Ken Livingstone is building "motorways of cycling" in London

Rock and roll, I look forward to it.

cool!

I don't like this part: Last night the proposals were given a cautious welcome by motoring organisations. Edmund King, president of the AA, said: "The current system of haphazard provision for cyclists is not good for them or for other road users.

"I think separating out cyclists can only be good for everyone and the only provision I would raise is that we still need to have roads for the movement of trucks, cars and buses - so we need to make sure we get the balance right."

Geoff Dossetter, from the Freight Transport Association, also welcomed the scheme but he warned against giving too much space to cyclists.

I think separating cyclists from the rest of the traffic gives entirely the wrong message, and "too much space" - wtf? Anyway surely freight transport shouldn't be taken through major cities by road - we have canals, rivers and railways for that.

Oh for pete's sake, because there's any real danger that Britain might disavow public roadways, as a nation? What a fucking transparent small-minded git.

"DON'T FORGET MY AGENDA, I HAVE TO SAY SOMETHIGN HERE EVEN IF COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS IN CASE THE OPPOSING LOBBY GETS THEIR VOICE OUT AND I DON'T"

i keep hearing about bike blvds, which concept i don't understand yet. i likeprefer riding on high speed one way streets w/ cars, as long as i have space. its faster than being on some frequently stop-signed side road. are bike blvds faster, or just "safer?"

What a fucking transparent small-minded git.

me?

are bike blvds faster, or just "safer?"

i haven't heard about bike blvds (will look now) but it sounds like the same thing i don't like about the separate all the bikes from everything else - that there are certain designated places bikes "should" be in (like the "should use a cycle lane wherever possible" thing here that means if you're in the road bc the bikelane is full of broken glass and parked cars and wandering pedestrians and you get in an accident it's your fault) and they should not be anywhere else. is difficult enough trying to persuade drivers to see bikes as legitimate traffic already. i have been yelled at to "get in the fucking bikelane" when there is a lorry parked in the bikelane.

there are two "separate" bike commute arteries i like here in town (denver) and thats cherry crk path and platte river path. the reason theyre good to me is that they are entirely grade separated, so you never have to stop, which is v zippy if youre coming in from down south of town. but its not any kind of solution to urban biking issues, you cant put grade separated paths everywhere

With the exception of a few poorly designed and dangerous bike lanes, my city has done nothing to accomdate and promote cycling. It's a fucking travesty and it pisses me off. I need to get more involved.

are there any actual maps or plans for this london scheme available online?

This is Ken's press release for the scheme: http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=15612 no actual concrete plans yet. Last night on the local news some head of borough councils was complaining that they haven't been consulted on this, and maybe they might not want loads of people cycling around the place.

Based on my experience (I've cycled in Berlin and a small Swedish town) separate lanes for cyclists are only useful when they're away from where traffic already is but there isn't much 'space' in London other than the Parks (and they seem to be the most reluctant to allow cycling) - it's not so much a case of "you must use that bike lane over there", more like "well I'll use that bike lane because it goes in a straight line to somewhere I want to go to".

All London really needs to get more people cycling is a hell of a lot more places to securely lock bikes (also abandon ridiculous proposal to allow councils to remove 'illegally' parked bikes without warning) and to introduce the sort of law they have on the continent where a driver is automatically to blame if he collides with a cyclist or pedestrian - people might start paying more attention.

Most bike lanes in London that aren't on roads are short, broken up, have silly bends in them (well, not silly, you need to get round lamp posts and things) and the surface is almost always worse than the road would be. I am pleased Ken's doing this but I'm not too optimistic it'll work well for people who like to get a bit of pace up. Pottering old folk and kids though will I'm sure benefit hugely.

Hunter, for some reason your comment about Denver made me massively miss it. I love your town, I wish I could go back :(

I am pleased Ken's doing this but I'm not too optimistic it'll work well for people who like to get a bit of pace up. Pottering old folk and kids though will I'm sure benefit hugely.
Surely the point of getting a 400% increase in cycling is to benefit 'pottering old folk and kids', and the thousands of people who don't cycle at the moment because a)they think it's dangerous, and b)they see cycling as something only done by couriers or people in lycra (see also compulsory helmet-wearing)

Yeah absolutely, it's great. I'm not (yet) one of them, but it's cool, as long as we still get to go on roads (or even in fast lanes) without it becoming some kind of taboo which enrages drivers.

I think my problem is I'm far too much of an idealist who can't see why it has to be such a binary situation, even though I know that's how it'll probably end up. There just needs to be more cyclists really, which would (possibly) reduce the amount of traffic, which is then greater for everyone.

Having said that, I wonder what the lycra-scene (I mean people who like to get a bit of pace-up) is like in all these wonderful continental cities. Surely not everyone rides around on town-bkes with 3-speed hibs and coaster brakes?

^3-speed hubs, obv. Not Hibs (football team), or the Hib (did something in Mansun).

xpost- were you here long mark? it's, erm pretty liveable, lotta low/med density sprawl tho.

if you like to ski, this year has been super epic (im told, as i don't have freedom or budget to ski as i used to do). w/ a worthless dollar it might be a good trip britishers

re lycra scene on continent- no first hand kno but i hear tell of those gran fondos or whatever in italy where like 15000 people turn out in team kit.

emsk: no, my ire was directed at the guy from the Transport Association who warned that it might lead Britain to forget all about automobiles, ie "HEY GUISE WE STIL NEED ROADS, look over here at my lobby group!"

Aw 3-speed Hibs <3 <3

Hunter, I came to visit three times in 2002-3 and loved it. It just had something about it. It seemed the perfect size, a lovely vibe, and some fucking great mountains taking up half the skyline. And it was sunny, and it snowed, and I had great food, and I just had a great time all round.

daerest ken, if you do build motorways of cycling in london, please make them at least two lanes in each direction, kthxbye

From Bikeradar.com:

It’s only a day since London Mayor Ken Livingstone announced his ambitious plans for cycling in the capital – or three if you include the leak to the Guardian – but the cracks in his grand scheme are already starting to appear.

As reported on BikeRadar yesterday, the Mayor’s Greater London Authority is in charge of just 5% of London’s roads. The remaining 95% fall under the control of the 33 Londonboroughs and yesterday the Chairman of their Transport and Environment Committee, Councillor Daniel Moylan, issued a blistering response to the Mayor’s proposals.

“It is frankly appalling that they [ the boroughs] were not consulted on this new strategy,” he said. “We are deeply frustrated with Mr Livingstone’s disregard for the boroughs – just because he presides over a ‘personal fiefdom’ doesn’t mean that he should act like a despot.”

As for the successful implementation of the Mayor’s ambitious plans, Cllr Moylan poured what amounts to an ocean of cold water on that prospect : “I don't think much of this will happen. Why should the boroughs listen to Mr. Livingstone when he has long since stopped talking or listening to them? He seems to be believing his own rhetoric about London being his personal fiefdom. If he truly wants his strategy to succeed, he should suspend the proposals, take the time and decency to consult with the boroughs, and then work up a strategy in partnership that will actually work for the capital.”

A spokesman for the Councils added: “Large swathes of the Mayor’s proposals require the sign-up of the boroughs and without that they are nothing more than empty election promises. The boroughs are frankly insulted by the Mayor’s position - he continues to ride roughshod over democratically elected councils.”

London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee is due to meet today to consider its initial response to the Ken Livingstone's cycling and walking programme.

London Councils are going to be busy trying to decide whether it's more important to have roads full of traffic or the consumer's right to be given free carrier bags whether they really want one or not (sorry I watched London Talking last night with Connie Huq (not actually with) and Nick Ferrari was on and it's just reminded me how bloody angry he makes me. I don't know if they got as far as discussing Ken's Big Cycling Idea, I turned over and watched Buster, thinking I could pretend Phil Collins was just Bob Hoskins acting badly.)