🚀 go-pugleaf

QUOTE;

London Assembly Member Jenny Jones, the Green Party's candidate in the
forthcoming Mayoral Elections, says that basic issues that would make
life
easier for the capital's cyclists are still not being dealt with, as
outlined in this blog post from her. She has also published a report,
Cycling In London, based on research compiled through speaking with
cyclists
in all of London's boroughs over the past year, which you can download
at
the end of her post. Over to Jenny:

Cycling in London has definitely progressed in the last decade and has
continued to expand through the Cycle Hire and Cycle Superhighways.

But there are a lot of basic problems that need to be tackled. By
basic, I
really do mean the things that cyclists should not have to worry about
-
signage, parking, maintenance, uninterrupted cycle routes and safety.

I have visited every London borough and been out riding with many
local
cyclists. It is clear from what they have shown me of their areas that
cyclists are facing these difficulties everyday, across the whole of
the
capital. The report I have published on cycling in London identifies
these
problems and sets out several recommendations that I believe would
make
cycling a much better experience.

High priority for cyclists when designing road layouts is one of these
recommendations. It's frustrating for cyclists who have to dismount
and
mount a number of times or have to negotiate one way streets or cross
multiple lanes, because they have just not been considered in the road
design. Cyclists are key road users, just like motorists, and this
needs to
be emphasised.

I recommend secure cycle parking, including card-access facilities,
are
installed in places where theft from bike stands is prevalent and at
every
railway station and in all town centres. I've seen people cycling to
the
station in the morning to get the train to work, only to find all the
cycle
parking spaces are full. It's highly inconvenient and means that the
person
has to park their bike elsewhere, often where it is less safe.

Litter, glass and debris does not sound like a major problem, but it
can be
particularly annoying for cyclists. It only takes one piece of glass
to
burst a tyre and that person may not bother to get a new one, so
that's
another cyclist lost. I recommend that cycle routes are routinely
maintained
and all boroughs should provide a service for cyclists to report these
basic
maintenance problems.

Even these three simple recommendations would massively improve
cycling.
There are eight more in the report that I believe tackle the problems.

I'm certainly not detracting away from the big schemes. They have gone
a
long way to bring cycling to many more Londoners. But it is the
cycling
basics that really need to be dealt with in order to improve cycling
across
London and bring the pleasure of cycling to thousands more.

http://road.cc/content/blog/53505-jenny-jones-says-cycling-basics-still-not-being-dealt-london

--
Simon Mason

QUOTE:
Cycling's most famous father-to-be, world champion Mark Cavendish, is
urging children, parents and staff across the UK to take to their
bikes next month for this year's edition of Sustrans' Big Pedal.

The initiative, aimed at encouraging kids to get active, will see 900
schools compete for prizes, as well as raising money for the
sustainable transport charity.


"It's great to see more people out and about cycling and I always
smile when I see a family or a child on a bike," said Cavendish, whose
daughter with girlfriend Peta Todd, who already has a six-year-old son
from a previous relationship, is due to be born in April.


"The Big Pedal is a great Sustrans competition to get more kids out on
two wheels," continued the Team Sky sprinter.


"So many kids want to cycle so we should make it easy for them to get
around by bike and to be fit and healthy.


"It's brilliant to see Sustrans encouraging children from a young age
to be happy, independent and free-range, and maybe even feel inspired
to become future British cycling champions," Cavendish added.


According to Sustrans, nearly one in two children wouls like to be
able to cycle to school, but only 4 per cent currently do so.


The Big Pedal, which lasts three weeks, aims to help show schools,
parents and children how east it is to use a bike to get around.


Carl Pittam Sustrans Director for English Regions commented: "It's
amazing to see so many schools signed up to take part in this year's
competition.


"Sustrans is helping thousands of children across the country to be
out and about, active and independent, with the freedom to get around
on foot or by bike.


"The success of last year's competition proves just how much kids want
to be able to cycle to school and we know for a fact that plenty of
children continued to cycle to school as a result."


The Big Pedal receives funding from the cycle industry through Bike
Hub and Phillip Darnton, Executive Director of the Bicycle
Association, added: "The future of cycling depends on every generation
of kids learning and wanting to cycle. What better way to get started
than joining in the Big Pedal.


"The cycle industry through its Bike Hub levy is delighted to fund
this event for another year. 2012 is a very special year; the Big
Pedal marks the start of the Summer of Cycling - a new campaign
bringing together everyone who cycles and encouraging them to
introduce one new-comer to cycling during the year."


More information, including which schools are taking part, can be
found on the Big Pedal website.

http://road.cc/content/news/53504-father-be-mark-cavendish-backs-sustrans-big-pedal-encourage-kids-bikes

-- 
Simon Mason

 

On Feb 28, 1:24 pm, "Simon Mason" <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> QUOTE:
> Cycling's most famous father-to-be, world champion Mark Cavendish, is
> urging children, parents and staff across the UK to take to their
> bikes next month for this year's edition of Sustrans' Big Pedal.
>
> The initiative, aimed at encouraging kids to get active, will see 900
> schools compete for prizes, as well as raising money for the
> sustainable transport charity.
>
> "It's great to see more people out and about cycling and I always
> smile when I see a family or a child on a bike," said Cavendish, whose
> daughter with girlfriend Peta Todd, who already has a six-year-old son
> from a previous relationship, is due to be born in April.
>
> "The Big Pedal is a great Sustrans competition to get more kids out on
> two wheels," continued the Team Sky sprinter.
>
> "So many kids want to cycle so we should make it easy for them to get
> around by bike and to be fit and healthy.
>
> "It's brilliant to see Sustrans encouraging children from a young age
> to be happy, independent and free-range, and maybe even feel inspired
> to become future British cycling champions," Cavendish added.
>
> According to Sustrans, nearly one in two children wouls like to be
> able to cycle to school, but only 4 per cent currently do so.
>
> The Big Pedal, which lasts three weeks, aims to help show schools,
> parents and children how east it is to use a bike to get around.
>
> Carl Pittam Sustrans Director for English Regions commented: "It's
> amazing to see so many schools signed up to take part in this year's
> competition.
>
> "Sustrans is helping thousands of children across the country to be
> out and about, active and independent, with the freedom to get around
> on foot or by bike.
>
> "The success of last year's competition proves just how much kids want
> to be able to cycle to school and we know for a fact that plenty of
> children continued to cycle to school as a result."
>
> The Big Pedal receives funding from the cycle industry through Bike
> Hub and Phillip Darnton, Executive Director of the Bicycle
> Association, added: "The future of cycling depends on every generation
> of kids learning and wanting to cycle. What better way to get started
> than joining in the Big Pedal.
>
> "The cycle industry through its Bike Hub levy is delighted to fund
> this event for another year. 2012 is a very special year; the Big
> Pedal marks the start of the Summer of Cycling - a new campaign
> bringing together everyone who cycles and encouraging them to
> introduce one new-comer to cycling during the year."
>
> More information, including which schools are taking part, can be
> found on the Big Pedal website.
>
> http://road.cc/content/news/53504-father-be-mark-cavendish-backs-sust...
>
> --
> Simon Mason

Crossrail, one of the biggest civil engineering projects in London's
history and the largest transport infrastructure project in Europe,
has moved to ban any operator whose lorries are not fitted with basic
safety features particularly relating to the safety of cyclists, from
working for it.

Under contracts drawn up by the the Crossrail Consortium requires
lorries working on the project whether from main or sub-contractorts
to be fitted with side proximity sensors, Fresnel lenses and side
under-run guards. In addition Crossrail has worked with Transport for
London (TfL) to fit Trixi mirrors at all junctions leading in to its
sites. So far 52 junctions have been equipped with such mirrors which
enable drivers to check the blindspot on their lefthand side - an area
of particular danger for cyclists.

In a Crossrail statement announcing the measures Andy Mitchell,
Crossrail Programme Director said: “Crossrail sets high standards for
lorries operating on the project and views the safety of all road
users, including cyclists, as a significant priority.

“Crossrail requires all lorries working on the Crossrail project to be
fitted with additional safety features to protect cyclists. HGVs that
do not comply with our increased requirements will be refused entry to
Crossrail worksites and turned away incurring financial cost to
individual contractors. As our contractors often work on multiple
construction projects, these new safety measures will help improve
lorry safety across the construction industry, delivering benefits for
cyclists across London.

Crossrail also confirmed that a small number of lorries had been
turned away from its sites for non-compliance with the required safety
features, although Crossrail does not say in its statment whether
enforcement of the safety terms of their contracts has recently been
stepped up or whether they have been turning non-compliant lorries
away since work on the project began.

Construction is a constant factor in all major cities but in recent
years London has seen almost unprecedented levels of work taking place
in and around the city centre with two massive projects in particular,
the Shard Tower and the Olympic Park responsible for a huge amount of
extra construction traffic. Crossrail is a project that dwarfs even
the Olympics and Shard in its scale and complexity - building 21.5Km
of mainline railway tunnels under Central London for a new railway
line running from Shenfield in Essex to Maidenhead in Berkshire. The
Crossrail project started in 2010 and is due for completion in 2018
with the main tunnelling work taking place from 2011 to 2014 at it's
peak there will be 50 lorry movements of waste sold a day in and out
of the project's Charing Cross site alone and that is just a fraction
of the spoil that needs to be moved - 85 per cent will go by rail or
river.

The scale of the project has led to a particular focus on Crossrail
because at its peak it will greatly add to the number of construction
lorry movement in London, a vehicle type that is disproportionate
responsible for a high number of road casualties, particularly of
female cyclists. between 1999 and 2004 85 per cent of the women
cyclists killed on London's roads died in incidents involving HGVs.

To further try and reduce the risk to cyclists and pedestrians
Crossrail has embarked on a programme of driver training including
cyclist awareness training for all its drivers put together in
conjunction with the London Cycling Campaign, CTC and Roadpeace - so
far the company says 2000 drivers have gone through the programme.

At almost the same time as the Crossrail announcement a group
representing some of the UK's biggest construction firms, the UK
Contractors Group announced that it was putting together a new safety
strategy for its members that would include lorries a requirement for
lorries entering city centres to be fitted with similar levels of
safety equipment as required by Crossrail.

The move comes in response to the Times' Cities Fit For Cycling
Campaign and UKCG director Stephen Ratcliffe told the newspaper We are
aware of the health and safety risk [to cyclists] and this is about
finding a more cohesive and collective way to manage the issue. If the
same message is coming out from 30 companies rather than just one, it
is far more powerful.”
http://road.cc/content/news/53357-london-crossrail-bans-unsafe-lorries-its-sites

--
Simon Mason

In article <2541ae56-8418-4f1d-98ad-cf0d7c0ffb7d@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Simon Mason  <swldxer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Over to Jenny:
>
>Cycling in London has definitely progressed in the last decade and has
>continued to expand through the Cycle Hire and Cycle Superhighways.

I find this relentless (let's be polite) optimism very depressing, because
it is used to support the approach that what is needed is more of the same,
including in cases when it is clearly not adequate or is even not working.
The reference she gives claims a twofold increase in cycling rates from
2000 to 2008 for no increase in accidents.  Fine, but let's see (a) the data
and (b) what has happened since.  TfL's searching is not helpful, so
it's hard to tell if there is anything there.

>But there are a lot of basic problems that need to be tackled. By
>basic, I really do mean the things that cyclists should not have to
>worry about - signage, parking, maintenance, uninterrupted cycle
>routes and safety.

And the lion shall lie down with the lamb.  Let's get real.  Those could
be improved but, since even pedestrians have to worry about them, why
should cyclists be exempt?  They shouldn't have to worry MORE than other
road users, but that is not the same.

Of her action points, two are already the case, several more partially
the case, and two are impossible without large-scale demolition.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:27:03 +0000 (GMT), nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:

>In article <2541ae56-8418-4f1d-98ad-cf0d7c0ffb7d@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>Simon Mason  <swldxer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Over to Jenny:
>>
>>Cycling in London has definitely progressed in the last decade and has
>>continued to expand through the Cycle Hire and Cycle Superhighways.
>
>I find this relentless (let's be polite) optimism very depressing, because
>it is used to support the approach that what is needed is more of the same,
>including in cases when it is clearly not adequate or is even not working.
>The reference she gives claims a twofold increase in cycling rates from
>2000 to 2008 for no increase in accidents.  Fine, but let's see (a) the data
>and (b) what has happened since.  TfL's searching is not helpful, so
>it's hard to tell if there is anything there.
>
>>But there are a lot of basic problems that need to be tackled. By
>>basic, I really do mean the things that cyclists should not have to
>>worry about - signage, parking, maintenance, uninterrupted cycle
>>routes and safety.
>
>And the lion shall lie down with the lamb.  Let's get real.  Those could
>be improved but, since even pedestrians have to worry about them, why
>should cyclists be exempt?  They shouldn't have to worry MORE than other
>road users, but that is not the same.
>
>Of her action points, two are already the case, several more partially
>the case, and two are impossible without large-scale demolition.

Jenny Jones is an outstanding London politician who truly understands
the needs of cyclists in London. I may not agree with her 100% on all
issues, but on cycling I am right behind her. Her number 1 priority is
to get more cyclists on London's streets, and for that she has all the
right ideas.

In article <of1qk7t1ge0ligq5n5a3a1r9qki9uffa3k@4ax.com>,
Bertie Wooster  <bert@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>Of her action points, two are already the case, several more partially
>>the case, and two are impossible without large-scale demolition.
>
>Jenny Jones is an outstanding London politician who truly understands
>the needs of cyclists in London. I may not agree with her 100% on all
>issues, but on cycling I am right behind her. Her number 1 priority is
>to get more cyclists on London's streets, and for that she has all the
>right ideas.

Hmm.  Some evidence for that might be interesting.  But I agree that
her report didn't display as many wrong ideas as I expected.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:29:31 +0000 (GMT), nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:

>>>Of her action points, two are already the case, several more partially
>>>the case, and two are impossible without large-scale demolition.
>>
>>Jenny Jones is an outstanding London politician who truly understands
>>the needs of cyclists in London. I may not agree with her 100% on all
>>issues, but on cycling I am right behind her. Her number 1 priority is
>>to get more cyclists on London's streets, and for that she has all the
>>right ideas.
>
>Hmm.  Some evidence for that might be interesting.  But I agree that
>her report didn't display as many wrong ideas as I expected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBup5U_9Ycw

On 28/02/2012 16:53, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:27:03 +0000 (GMT), nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>
>> In article<2541ae56-8418-4f1d-98ad-cf0d7c0ffb7d@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>> Simon Mason<swldxer1@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Over to Jenny:
>>>
>>> Cycling in London has definitely progressed in the last decade and has
>>> continued to expand through the Cycle Hire and Cycle Superhighways.
>>
>> I find this relentless (let's be polite) optimism very depressing, because
>> it is used to support the approach that what is needed is more of the same,
>> including in cases when it is clearly not adequate or is even not working.
>> The reference she gives claims a twofold increase in cycling rates from
>> 2000 to 2008 for no increase in accidents.  Fine, but let's see (a) the data
>> and (b) what has happened since.  TfL's searching is not helpful, so
>> it's hard to tell if there is anything there.
>>
>>> But there are a lot of basic problems that need to be tackled. By
>>> basic, I really do mean the things that cyclists should not have to
>>> worry about - signage, parking, maintenance, uninterrupted cycle
>>> routes and safety.
>>
>> And the lion shall lie down with the lamb.  Let's get real.  Those could
>> be improved but, since even pedestrians have to worry about them, why
>> should cyclists be exempt?  They shouldn't have to worry MORE than other
>> road users, but that is not the same.
>>
>> Of her action points, two are already the case, several more partially
>> the case, and two are impossible without large-scale demolition.
>
> Jenny Jones is an outstanding London politician who truly understands
> the needs of cyclists in London. I may not agree with her 100% on all
> issues, but on cycling I am right behind her. Her number 1 priority is
> to get more cyclists on London's streets, and for that she has all the
> right ideas.

Jenny Jones is a typical Green Party fuckwit.

Is she going to make it compulsory then?

"Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of 
transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the 
poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an 
interim assessment of the Understanding Walking and Cycling study.

"For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose, 
and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a 
regular basis."


-- 
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On Mar 1, 12:52 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> On 28/02/2012 16:53, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:27:03 +0000 (GMT), n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>
> >> In article<2541ae56-8418-4f1d-98ad-cf0d7c0ff...@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Simon Mason<swldx...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> Over to Jenny:
>
> >>> Cycling in London has definitely progressed in the last decade and has
> >>> continued to expand through the Cycle Hire and Cycle Superhighways.
>
> >> I find this relentless (let's be polite) optimism very depressing, because
> >> it is used to support the approach that what is needed is more of the same,
> >> including in cases when it is clearly not adequate or is even not working.
> >> The reference she gives claims a twofold increase in cycling rates from
> >> 2000 to 2008 for no increase in accidents.  Fine, but let's see (a) the data
> >> and (b) what has happened since.  TfL's searching is not helpful, so
> >> it's hard to tell if there is anything there.
>
> >>> But there are a lot of basic problems that need to be tackled. By
> >>> basic, I really do mean the things that cyclists should not have to
> >>> worry about - signage, parking, maintenance, uninterrupted cycle
> >>> routes and safety.
>
> >> And the lion shall lie down with the lamb.  Let's get real.  Those could
> >> be improved but, since even pedestrians have to worry about them, why
> >> should cyclists be exempt?  They shouldn't have to worry MORE than other
> >> road users, but that is not the same.
>
> >> Of her action points, two are already the case, several more partially
> >> the case, and two are impossible without large-scale demolition.
>
> > Jenny Jones is an outstanding London politician who truly understands
> > the needs of cyclists in London. I may not agree with her 100% on all
> > issues, but on cycling I am right behind her. Her number 1 priority is
> > to get more cyclists on London's streets, and for that she has all the
> > right ideas.
>
> Jenny Jones is a typical Green Party fuckwit.
>
> Is she going to make it compulsory then?
>
> "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
> transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the
> poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an
> interim assessment of the Understanding Walking and Cycling study.
>
> "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose,
> and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a
> regular basis."
>
He was obviously referring to people like you, who denigrate cycling
from a motorist's standpoint. Motivated by what I wonder,
embarrassment, envy, lack of physical strength?

Doug.

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:52:46 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
<davidlang@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 28/02/2012 16:53, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:27:03 +0000 (GMT), nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>>> In article<2541ae56-8418-4f1d-98ad-cf0d7c0ffb7d@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Simon Mason<swldxer1@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Over to Jenny:
>>>>
>>>> Cycling in London has definitely progressed in the last decade and has
>>>> continued to expand through the Cycle Hire and Cycle Superhighways.
>>>
>>> I find this relentless (let's be polite) optimism very depressing, because
>>> it is used to support the approach that what is needed is more of the same,
>>> including in cases when it is clearly not adequate or is even not working.
>>> The reference she gives claims a twofold increase in cycling rates from
>>> 2000 to 2008 for no increase in accidents.  Fine, but let's see (a) the data
>>> and (b) what has happened since.  TfL's searching is not helpful, so
>>> it's hard to tell if there is anything there.
>>>
>>>> But there are a lot of basic problems that need to be tackled. By
>>>> basic, I really do mean the things that cyclists should not have to
>>>> worry about - signage, parking, maintenance, uninterrupted cycle
>>>> routes and safety.
>>>
>>> And the lion shall lie down with the lamb.  Let's get real.  Those could
>>> be improved but, since even pedestrians have to worry about them, why
>>> should cyclists be exempt?  They shouldn't have to worry MORE than other
>>> road users, but that is not the same.
>>>
>>> Of her action points, two are already the case, several more partially
>>> the case, and two are impossible without large-scale demolition.
>>
>> Jenny Jones is an outstanding London politician who truly understands
>> the needs of cyclists in London. I may not agree with her 100% on all
>> issues, but on cycling I am right behind her. Her number 1 priority is
>> to get more cyclists on London's streets, and for that she has all the
>> right ideas.
>
>Jenny Jones is a typical Green Party fuckwit.
>
>Is she going to make it compulsory then?
>
>"Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of 
>transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the 
>poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an 
>interim assessment of the Understanding Walking and Cycling study.
>
>"For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose, 
>and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a 
>regular basis."

Is this your excuse, when really you are too scared to get on a bike?

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:04:55 -0800 (PST), Doug <jagmad@riseup.net>
wrote:

>> Jenny Jones is a typical Green Party fuckwit.
>>
>> Is she going to make it compulsory then?
>>
>> "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
>> transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the
>> poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an
>> interim assessment of the Understanding Walking and Cycling study.
>>
>> "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose,
>> and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a
>> regular basis."
>>
>He was obviously referring to people like you, who denigrate cycling
>from a motorist's standpoint. Motivated by what I wonder,
>embarrassment, envy, lack of physical strength?

If the truth is told, with Meds, it's probably a combination of the
above.

On 01/03/2012 07:39, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:04:55 -0800 (PST), Doug<jagmad@riseup.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Jenny Jones is a typical Green Party fuckwit.
>>>
>>> Is she going to make it compulsory then?
>>>
>>> "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
>>> transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the
>>> poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an
>>> interim assessment of the Understanding Walking and Cycling study.
>>>
>>> "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose,
>>> and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a
>>> regular basis."
>>>
>> He was obviously referring to people like you, who denigrate cycling
>>from a motorist's standpoint. Motivated by what I wonder,
>> embarrassment, envy, lack of physical strength?
>
> If the truth is told, with Meds, it's probably a combination of the
> above.


Hmmm.

Embarrassment.  Yes, cycling certainly is embarrassing.  Grown men 
riding children's playthings whilst clad in fluorescent lycra is rather 
embarrassing.

I'm not alone in thinking that of course.

"Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an interim assessment of 
the Understanding Walking and Cycling study.

For them (the general public), cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail 
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their 
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

Envy.  Why on earth would any normal person be envious of a sweaty, 
smelly idiot on a push bike, struggling to achieve 10mph up a hill, in 
the freezing rain, in constant danger of being totaled by a lorry?.

Lack of physical strength.  Non starter this one.  I'm much stronger 
than any pigeon chested scrawny cyclist.  Its called being a manual worker.

Cwispin fucks up again.


-- 
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 01/03/2012 07:04, Doug wrote:
> On Mar 1, 12:52 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR<davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> On 28/02/2012 16:53, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:27:03 +0000 (GMT), n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>>>> In article<2541ae56-8418-4f1d-98ad-cf0d7c0ff...@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Simon Mason<swldx...@gmail.com>    wrote:
>>
>>>>> Over to Jenny:
>>
>>>>> Cycling in London has definitely progressed in the last decade and has
>>>>> continued to expand through the Cycle Hire and Cycle Superhighways.
>>
>>>> I find this relentless (let's be polite) optimism very depressing, because
>>>> it is used to support the approach that what is needed is more of the same,
>>>> including in cases when it is clearly not adequate or is even not working.
>>>> The reference she gives claims a twofold increase in cycling rates from
>>>> 2000 to 2008 for no increase in accidents.  Fine, but let's see (a) the data
>>>> and (b) what has happened since.  TfL's searching is not helpful, so
>>>> it's hard to tell if there is anything there.
>>
>>>>> But there are a lot of basic problems that need to be tackled. By
>>>>> basic, I really do mean the things that cyclists should not have to
>>>>> worry about - signage, parking, maintenance, uninterrupted cycle
>>>>> routes and safety.
>>
>>>> And the lion shall lie down with the lamb.  Let's get real.  Those could
>>>> be improved but, since even pedestrians have to worry about them, why
>>>> should cyclists be exempt?  They shouldn't have to worry MORE than other
>>>> road users, but that is not the same.
>>
>>>> Of her action points, two are already the case, several more partially
>>>> the case, and two are impossible without large-scale demolition.
>>
>>> Jenny Jones is an outstanding London politician who truly understands
>>> the needs of cyclists in London. I may not agree with her 100% on all
>>> issues, but on cycling I am right behind her. Her number 1 priority is
>>> to get more cyclists on London's streets, and for that she has all the
>>> right ideas.
>>
>> Jenny Jones is a typical Green Party fuckwit.
>>
>> Is she going to make it compulsory then?
>>
>> "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
>> transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the
>> poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an
>> interim assessment of the Understanding Walking and Cycling study.
>>
>> "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose,
>> and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a
>> regular basis."
>>
> He was obviously referring to people like you, who denigrate cycling
> from a motorist's standpoint.


Alas not Dougwit. It was a scientific survey carried out by someone who 
is himself a cyclist.  The general public have no desire to cycle 
whatsoever.

-- 
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 01/03/2012 07:36, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:52:46 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
> <davidlang@blueyonder.co.uk>  wrote:
>
>> On 28/02/2012 16:53, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:27:03 +0000 (GMT), nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article<2541ae56-8418-4f1d-98ad-cf0d7c0ffb7d@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Simon Mason<swldxer1@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Over to Jenny:
>>>>>
>>>>> Cycling in London has definitely progressed in the last decade and has
>>>>> continued to expand through the Cycle Hire and Cycle Superhighways.
>>>>
>>>> I find this relentless (let's be polite) optimism very depressing, because
>>>> it is used to support the approach that what is needed is more of the same,
>>>> including in cases when it is clearly not adequate or is even not working.
>>>> The reference she gives claims a twofold increase in cycling rates from
>>>> 2000 to 2008 for no increase in accidents.  Fine, but let's see (a) the data
>>>> and (b) what has happened since.  TfL's searching is not helpful, so
>>>> it's hard to tell if there is anything there.
>>>>
>>>>> But there are a lot of basic problems that need to be tackled. By
>>>>> basic, I really do mean the things that cyclists should not have to
>>>>> worry about - signage, parking, maintenance, uninterrupted cycle
>>>>> routes and safety.
>>>>
>>>> And the lion shall lie down with the lamb.  Let's get real.  Those could
>>>> be improved but, since even pedestrians have to worry about them, why
>>>> should cyclists be exempt?  They shouldn't have to worry MORE than other
>>>> road users, but that is not the same.
>>>>
>>>> Of her action points, two are already the case, several more partially
>>>> the case, and two are impossible without large-scale demolition.
>>>
>>> Jenny Jones is an outstanding London politician who truly understands
>>> the needs of cyclists in London. I may not agree with her 100% on all
>>> issues, but on cycling I am right behind her. Her number 1 priority is
>>> to get more cyclists on London's streets, and for that she has all the
>>> right ideas.
>>
>> Jenny Jones is a typical Green Party fuckwit.
>>
>> Is she going to make it compulsory then?
>>
>> "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
>> transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the
>> poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an
>> interim assessment of the Understanding Walking and Cycling study.
>>
>> "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose,
>> and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a
>> regular basis."
>
> Is this your excuse, when really you are too scared to get on a bike?


Its not my anything you minority Lycra-clad hobbyist [1].  It's the 
result of a properly conducted scientific study.

"The study, which investigates in depth why people in four towns or 
cities around England cycle � or, in the main, don't cycle [2] � is 
still being completed. The academics behind them will gather in 
Leicester this weekend to present their preliminary findings, which make 
depressing reading for anyone hopeful the UK could one day have a 
Dutch-style mass cycling culture".


[1]"Years of government efforts to promote cycling have had almost no 
impact on a sceptical population who largely view bikes as either 
children's toys or the preserve of Lycra-clad hobbyists, a university 
study has found".

[2] "For them (the public], cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to 
see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their 
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

-- 
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:58:03 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
<davidlang@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Lack of physical strength.  Non starter this one.  I'm much stronger 
>than any pigeon chested scrawny cyclist.  Its called being a manual worker.

Just a coward, then?

On Mar 1, 8:00 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> On 01/03/2012 07:04, Doug wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 12:52 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR<davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> On 28/02/2012 16:53, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>
> >>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:27:03 +0000 (GMT), n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>
> >>>> In article<2541ae56-8418-4f1d-98ad-cf0d7c0ff...@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> Simon Mason<swldx...@gmail.com>    wrote:
>
> >>>>> Over to Jenny:
>
> >>>>> Cycling in London has definitely progressed in the last decade and has
> >>>>> continued to expand through the Cycle Hire and Cycle Superhighways.
>
> >>>> I find this relentless (let's be polite) optimism very depressing, because
> >>>> it is used to support the approach that what is needed is more of the same,
> >>>> including in cases when it is clearly not adequate or is even not working.
> >>>> The reference she gives claims a twofold increase in cycling rates from
> >>>> 2000 to 2008 for no increase in accidents.  Fine, but let's see (a) the data
> >>>> and (b) what has happened since.  TfL's searching is not helpful, so
> >>>> it's hard to tell if there is anything there.
>
> >>>>> But there are a lot of basic problems that need to be tackled. By
> >>>>> basic, I really do mean the things that cyclists should not have to
> >>>>> worry about - signage, parking, maintenance, uninterrupted cycle
> >>>>> routes and safety.
>
> >>>> And the lion shall lie down with the lamb.  Let's get real.  Those could
> >>>> be improved but, since even pedestrians have to worry about them, why
> >>>> should cyclists be exempt?  They shouldn't have to worry MORE than other
> >>>> road users, but that is not the same.
>
> >>>> Of her action points, two are already the case, several more partially
> >>>> the case, and two are impossible without large-scale demolition.
>
> >>> Jenny Jones is an outstanding London politician who truly understands
> >>> the needs of cyclists in London. I may not agree with her 100% on all
> >>> issues, but on cycling I am right behind her. Her number 1 priority is
> >>> to get more cyclists on London's streets, and for that she has all the
> >>> right ideas.
>
> >> Jenny Jones is a typical Green Party fuckwit.
>
> >> Is she going to make it compulsory then?
>
> >> "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
> >> transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the
> >> poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an
> >> interim assessment of the Understanding Walking and Cycling study.
>
> >> "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose,
> >> and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a
> >> regular basis."
>
> > He was obviously referring to people like you, who denigrate cycling
> > from a motorist's standpoint.
>
> Alas not Dougwit. It was a scientific survey carried out by someone who
> is himself a cyclist.  The general public have no desire to cycle
> whatsoever.
>
What is it about 'referring' you do not understand? He was talking
ABOUT people like you, aka motorists and car users who are mostly the
'general public'.

http://www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/research/society_and_environment/walking_and_cycling.php

-- .
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

On 02/03/2012 07:10, Doug wrote:
> On Mar 1, 8:00 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR<davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> On 01/03/2012 07:04, Doug wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 1, 12:52 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR<davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/2012 16:53, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:27:03 +0000 (GMT), n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>>>>>> In article<2541ae56-8418-4f1d-98ad-cf0d7c0ff...@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> Simon Mason<swldx...@gmail.com>      wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Over to Jenny:
>>
>>>>>>> Cycling in London has definitely progressed in the last decade and has
>>>>>>> continued to expand through the Cycle Hire and Cycle Superhighways.
>>
>>>>>> I find this relentless (let's be polite) optimism very depressing, because
>>>>>> it is used to support the approach that what is needed is more of the same,
>>>>>> including in cases when it is clearly not adequate or is even not working.
>>>>>> The reference she gives claims a twofold increase in cycling rates from
>>>>>> 2000 to 2008 for no increase in accidents.  Fine, but let's see (a) the data
>>>>>> and (b) what has happened since.  TfL's searching is not helpful, so
>>>>>> it's hard to tell if there is anything there.
>>
>>>>>>> But there are a lot of basic problems that need to be tackled. By
>>>>>>> basic, I really do mean the things that cyclists should not have to
>>>>>>> worry about - signage, parking, maintenance, uninterrupted cycle
>>>>>>> routes and safety.
>>
>>>>>> And the lion shall lie down with the lamb.  Let's get real.  Those could
>>>>>> be improved but, since even pedestrians have to worry about them, why
>>>>>> should cyclists be exempt?  They shouldn't have to worry MORE than other
>>>>>> road users, but that is not the same.
>>
>>>>>> Of her action points, two are already the case, several more partially
>>>>>> the case, and two are impossible without large-scale demolition.
>>
>>>>> Jenny Jones is an outstanding London politician who truly understands
>>>>> the needs of cyclists in London. I may not agree with her 100% on all
>>>>> issues, but on cycling I am right behind her. Her number 1 priority is
>>>>> to get more cyclists on London's streets, and for that she has all the
>>>>> right ideas.
>>
>>>> Jenny Jones is a typical Green Party fuckwit.
>>
>>>> Is she going to make it compulsory then?
>>
>>>> "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
>>>> transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the
>>>> poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an
>>>> interim assessment of the Understanding Walking and Cycling study.
>>
>>>> "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose,
>>>> and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a
>>>> regular basis."
>>
>>> He was obviously referring to people like you, who denigrate cycling
>>> from a motorist's standpoint.
>>
>> Alas not Dougwit. It was a scientific survey carried out by someone who
>> is himself a cyclist.  The general public have no desire to cycle
>> whatsoever.
>>
> What is it about 'referring' you do not understand? He was talking
> ABOUT people like you, aka motorists and car users who are mostly the
> 'general public'.
>
> http://www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/research/society_and_environment/walking_and_cycling.php

"mostly", IOW "the majority".

And in a democracy, what does "the majority" do?

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:38:31 +0000
JNugent <jenningsltd@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> What is it about 'referring' you do not understand? He was talking
>> ABOUT people like you, aka motorists and car users who are mostly the
>> 'general public'.
>>
>>
>http://www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/research/society_and_environment/walking_and_cycling
>php
>
>"mostly", IOW "the majority".
>
>And in a democracy, what does "the majority" do?

Don't forget that in a right-on liberal lefty greeny democracy minorities must 
always take priority over the majority just in case they're "oppressed" and 
hang the consequences. 

Which is why we have disabled seating areas in tube trains that disabled people
can't board because they can't get to the platforms in the first place, that 
has reduced the number of seats for able bodied people. Why we have cycle 
lanes reducing road width that are hardly ever used by cyclists. Why we can't 
get shot of terrorists even though they pose a significant risk to the 
majority. Etc.

But remember - in the minds of people like Doug the majority don't matter. 

B2003