Lack of commitment to cycling by Sadiq Khan?

Post Reply
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Lack of commitment to cycling by Sadiq Khan?

Post by MikeF »

This is as reported in the London Evening Standard yesterday.
The mayor won't let his teenage daughters cycle in London because he thinks it's too dangerous. He doesn't cycle himself either so he doesn't know the problems.

However 66 pedestrians were killed in London in 2015 compared with 9 cyclists last year. Khan's new walking hand cycling commissioner, Mr Norman, has therefore concluded that pedestrian safety has been neglected and he will concentrate on that. However I would say the number of pedestrians in London, at least central London where most cycling accidents have occurred, far exceeds the number of cyclists, and therefore the number of deaths is proportionately much lower.

He also says that cycling in London is relatively safe and his 6 and 9 year cycle - somewhat at odds with Sadiq Khan's view. :roll: All those quotes by Mr Norman don't inspire me with confidence in what will be done.

Khan has promised to spend £145million on walking and cycling, but it's not about spending money, it's value for money that counts.

Khan has been mayor for not far short of a year - what's he done so far??
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Lack of commitment to cycling by Sadiq Khan?

Post by Psamathe »

Not being a parent I find it difficult to appreciate the decisions parents have to make every day (often with the feeling that you get one wrong and the impacts of your child's life can be massive).

And without wanting to put words in anybody else's mouths, but I can appreciate that however somebody might feel the world should be, when it comes to your own children's safety you must work with how the world is as you perceive it and even from my own mostly rural cycling, close passes are very scary - enough that on several occasions I have seriously considered giving-up cycling. Ok, the CTC/CUK might regard it as "not their problem" and not important enough to actually do anything about (and even reject the members saying they should act) but even contributors here have posted about how they are no longer allowing their children to cycle to school because of the close passes and behaviour of drivers (but I'm not going to go back through searches to find the posts).

But I am not a parent and it is unfair for me to assume that Mr Khan's perception of "danger" is for the reasons I have assumed.

Ian
bohrsatom
Posts: 807
Joined: 20 May 2013, 4:36pm

Re: Lack of commitment to cycling by Sadiq Khan?

Post by bohrsatom »

MikeF wrote:Khan has been mayor for not far short of a year - what's he done so far??


This is spot on. As far as I can tell he has said a lot but actually done very little. His technique appears to be to try and keep everybody happy and therefore avoid making as many decisions as possible. Most cycling-related construction taking place in London right now is the final part of plans put in place by Johnson/Gilligan, and there is virtually no noise coming from City Hall about the future. To make progress we need a bold leader and unfortunately it's now clear that Khan is unwilling to stick his neck out. (For balance I doubt the situation would be any better had Goldsmith won).
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Lack of commitment to cycling by Sadiq Khan?

Post by Pete Owens »

MikeF wrote:However 66 pedestrians were killed in London in 2015 compared with 9 cyclists last year. Khan's new walking hand cycling commissioner, Mr Norman, has therefore concluded that pedestrian safety has been neglected and he will concentrate on that. However I would say the number of pedestrians in London, at least central London where most cycling accidents have occurred, far exceeds the number of cyclists, and therefore the number of deaths is proportionately much lower.

Excellent news for those of us who are concerned in cycle safety - though disappointing for those pushing dangerous segregated farcilities.
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Lack of commitment to cycling by Sadiq Khan?

Post by gaz »

Psamathe wrote:close passes are very scary - enough that on several occasions I have seriously considered giving-up cycling. Ok, the CTC/CUK might regard it as "not their problem" and not important enough to actually do anything about (and even reject the members saying they should act)

The members had a vote at the 2016 AGM, Motion 14

14) Legal minimum passing clearance
The AGM requests a legal requirement for minimum passing clearance when overtaking or near to cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of motor vehicles passing too close. On roads with speed limits up to and including 30mph or when passing at a speed up to and including 30mph, a 1m minimum is suggested. On roads with higher speed limits, a 1.5m minimum passing distance is suggested. In addition, on narrow roads frequent passing places should be provided.

The Trustees recommended that the members should reject the Motion.
CTC Council disagrees with this motion. Council agrees that close overtaking should be tackled. It’s hazardous for cyclists and extremely intimidating. However, Council remains reluctant to specify a ‘headline’ overtaking distance because (for example) even 1.5m may not be enough in some circumstances and we don’t want to risk giving drivers the impression that it is.

The Highway Code (rather than the law) is better placed to explain optimum overtaking distances because it could state a standard minimum distance, and explain the circumstances in which more space is needed, e.g. on fast roads, in bad weather, etc. When the next revision is announced, we will campaign for various amendments, including clearer advice to drivers on overtaking.


Motion 14 result: Total votes cast 1261 for and 1725 against. The members rejected the Motion.

As far as I can see the evidence is that the Trustees do acknowledge close passing as a problem that should be tackled and that the membership supports the Trustees' approach on this matter.

Could you please explain how the trustees have regarded this as "not their problem" and rejected the members saying they should act.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5470
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Lack of commitment to cycling by Sadiq Khan?

Post by pjclinch »

MikeF wrote:This is as reported in the London Evening Standard yesterday.
The mayor won't let his teenage daughters cycle in London because he thinks it's too dangerous. He doesn't cycle himself either so he doesn't know the problems.


This is fairly normal. If you don't cycle you'd probably not think of the full range of possibilities "cycling in London" presents. The uninitiated will more likely think of stereotypes and worst cases, and if you do that it's probably a fair call in terms of perceived danger.

MikeF wrote:He also says that cycling in London is relatively safe and his 6 and 9 year cycle - somewhat at odds with Sadiq Khan's view.


Again, the perception of a cyclist looking for places for 6 & 9 year olds to ride in will be different. There's no shortage of quiet streets in London, which is a very big place (over 1500 square km) with a lot of streets.

This...
https://goo.gl/maps/5mXbZSNj4fQ2
is a few minutes away from...
https://goo.gl/maps/wXhQ5JuQZXs

6 year olds on the top one? probably okay, but not on the lower one (and of course it's the inability of primary school children to realistically ride on the lower one, no matter how much training they get, that have people campaigning for well designed segregated facilities (and also of course the same people don't want dangerous farcilities either)).

MikeF wrote:Khan has promised to spend £145million on walking and cycling, but it's not about spending money, it's value for money that counts.


It's both. If he spends £1,000 on cycling and gets the best possible value for that spend, it's still basically useless. Without a big head of steam of sufficient capital you'll never get anywhere.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Lack of commitment to cycling by Sadiq Khan?

Post by Cyril Haearn »

Pete Owens wrote:
MikeF wrote:However 66 pedestrians were killed in London in 2015 compared with 9 cyclists last year. Khan's new walking hand cycling commissioner, Mr Norman, has therefore concluded that pedestrian safety has been neglected and he will concentrate on that. However I would say the number of pedestrians in London, at least central London where most cycling accidents have occurred, far exceeds the number of cyclists, and therefore the number of deaths is proportionately much lower.


Excellent news for those of us who are concerned in cycle safety - though disappointing for those pushing dangerous segregated farcilities.


Please explain, what is "excellent news"?
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Lack of commitment to cycling by Sadiq Khan?

Post by Psamathe »

gaz wrote:
Psamathe wrote:close passes are very scary - enough that on several occasions I have seriously considered giving-up cycling. Ok, the CTC/CUK might regard it as "not their problem" and not important enough to actually do anything about (and even reject the members saying they should act)

The members had a vote at the 2016 AGM, Motion 14

14) Legal minimum passing clearance
The AGM requests a legal requirement for minimum passing clearance when overtaking or near to cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of motor vehicles passing too close. On roads with speed limits up to and including 30mph or when passing at a speed up to and including 30mph, a 1m minimum is suggested. On roads with higher speed limits, a 1.5m minimum passing distance is suggested. In addition, on narrow roads frequent passing places should be provided.

The Trustees recommended that the members should reject the Motion.
CTC Council disagrees with this motion. Council agrees that close overtaking should be tackled. It’s hazardous for cyclists and extremely intimidating. However, Council remains reluctant to specify a ‘headline’ overtaking distance because (for example) even 1.5m may not be enough in some circumstances and we don’t want to risk giving drivers the impression that it is.

The Highway Code (rather than the law) is better placed to explain optimum overtaking distances because it could state a standard minimum distance, and explain the circumstances in which more space is needed, e.g. on fast roads, in bad weather, etc. When the next revision is announced, we will campaign for various amendments, including clearer advice to drivers on overtaking.


Motion 14 result: Total votes cast 1261 for and 1725 against. The members rejected the Motion.

As far as I can see the evidence is that the Trustees do acknowledge close passing as a problem that should be tackled and that the membership supports the Trustees' approach on this matter.

Could you please explain how the trustees have regarded this as "not their problem" and rejected the members saying they should act.

Some members said they should campaign for a minimum passing law. CTC/CUK said they were against the motion. I did NOT say "the majority of the members". I suspect the outcome of the vote would have been to accept the motion had the CTC/CUK recommended the motion be adopted/supported (but that has to be my guess). Hope that clarifies.

Ian
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Lack of commitment to cycling by Sadiq Khan?

Post by MikeF »

Pete Owens wrote:
MikeF wrote:However 66 pedestrians were killed in London in 2015 compared with 9 cyclists last year. Khan's new walking hand cycling commissioner, Mr Norman, has therefore concluded that pedestrian safety has been neglected and he will concentrate on that. However I would say the number of pedestrians in London, at least central London where most cycling accidents have occurred, far exceeds the number of cyclists, and therefore the number of deaths is proportionately much lower.

Excellent news for those of us who are concerned in cycle safety - though disappointing for those pushing dangerous segregated farcilities.
The Dutch must be very disappointed then?? :wink:
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Post Reply