no longer cycle" how will this be verified? Will the police be required to stop cyclists with hi-viz to verify they are current with their registration?

What will the costs of verifying cyclist registration be? 
This includes:

• stop and checks that a teenager cycling without hi-viz is above the mandatory registration threshold.
• stop and check that someone cycling with a hi-viz top is using their own top and not one that is stolen, found or fraudulently acquired. Again, implies national ID card of some form
• costs of stopping adults who are cycling without hi viz and confirming that they are EU nationals who have the right to do so
• costs of stopping and verifying that anyone cycling is not a cyclist who has their registration revoked 

Although it would seem simple "stop anyone without the hi-viz top", the need to identify revoked and fraudulent registration would imply a regular stopping of anyone cycling. Unless EU nationals -including visitors -were somehow mandated to also carry a top, it would become impossible to distinguish EU national from single-nationality UK citizen. In inner cities -especially London- there would be too many EU nationals to stop


Will costs include enforcement costs of inevitable protests and civil disobedience?

The police operational of mildly controversial issues such as badger culling turned out to massively increase the costs of the operation -the same for protested road building exercises.

A national roll-out of a cycle registration is likely to be the most controversial event in modern cycling history (possibly ever) and the opposition to it will be national. Unless these costs are correctly predicted and included in the cost models, they will be underestimated and come out of general police funding.

Will costs include impact of mass cycling protest in city centres at rush hours? 

Cycling protests will be guaranteed to be held at the most dramatic times of day, which implies nationwide protests in city centres designed to bring the cities to a halt at peak hours. How will the indirect cost of such protests be measured and included in any cost/benefit analyses?

Will mass gatherings by cyclists be made illegal?

Blatant acts of junction blocking would be accompanied by legal protests such as mass groups cycling at 5 miles an hour down key roads in the cities, including dual carriageways and roundabouts -the latter where the same group can cycle round repeatedly.

Mass gatherings of cyclists is currently legal.

Such protests would only be preventable by introducing laws restricting the number of cyclists that may gather in groups, how many times they can cycle round a roundabout or which roads they can cycle on. Even then, how would you distinguish a group of cyclists merely commuting on the same roads from a mass protest?


Section 4: Political Cost of execution

Do politicians want to deal with the backlash?

While the proposal may garner support from local radio phone-ins, during the period in which the legislation is being passed some of the largest ever mass protests by cyclists ever.

This would also bring them out to form some of the most co-ordinated political campaigns to convince politicians not to vote for the legislation.

It is also likely to encourage active campaigns against the re-election of any politician who voted for the legislation -irrespective of whether or not the vote was passed. Parties supporting such a vote via any form of whip would find all MPs experiencing the same backlash.

The closest equivalent is potentially the Countryside Alliance campaign, except they were not represented in the high-population constituencies around the country. Any cycling campaign would focus on the cities, and, in EU elections, actively campaign against MEPs who supported the plans.

Will revocation of the legislation be a manifesto item in future elections?

Given the inevitable backlash, it is likely that revocation of the legislation would be a manifesto item for the parties in opposition at the time the legislation was passed.

As such, the lifespan of the law is likely to be 5-10 years. Given the cost of rollout, it is hard to justify.

Conclusions

1. A national ID card may be requiredd. Indeed, the cyclist registration may become that national ID card. 
2. Unless the UK withdraws from the EU it is likely to be impossible to prevent EU nationals from cycling without registration. Even if it does, Irish and Scottish citizens cycling in Britain will be exempt unless there is a strict policy that requires a "guest registration" for all visitors, 
3. The ambiguities about age ranges for children imply the cutoff date would probably be about 8-10, but even then enforcement would be impossible unless children were required to carry an ID card. Mandating registration across all age rages would be simpler
4. The ambiguities about public vs private land would only be resolved by mandating that one cannot cycle without registration and hi-viz even on private land. That would likely to include one's own driveway. 
5. The costs of execution -including enforcement and handling protest would not be covered by a one-off fee -yet per-year fees hard and expensive to implement.
6. The indirect costs of mass protest on peak hours would not be reclaimable and potentially very damaging to the UK economy.
7. Legislation may be needed to prevent mass gatherings of cyclists at peak hours
8. The political costs of supporting the legislation would be high -and the law likely to be rescinded at the next election.

Britain's suburbs: cul de sacs of the mind

In Bristol, the proposal to convert Crews Hole from a rat run to a one way street and segregated bike path just got killed. By the local residents- the people who, in theory, would benefit the most. With the backing of the local cyclist hating paper, a paper willing to print letters from readers complaining that they saw seven cyclists on the road.

Over in wales, anti bike path campaigners are claiming that a bike path that goes behind the graveyard is "disgusting and disrespectful". Surely it is co-opting the already dead as a way to make their opposition of a bike path that is disgusting and disrespectful? But no, they try and blame the cyclists of their prejudices, but it shows on one quote "Is bad enough having a bike path behind your house, but ..."?

And the local paper lapped it up without calling the arse end out, to ask "why is it so bad to have a bike path behind your house?" A that would ensure that they could cycle into town safely 

These people live in the suburbs -and want to stay in their cul de sac lifestyle. They don't want to pedal anywhere. They want to drive to the shops. They don't want to cycle with their kids to school -they want to drive there. If they have unrealised transport aspirations -it is for a newer car, no doubt an urban SUV to impress the neighbours. If there is something they like complaining about when not whining about cyclists is will be parking: how the yellow lines on the main road stop them nipping out to the shops round the corner, how they don't go into "the city" no more, because there is no free parking -something they will blame on an anti-car council, and of course, the cyclists.

It is these fuckwits that show the flaw in the "build it and they will come story". They moved to the suburbs because they wanted a motorised lifestyle: a quiet road with no through traffic or parking problems, the expectation that they can drive everywhere -that it is their right. Anything that impedes on this right is a sign of the war on the motorist. They have to blame the inner city congestion problems on anti car councils because the alternative is to admit their own dream is flawed. They put down their bicycles when they grew up, and don't want to get back on. Adults who do cycle are foreign, ever metaphorically, or literally: European -and you can guess what they think of Europe. They only way they can imagine adults using a bicycle is as a hobby -hence the references to Wiggins in their vitriolic letters to the local papers; hence the sneering at MAMILs.

Their lifestyle is fucked. The growth of the suburbs is what creates the traffic jams: in Bristol that is on the M32 and the A4174, but it is also in all the suburban rat runs for the school run, the decaying high street killed by the suburban shoppers preferring the superstores. Their little cul de sacs have their own parking problems, with each resident building up the idea that the stretch of road in front of their semi detached house is "theirs", and not the neighbours or their friends. The two car household is universal -and now the three car household is upon them, as the children need them too, once they're old enough. To fit that many, the front garden walls go, is greenery turned into a wasteland tarmac, and a once pleasant row of gardened houses turned into a drab grey line of driveways with ageing cars. And now, whenever anyone leaves the cul de sac, they pay £1.30+ a litre, whining as they do.

These people may seem a relic of the past -and they are, they are the baby-boomers with their post war dream of a cul de sac they could call their own. But they have power.

They have the power to fight change in their suburbs -to resist the imposition of cycling on them. Which is how they view it. Not an opportunity, but a threat: propose to build it and they will come out fighting.

They are also a key voter group. There's a fuck of a lot of them -and they turn out to vote., When they aren't writing letters to their piss-poor local papers -papers that knows these are the only people who actually buy their papers- they are deciding who to vote for. Which comes down to two parties: the UKIP and the conservative.

You may look at the UKIP cycling manifesto and laugh at their checklist of the newspaper commentators: cycle registration, MoTs, licenses, insurance, enforcement of "cyclists dismount" signs, an end to council profiteering from issuing parking tickets, an end to the war on motorists. Oh, and mandatory helmets and hi-viz. But don't laugh that much. Because these are things the suburban voters want, and if the UKIP have it on their manifesto then the conservatives are looking at it too -too keep those voters themselves.

In the US it is some of the local politicians coming out against cyclists. Here it is Pickles,  buttocks of the Conservative party, who isn't ever going to cycle because he doesn't want to wear rubber trousers. Who complains that Cambridge has gone too far in supporting cycling. Who thinks that it is everyone's right to block a bike lane or a bus lane to buy a packet of fags from the corner shops. A man who speaks "common sense" in a northern accent to the masses who live in their cul de sacs and call Mr Owen two doors down as odd as sometimes he gets on a bicycle.

The fact that they are a key voter group -a group drifting towards the UKIP  is shaping all government policy: the referendum on EU membership, immigration restrictions,  tax policy such as income tax, marital tax allowances, and of course fuel tax. These are the people referred to as the "hard working families", and it's why the government is happy to stuff the poor -they aren't the target market. It's also why Pckles is happy to stuff cyclists.

Fucking over local councils is a fantastic policy for the Tory party

1. It appeals to the suburban drivers
2. It appeals to rural drivers who hate being held up on "their" roads from city folk
3. It makes for great "end the war on motorist" stories I'm the daily mail.
4. It doesn't cost central government anything at all.

The last point is key: Pickles doesn't need to go to Osborne and ask for cash. All he needs to do is get legislation out to stop the councils doing things. And if they claim their budgets suffer -that just reinforces the war on motorist story that the councils just do it for the cash.

For Pickles and the conservative party, encouraging parking at the expense of cyclists is a low cost way to appeal to their votes

What can we do do overcome these suburban policies and voters?

We could just wait for the ageing voters to die. The problem here is that they will be getting out and voting for at least another decade, and they are going to get even more reactionary. If UKIP gets stronger it's going to drive the Conservative party manifestos. This is going to push cycling even more into the background of the country's transport policy.

We could hope -or even work-to get the Tory party out of power. That runs two risks. It could split the cycling activists, who will have to choose between cycling policies they agree with or other national policies. It could also politicise cycling, pushing the conservatives from a neglect of cycling to active opposition. 

Convert the polticians case by case, councillor by councillor, MP-by-MP. That needs people in the suburbs to push for "a better transport policy". Not cars vs bikes, but just emphasise how much their current policy has failed. fuel prices aren't coming down, congestion still bad, public transport worse.  Though the Crew's Hole debacle shows this is going to be hard -and Boris the Blamer shows that the delivery doesn't match the promises.

Step 1 will have to be the local elections. Step 2? The next general election won't be until 2015, but we don't just want every party saying "we like bicycles" -we want the individual MPs to come out and do it.

Win the PCC election and set the agenda. If they continue to exist, we have to take them out of the control of the suburban voters with their narrow minds, and own them by the inner city voters. Which, given the turnout, is potentially easier to achieve than gaining influence in council elections. Right now only the daily mail reading elderly came out to vote -which is why there's a wanker in Cambridgeshire who views fighting rogue cyclists as his key achievement, while not recognising that the death of a 16 year old cyclist could be considered important.

Whatever happens though, it is going to emphasise the growing divergence between the city and the suburbs. Which is going to remain a barrier to cycling infrastructure in those suburbs, as well as a driver for government policy and funding. Somehow we need to win over thos suburbs

Any other ideas?

Boris the Blamer: the elephant in the room

This is probably the worst week in Britain's cycling history -to the extent that that the fact that someone else was crushed to death in London today: this time a pedestrian, was barely a surprise to cycling and road safety campaigners.

But to the families: the police turning up to advise that a loved one was dead will be a shock that will last for the rest of their lives.

The sheer awfulness of this week is brought out by the fact that the Bow Roundabout protest mid-week was protesting the death of four cyclists in eight days.

What would Boris Do? He's blaming the cyclists.

Why would he do this? The obvious answer: he's a selfish wanker who despite the claims that "dutch-style" cycling matters, doesn't mean it. He still thinks that cyclists can survive "if they keep their wits about them", and if not then it's their own fault, "they ran a red light" -which is of course the TfL world view.

TfL have that opinion because they are stuck in two worlds: mass transport -tubes and buses- and the car. Either way it's the big infrastructure projects their civil engineers love: overpasses, tube stations, grand things to be proud of -no shitty little bike lanes for ungrateful cyclists who are always complaining about your work.

With their direct control limited to the main roads, they end up being forced to build death-ways on them, because their overreaching objective "traffic flow" prevents them from building safe routes

To get more cars over per cycle, widen the road at each junction to let two cars through at once, then shrink it down at the far end. Gets cars over, but removes space for  a bike lane at the approach -and at the end you are left fighting for space with whoever is racing to the pinch point.

To get more cars over a junction, there's no time for all way pedestrian lights, meaning walking across more than one road means two waiting periods, then two sprints: slower to cross than a car. For cycling, it means that there is no time in the Bow St junction to have a dedicated cycling session. So the lights give you a couple of seconds head start, not the time you need to actually get over.

Finally there is parking. That's more of a side-road issue, which means the councils -but the TfL seem unwilling or unable to change the focus of the councils -Westminster and K&C councils in particular- to focus on cash through parking. Yet TfL have so much power if they really wanted it: the power to change the lights so that nobody could ever leave K&C, to cross over to westminster.  Those same main roads that break up cycling are a weapon TfL could use to get their way with councils -if they really wanted to. But they don't as they have  shared agenda. The councillors want their free parking spaces, the councils the paid parking, and TfL are happy to smooth the flow to those parking spaces.

That's TfL: stuck in time and collaborating with the councils to do nothing to make cycling safe. They could be changed, but that doesn't just take the time that Andrew Gilligan claims is needed: it takes motivation. It takes someone telling TfL "It's OK to slow down traffic if it encourages a shift to cycling". To instruct TfL to say to Westminster council "we're going to close Westminster Bridge to cars every Sunday -deal with it".

Who is the someone. The person who could is clearly; Boris the Cyclist Killer.

Except Boris the Blamer is again saying "no knee jerk reactions", "get all the facts" and reminding cyclists not to the break the law: with the obvious implicit message: the cyclists broke the rules and died for it"

And yes, he does it because he's a wanker who probably believes it.

However, he has a problem: he's an ambitious wanker.

Ambition one: get re-elected mayor
Ambition two: become leader of the conservative party, and then prime minister.

This week threatens this. Nationally.

Before the spring's elections Boris came round to supporting a "dutch style cycling revolution"

But where is it, apart from a half mile strip to CS2 -which you only get to from the city if you survive Bow Street.

That new segregated stretch is notable as the first TfL segregated superhighway route -but given it was opened the during the "massacre of the cyclists", the launch isn't going be a high point of Boris's second mayoral stint, it's going to be seen as a sign of him being out of touch with the real issues -and not just in London, this is making international news, as well as papers across Britain.

This threatens him because even if he thinks the cyclists are dying for their own failures, he's now exposed to his own failings:

If Boris can't build a bike path, how can he run a country?

It is that which may be the key to getting TfL to change their ways -but he needs to be reminded of this, every single day.

Addison Lee declares war

There's a theory in some cycling circles that the more people who cycle, the better it will be as everyone else will expect cyclists and be nice to them. Bollocks.

You don't get cut up by a minicab driver on a phone in NL because its not "enough people cycle", it's because everyone cycles, so they all know what it is like. And because the roads are set up to keep minicab drivers away from the schoolkids.

London -like the rest of the country- isn't set up this way.

There's another theory: that as fuel costs and congestion gets worse, more people will cycle.

Maybe. But maybe not.

Many of those people who try cycling will have such a bad experience that they will change their mind. It may be "they aren't properly trained", but you can't take the lane in a city unless you are fit enough to do 20mph, and ruthless enough to smack on the side of any vehicle trying to take that lane from you. Schoolkids don't get a look it.

Some of the people who try cycling will stick to it, learn the back routes round cities -and the Roads of Death that are almost impossible to avoid, even if it is just crossing them. If there's good parking at their destination, somewhere at home to keep a bike, they may stick to it and be happy -possibly even start campaigning for cities and suburbs to support their needs.

Will everyone else be greatful? Bollocks.

That same fuel costs and congestion is going to make everyone who drives even more angry and resentful.

You can see that from the hate comments in papers, in radio. "pay fuel tax", "pay up", "we pay", "fair costs". The more you pay to drive, the more you resent freeloaders, and the more you feel that you have the right to be there, and cyclists don't. There's also "Cognitive Dissonance": the more you spend, the less willing you are to recognise you made a mistake. People who drive feel they have paid enough to be there, and we haven't.

There's also the feeling of injustice that bicycles aren't stuck in traffic jams. Again, the comments complain about that "undertaking", "not staying in lanes". And of course "use bus lanes".

Addison Lee's actions fit entirely into this model

1. The drivers have had enough of congestion, so want to use the bus lanes. Griffin thins he has the political clout to get the rules changed, win new accounts, and have his drivers get more customers/day.
2. Griffin is also fed up with the amount of money he feels that his company pays to be on that road, and that we, the cyclists, don't deserve any space.

That's why he wants the bus lanes: money.

The rant about cyclists being untrained and diving under his cars? That's just resentment about the growing number of bicycles. View that as a measure of success.

After all, he's done more to give Addison Lee Cabs a bad reputuation than any number of youtube videos has done. He's got the cyclists and black cabs allied. And he's even got the Daily Mail on our side.

That means he's done more for cycling in a week than Boris Johnson has in four years.