Forum Topic

New Highway Code and more funding for cycleways and walking

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58021450Grant Shapps on Today programme after 8 am to cover this. However, to get future funding councils will need to keep their cycle lanes in long enough to provide a proper assessment of their effects, and at least a year. I hope our local councillors and LBH can come together on backing this sensible advice after the expensive debacle of the Kensington High Street cycle lanes.

Tom Pike ● 1914d38 Comments

Daily Mail: No10 tells councils to STOP ripping up bike lanes - or face funding cuts: Local officials are told not cave in to angry drivers and 'leave cycling and walking routes in place' for at least a year Times: Angry drivers no reason to remove cycle lanes, councils toldGuardian: Hastily abandoned low-traffic schemes could cost councils fundingTransport minister warns local authorities not to remove cycle lanes or other reduction measures without evidence of their failure. 

Edward Seaton ● 1914d

Pretty clear then the response councillors demanding the removal of any cycle lane can expect and I’d hope none of them would be so ill-informed, or pig-headed to make such a demand.

Tom Pike ● 1914d

Wishful thinking Tom. Imagine my shock that the Chiswick Conservatives have called-in the Council's decision to continue with the cycle lane on Chiswick High Road. Amongst the reasons, that include the already discredited challenges to TfL data, is this pearl: "a potential human right challenge" on the basis of "absence of validation for ... non-cycling communities". What exactly is a non-cycling community?So we have the local Conservatives trying to pressurise the Labour Council into defying the express instructions of the Conservative Government. Why do they waste everybody's time with this nonsense?Meanwhile Boris Johnson says "And if you are going to oppose these schemes, you must tell us what your alternative is". Quite. Precisely what many of us have been saying to the Chiswick Conservatives for the last four years.

Paul Campbell ● 1914d

Paul, you need to remember you are on the fringe with this one, together with the national government, DfT, the Mayor, TfL and LBH. It’s the councillors that represent the core on this, albeit a minority opinion in Chiswick. Admittedly, it is a pretty broad fringe and a rather small core.

Tom Pike ● 1914d

Martha Kearney spoke for that core in her interview with Shapps when, in response to his suggestion that vulnerable road users should be prioritised so cars must give way to pedestrians crossing, she asked "won't that create tension with drivers?" You can't write this stuff.

Paul Campbell ● 1914d

Given that I have consistently said you need at least a year's worth of data to come to any firm conclusions about cycle lanes, I can hardly object when that is the govt's position as well.Sadly, as we have seen from both sides of the debate, the data will be misrepresented, analysis will be skewed to avoid inconvenient results and the great debate will continue to rumble on

Justin Stephenson ● 1914d

Will the new Highway Code also require cyclists to give way to pedestrians at zebra crossings and when turning into junctions? I mean actually give way and stop rather than dodge round them while they're crossing.

Peter Evans ● 1914d

I agree, you can’t reach firm conclusions, and it was clearly ridiculous of RBKC to take out their cycle lane after six weeks. I’m guessing Safer Streets K&C will be making this a plank of their JR, which was funded in just 48 hours thanks to their lawyers willing to act pro bono. Quite a contrast to the stalled OC JR which eight months later is still looking for funding for their lawyers, who clearly weren’t willing to give their services in the public interest.

Tom Pike ● 1914d

It will require all road vehicles to give way to pedestrians at side roads.  Not just those on the crossing, but those waiting to cross.  I'm not sure that I like that but it's probably safer as most pedestrians don't bother to look before crossing at the moment.Those who want to see cyclists relegated to poorly designed cycle lanes won't like this:"Use facilities such as cycle lanes and tracks, advanced stop lines and toucan crossings (see Rules 62, 63 and 73) where they make your journey safer and easier. This will depend on your experience and skills and the situation at the time. Whilst such facilities are provided for reasons of safety, cyclists are not obliged to use them and may exercise their judgement."

Al Webber ● 1914d

I thought drivers were already supposed to give way to pedestrians at junctions. Was this changed or just ignored by drivers?

Philippa Bond ● 1914d

There is a difference between a zebra crossing and crossing a side road at a junction.  As ar as I know they should already give way on a zebra crossing.On a side road at a junction, they currently have to give way if the pedestrian is already crossing.  However, the pedestrian is supposed to stop and look, and not cross if a car (or bike) is turning in.  The vast majority of pedestrians do not do this in my experience.  They just walk across without looking.The changes will probably make things safer, given current pedestrian behaviour, but I'm not sure that changing it in a way encourages pedestrians to walk across the road without looking is a good thing.

Al Webber ● 1914d

Al, I'm sure they forget about the changes they rarely look or are aware.

Janice Evans ● 1914d

Great piece by Andrew Selous MP on Conservative Home:https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2021/07/andrew-selous-the-suggestion-voters-werent-consulted-on-ltns-is-wrong-local-elections-suggest-they-approve.htmlHere's the bit relating to Chiswick:QuoteIn London, our mayoral candidate, Shaun Bailey, made opposition to bike and walking schemes one of the main planks of his campaign, promising that if he won the election, he would remove them. In Manchester, Oxfordshire, and the North East, local candidates did the same.  It didn’t work for us. It didn’t win us votes. In Conservative West London, the Bailey campaign did direct mail, leaflets, Facebook videos and personal visits against a new separated cycle track along the Chiswick High Road. Our vote went up in the borough (and in London) as a whole.But in the three Chiswick wards with the cycle track, we went down by between 10 and 12 per cent. Similar, intensive efforts against LTNs in Ealing again saw the Conservatives underperform in most of the wards concerned, losing one, Ealing Common, that we won in 2016. In Enfield, our vote went up in most of the LTN wards, but by less than the borough average. In Oxfordshire, Manchester, and other places, we flatlined or fell in the LTN wards.  UnquoteIt's unfortunately the case that the local Government boundary changes will probably make Cllr McGregor's Homefields seat safe.  However, Turnham Green and Riverside Tory Cllrs might want to ask Cllr McGregor if continuing unreasonable opposition to CS9 is a winning strategy for May 2022?

David McLoughlin ● 1914d

We were drilled as children to look before we crossed and not just once and then later there was a Tufty Club I think.  I'm not sure that this happens. I think children don't get the practice when they are driven everywhere.  You shouldn't be expected to put a child in a buggy in the road to stop the traffic before you cross which is what the old instructions seem to say (which is something that you see).  Just showing that your intention to cross is all that should be needed.

Philippa Bond ● 1914d

Fair enough.  In my view, Khan is an utterly dreadful mayor, but I didn't vote for Bailey either, and it was his transport policies that were the reason.  I did vote for Goldsmith in the previous mayoral election.

Al Webber ● 1914d

Some more voices from the fringes on this. A backbench Tory MP writes on Conservative Home:https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2021/07/andrew-selous-the-suggestion-voters-werent-consulted-on-ltns-is-wrong-local-elections-suggest-they-approve.html"In London, our mayoral candidate, Shaun Bailey, made opposition to bike and walking schemes one of the main planks of his campaign, promising that if he won the election, he would remove them.... It didn’t work for us. It didn’t win us votes. In Conservative West London, the Bailey campaign did direct mail, leaflets, Facebook videos and personal visits against a new separated cycle track along the Chiswick High Road. Our vote went up in the borough (and in London) as a whole. But in the three Chiswick wards with the cycle track, we went down by between 10 and 12 per cent....."We have a traffic problem, an obesity problem, a pollution problem, and a climate problem. Schemes that get more people cycling and walking can be part of the answer to all those problems. That is why I’m glad the Government is acting to make cycling a pursuit for the many, not just for the brave."

Tom Pike ● 1914d

It's interesting that Biddolph et al think there are more votes in keeping the angry motorists happy than supporting the policies handed down from Tory HQ.Same goes for Gary Malcolm et al north of Bath Road who seem to ignore the basic Lib Dem policies on environment.Perhaps they should join forces and create a new party with a mandate to sell more diesel.

Will Watson ● 1914d

David, areas where Conservatives got in they kept their word and remove the lanes pronto.

Janice Evans ● 1914d

Just imagine how many more would have got in if their signature policy wasn't such a turn off for the majority of people.You realise we're talking about a bike lane for christ's sake?!Hardly the biggest issue in people's lives right now - but to hear Biddolph et al talk about it, the end of the world as we know it!Shame for her and the other ludicrous reactionary extremist Onesies out there that the bike lane didn't result in mass fatalities and the devastation of the high street.... but god how they wish it had!

Ed Saper ● 1914d

I'm not a Onesie, just explaining what happen.

Janice Evans ● 1914d

No, I didn't think you were and I forgot I was replying to you :-)Apologies Janice.

Ed Saper ● 1914d

Accepted, was just saying they did remove them, if all of them I'm not sure but the route to my Sister the were remove.

Janice Evans ● 1914d

Paul Campbell quoted"a potential human right challenge" on the basis of "absence of validation for ... non-cycling communities". And then went on to ask..."What exactly is a non-cycling community?"Well the elderly, anyone else with mobility problems, and the blind and partially sightedmight do for starters, don't you think ?The very fact that you need to ask, being seemingly blissfully unaware of the existence of such people, let alone of the increased difficulties they face every day as a result of these "improvements", rather speaks for itselfI'm afraid.michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1914d

Michael, I’m afraid you’ve defined older and disabled people, not the “non cycling community” and in your rush to co-opt them into your faux rage against PC, forgotten that many of them cycle and might even be quite pissed off that you’ve written them all off as incapable.

Ed Saper ● 1913d

Ed Saper suggested" Michael, I’m afraid you’ve defined older and disabled people, not the “non cycling community”Er no. The non cycling community consists of variousgroups among whom are the elderly, those withmobility problems along with the blind and partially sighted. Along with those who never learned to cyclein the first place of course"and in your rush to co-opt them...forgotten that many of them cycle..."If you really find it necessary to try and convince peoplethat "the elderly" ( as I stated, not simply "older people" which is rather different), along with peoplewith mobility problems, the blind and partially sighted actually ride bicycles, and are in no way inconvenienced by having to cross cycle lanes in order to board buses then there's not much anyone can sensibly add to that, really.It's almost as if Boris himself is speaking.Yesterday it was chain gangs in flourescent jackets.Today its the elderly, people with mobility problemsthe blind and partially sighted all throwing off theirchains and riding around on bicycles.michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1913d

Sure Michael - double down. Quite apart from our own paralympians, blind people and those with mobility issues can and do cycle, as do the elderly. You were trying to throw this at PC to suggest he was out of touch and lacked empathy. You merely exposed your own prejudice. If you’re not a member of OneChiswick, you should join. That’s the anti-cyclist community you’re looking for.

Ed Saper ● 1913d

“Today its the elderly, people with mobility problemsthe blind and partially sighted all throwing off theirchains and riding around on bicycles.”You’ve got it, exactly:https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/

Tom Pike ● 1913d

Ed Saper explained..." Quite apart from our own paralympians, blind people and those with mobility issues can and do cycle, as do the elderly." Indeed for some, within the protected environment of a stadium.Are you seriously suggesting that such people should adopt cycling as their everyday means of transportcycling on public roads or even cycle tracks ?" You were trying to throw this at PC to suggest he was out of touch and lacked empathy. "He can and does lack empathy, as do you yourself.As far as you're concerned the only people opposing cycle lanes, are motorists. Unless you can point me to a post where either of the two of you have everacknowledged the inconvenience cycle lanes couldcause to the elderly, those with mobility issuesthe blind or partially sighted.Of course you won't, because you can't. "You merely exposed your own prejudice."Prejudiced on behalf of the elderly, those with mobility issues, the blind and partially sighted ?Guilty as charged.Far from being "anti-cyclist" I've enough experience to know that anyone choosing to cycle along Chiswick High Road. like yourself and chummy apparently - not only choosing to do so but demanding their own dedicated cycle lane for the purpose - is already two sandwiches short of a picnic. Unless they're particularly enamoured of waiting at traffic lights, that is.cue: "Who says they ever wait at traffic lights ?"michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 1913d

"Reports today that the new Government guidance will 'insist councils always leave cycling and walking schemes in place’ for long enough to be properly assessed follows our recent Cabinet decision to do exactly that in the case of the C9 cycleway.”https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/news/article/2411/hounslow_council_responds_to_new_government_low_traffic_neighbourhoods_guidance

Tom Pike ● 1913d

You are, as usual, spot on, Mr Adams.  The arrogance of these people is breathtaking.

Claire Moran ● 1913d

"Are you seriously suggesting that such people shouldadopt cycling as their everyday means of transportcycling on public roads or even cycle tracks ?"Yes - if they want to.  Your core assumption is that the elderly, partially sighted, mobility impaired and disabled are incapable of cycling.That assumption is wrong.  Plain wrong.  Laughably wrong.And you mock them by saying they can't and then claiming them for your fictitious "non cycling community" who you say are concerned about, inconvenienced by or opposed to safe cycling infrastructure.Let's take the elderly - you suggest they are a homogenous group and part of your "non-cycling community".The standard age at which you are considered elderly is 65, but there are cyclists on this forum at and above that age who cycle. In fact the 60-69 group cycle as much as the under 16s and there are plenty of cyclists over 70 and beyond, but it drops off sharply from age 70.Why?  Well, one reason given is the lack of safe cycling infrastructure which separates them from traffic.Yes - the same infrastructure you want removed because it is dangerous for elderly pedestrians.You want me to admit "the inconvenience cycle lanes could cause to the elderly"?No - they are a benefit to anyone who wants to cycle safely - young or old and elderly!

Ed Saper ● 1913d

In answer to my question as to whether peoplewith mobility problems should adopt cycling astheir everyday means of trnsport  Ed Saper answered"Yes - if they want to."Which of course is no answer at all. As clearly nobody suffering from severe joint pain such as they cant even flex their knees, or severe respiratory problems such that they can't walk twenty yards without stopping to catch their breathclearly would want to cycle in in the first place. Which is rather my point. He then went on to suggest"And you mock them by saying they can't..."You don't actually further your argument by seeking to denigrate me or question my motivesUnfortunately for you it would appear that in allyour contributions to this forum you've never even once considered the possibility that there may be people far worse off than yourself, for various whose views and needs are never considered.Just as such people have been successfully banished from the High Street - as their presence clearly undermine the vibrant atmosphere, so their views are totally ignored.If you don't believe me take a walk down the High Street any day and if you happen to see an elderly person (see below) or someone with mobility problemstake note of how they're studiously ignored by allaround them. And the same applies to their treatment by Councils - lip service and empty gestures at best.He then went on to suggest"The standard age at which you are considered elderly is 65,"I'n not really interested as to what the "standard age" is. Being elderly is a state of mind.Some people are blessed genetically such that theycan reach their eighth decade without suffering theany of the chronic conditions, joint problems, respiratory and heart conditions, cancers  which sadly afflict other people regardless of their lifestyle. Such lucky people may even smile to themselves when seeing mere 66 yr olds being described as "pensioners".But as I said not everyone is so lucky. And IMO being elderly means finally acknowleging that theage is finally catching up with a person not matterwhat they do, and they they're no longer as youngas they used to be. The onset of which can range from 45 years of age to maybe 95. None of which alters the fact that there are large numbers of people who in addition to being largelybanished from the high street can no longer evenboard a bus in complete safety.michael adams... 

Michael Adams ● 1913d

Janice, the point the Tory MP Andrew Selous made was that the Tory vote went up overall but that they lost votes in LTN and cycleway areas  compared to non LTN or cycleway areas. The outstanding example being Chiswick where there was not just a relative decline  but an absolute decline in the Tory vote.  The Royal Borough Of Kensington and Chelsea, like Westminster, gets a lot of revenue from parking and is anyway Tory controlled. So they probably will do their own thing regardless of what Johnson or Shapps says.

David McLoughlin ● 1913d

They usually stop rat runs by using sleeping policemen ramps.

Janice Evans ● 1913d

David, dont think people vote on road changes, the fact they said theywould remove them is never going to encourage voting for them as thereare so many other reasons for a vote, was just saying they did remove them, whereas many may have thought they wouldn't.

Janice Evans ● 1913d

Tom, agree with that but also think they should be introduced slowly toallow people to get used to the change, it was all too much in one go.

Janice Evans ● 1913d

Can't we just have a referendum? Can't do any harm.

Simon Temple ● 1912d

😴

Janice Evans ● 1912d