http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Tag: Spokes - Recent Posts en Wed, 13 May 2026 02:07:41 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21456#post-373892 Fri, 08 Mar 2024 11:47:02 +0000 Frenchy 373892@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I believe that was Sarah McArthur for the Edinburgh Inquirer.</p> <p>Article here: <a href="https://www.edinburghinquirer.co.uk/p/lethal-potholes-danger-junctions" rel="nofollow">https://www.edinburghinquirer.co.uk/p/lethal-potholes-danger-junctions</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21456#post-373888 Fri, 08 Mar 2024 11:03:54 +0000 Tulyar 373888@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Who was the reporter from local community newspaper speaking to LL after meeting? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21456#post-373865 Thu, 07 Mar 2024 19:45:37 +0000 Dave 373865@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It's hard to escape the feeling that by platforming Arthur and the like, Spokes are effectively sort of green washing decisions like the destruction of the quiet routes. I know it's probably unfair and in the long run the value of staying neutral might be worth having more than standing on principle which nobody notices </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21456#post-373864 Thu, 07 Mar 2024 19:27:00 +0000 chdot 373864@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="https://www.edinburghinquirer.co.uk/p/lethal-potholes-danger-junctions" rel="nofollow">https://www.edinburghinquirer.co.uk/p/lethal-potholes-danger-junctions</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21456#post-373773 Mon, 04 Mar 2024 22:30:52 +0000 Dave 373773@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Scott's an expert at threading the needle of saying things that people find agreeable enough, while not actually doing anything that will significantly upset the motoring public </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21456#post-373766 Mon, 04 Mar 2024 16:52:00 +0000 neddie 373766@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Laura Laker and (I hate to say it) Cllr Arthur spoke very positively about the Future Streets / circulation plan.</p> <p>Sadly though, Arthur later starting rambling about "traffic displacement" on Lothian Rd - predicted by the out-dated 1980s traffic models that only consider cars and not people movement...</p> <p>Just design the street for the traffic you want goddamn it! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21456#post-373762 Mon, 04 Mar 2024 16:24:30 +0000 Dave 373762@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I was in the pub having a meeting with active travel folks when by chance we realised it was the same evening that Cllr Arthur was addressing Spokes. Nobody seemed to have any regrets about missing him or much inclination to watch it back. There was some discussion of Cllr McKenzie's budget speech though. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21456#post-373724 Sat, 02 Mar 2024 12:28:33 +0000 chdot 373724@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://www.spokes.org.uk/2024/03/draft-future-streets-edinburgh-on-the-way/" rel="nofollow">http://www.spokes.org.uk/2024/03/draft-future-streets-edinburgh-on-the-way/</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21456#post-373606 Mon, 26 Feb 2024 10:57:25 +0000 SRD 373606@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>plug the url into this website and you should get ungated EEN.</p> <p> <a href="https://archive.ph" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21456#post-373599 Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:14:24 +0000 neddie 373599@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Could someone archive the other 4 pages of EEN splaff, so we can at least know our enemy? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21456#post-373598 Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:09:29 +0000 neddie 373598@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I said previously that the media would take the extra traffic “predicted” by the models on Lothian Rd and take it out of context and use it say we can’t have nice things. </p> <p>Those models based on the flawed assumption that traffic levels are fixed and there is no traffic evaporation or induced-demand. Yes, those models, that belong in the 1980s-museum-of-crap-urbanism. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21456#post-373596 Sun, 25 Feb 2024 18:47:33 +0000 chdot 373596@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>Plans to turn Lothian Road into a "boulevard" will have to be rethought because of the decision to close the Bridges corridor to through traffic. With The Mound also closed, Lothian Road is the only major north-south through route in the city centre. The Bridges closure is expected to leave 400-500 vehicles per hour looking for an alternative north-south road. The blueprint acknowledges more street space will be needed for buses and general traffic on Lothian Road as a result. But it says: "Nevertheless, the Lothian Road project can still bring forward substantial improvements in conditions for walking/wheeling and cycling, protection of buses from delays, and for example a much better connection between Festival Square and the Usher Hall/Theatre Quarter." Delays of up to eight minutes are expected for buses due to the increased traffic. </p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240225093203/https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/edinburghs-roads-heres-what-the-councils-blueprint-says-about-the-future-for-streets-across-the-city-4531802" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20240225093203/https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/edinburghs-roads-heres-what-the-councils-blueprint-says-about-the-future-for-streets-across-the-city-4531802</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21456#post-373320 Fri, 09 Feb 2024 16:26:13 +0000 chdot 373320@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>In a country where 71% of trips are less than five miles, two thirds of Britons say they want to cycle more and doing so could help our climate, health and wellbeing. Laura is on a mission to see if we can make that dream a reality. </p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://www.waterstones.com/book/potholes-and-pavements/laura-laker/9781399406468" rel="nofollow">https://www.waterstones.com/book/potholes-and-pavements/laura-laker/9781399406468</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21456#post-373318 Fri, 09 Feb 2024 16:11:05 +0000 chdot 373318@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Some of Laura Laker’s previous events</p> <p><a href="https://www.laura-laker.com/public-speaking-and-tv-appearances" rel="nofollow">https://www.laura-laker.com/public-speaking-and-tv-appearances</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21456#post-373308 Thu, 08 Feb 2024 19:44:32 +0000 Rosie 373308@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>PUBLIC MEETING, 29 FEB: EDINBURGH’S ‘FUTURE STREETS’ POLICY, AND THE PLACE OF CYCLING</p> <p>Venue: Augustine United Church 41 George IV Bridge, Edinburgh EH1 1EL<br /> Date: Thursday 29 February<br /> Time: Starts 7.30, Ends 9.30. Doors open 6.45 for coffee, stalls and chat, including a special stall to join Spokes or renew your membership</p> <p>SPEAKERS</p> <p>Cllr Scott Arthur City Council Transport Convener – the Future Streets policy, with particular reference to the place of cycling, and when/how action will follow</p> <p>Laura Laker Cycling, transport and environment journalist – to critique the proposals. Laura researches and writes on cycling issues extensively, including in national/international media such as The Guardian and Bloomberg; and in specifically cycling publications such as Cycling Industry News and Road.CC</p> <p>… followed by our always-anticipated one-hour panel QA, chaired by Ewen Maclean, organiser of Blackford Safe Routes – your chance to interrogate and challenge the speakers</p> <p>Questions: Questions for the speaker, can be emailed (at least a day in advance) to <a href="mailto:spokes@spokes.org.uk">spokes@spokes.org.uk</a>. However, questions in person from audience members are likely to have greatest priority on the night</p> <p>Online: We hope to live broadcast on our youtube channel – confirmation nearer the time – and make the recording available a few days later</p> <p>On February 1st the Transport Committee approved the ‘Future Streets’ policy, which incorporates the Circulation Plan (deciding which transport modes will have priority on which roads), the Active Travel Action Plan (ATAP), and the City Centre Transformation (to free the City Centre from through motor traffic). Although much detail is still to come, and there will be future consultation on some aspects, transformative basic decisions have now been taken and action can and must begin.</p> <p>As a city centre token of action-intent, motor traffic will be wholly or largely banned in the Cowgate in 2024.</p> <p>For main roads, detailed plans will be drawn up for bus and cycle priority on the A8 from CCWEL at Roseburn through to Gogar, with St John’s Road due to become a pedestrian-friendly shopping street. We had suggested this route as a priority in our comments [para 3.3] on the 2023 ATAP consultation, and a Council analysis in the report confirms that it is indeed a priority.</p> <p>However, for a city with a target to cut car-km 30% by 2030, and become net zero by 2030, things need to move far faster than one or two individual schemes each year. The decade-long gestation of CCWEL or of George Street (see ‘maxi-consultation’ section here), must no longer be the pattern.</p> <p>Our public meeting on Thursday 29 Feb gives you the chance to hear more and to tell the Council what you think.</p> <p>Masses of more information on our website. </p> <p><a href="http://www.spokes.org.uk/2024/02/public-meeting-edinburghs-future-streets-policy-and-the-place-of-cycling/" rel="nofollow">http://www.spokes.org.uk/2024/02/public-meeting-edinburghs-future-streets-policy-and-the-place-of-cycling/</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9653&page=3#post-104749 Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:42:34 +0000 chdot 104749@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>F. VOLUNTEERS NEEDED</p> <p>a. Sun April 28 - volunteer needed to help at a Sustrans stall at the Scottish Bike Show in Glasgow, where we have been offered a corner for Spokes materials. Travel will be paid, but you MUST be a member of Spokes AND of Sustrans. Contact Judy.Cantley[AT]btopenworld.com.</p> <p>b. In the recent survey of spokes members we gave a choice of online or paper completion. Unfortunately more paper forms were returned than we expected, and it would be very helpful if one or two people [with internet access at home] could volunteer to enter a batch, ideally 50-100 forms. If you can help, ideally in around the last week of March, contact DaveduFeu[AT]gmail.com.</p> <p>c. We have plenty copies of new Spokes Bulletin 115 still available. If you would like a pile - for example to leaflet bikes in central Edinburgh or your local shopping area, please contact Spokes [Haymarket and Waverley bike racks have been done!]</p> <p>Dave du Feu<br /> Spokes 16.3.13</p> <p><a href="http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/1303-16-circular-to-all.txt" rel="nofollow">http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/1303-16-circular-to-all.txt</a> you may wish to sign if you support this.</p> <p>F. VOLUNTEERS NEEDED</p> <p>a. Sun April 28 - volunteer needed to help at a Sustrans stall at the Scottish Bike Show in Glasgow, where we have been offered a corner for Spokes materials. Travel will be paid, but you MUST be a member of Spokes AND of Sustrans. Contact Judy.Cantley[AT]btopenworld.com.</p> <p>b. In the recent survey of spokes members we gave a choice of online or paper completion. Unfortunately more paper forms were returned than we expected, and it would be very helpful if one or two people [with internet access at home] could volunteer to enter a batch, ideally 50-100 forms. If you can help, ideally in around the last week of March, contact DaveduFeu[AT]gmail.com.</p> <p>c. We have plenty copies of new Spokes Bulletin 115 still available. If you would like a pile - for example to leaflet bikes in central Edinburgh or your local shopping area, please contact Spokes [Haymarket and Waverley bike racks have been done!]</p> <p>Dave du Feu<br /> Spokes 16.3.13</p> <p><a href="http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/1303-16-circular-to-all.txt" rel="nofollow">http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/1303-16-circular-to-all.txt</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9653&page=3#post-104725 Sat, 16 Mar 2013 18:15:48 +0000 SRD 104725@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I honestly couldn't tell you if I get a membership card or not (don't think so though). But presumably what laidback means is there a no member specific benefits (other than delivery of information). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9653&page=3#post-104724 Sat, 16 Mar 2013 18:11:58 +0000 crowriver 104724@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>There is no Spokes membership card </em></p> <p>That's odd. I receive one every year by post... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9653&page=3#post-104723 Sat, 16 Mar 2013 18:00:59 +0000 LaidBack 104723@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Interesting thinking back to the original Cycling Scotland forum. It briefly became very popular with some here using it to arrange rides. Then it got closed down as I believe the forum was being used to express opinions - not all of them complimentary about CS!<br /> It was then re-started but no idea how well frequented it is now. CCE forum took its place as far as I was concerned - debates here seem more constructive.</p> <p>With regards Spokes: Although the world of <em>virtual</em> is starting to overtake the <em>actual</em>, I still think getting people to speak and be questioned at meetings is useful. This takes organisation so I don't be-grudge a voluntary contribution. There is no Spokes membership card so events such as these (and the Spokes Sunday rides) are open to all. I do accept that I may have some commercial conflict as the Spokes aim to get more families cycling could mean some extra sales!<em> Yes - I know the QBC doesn't succeed here.</em> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9653&page=3#post-104666 Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:53:40 +0000 chdot 104666@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://cyclingedinburgh.info/2009/08/05/government-relies-on-spokes-statistics" rel="nofollow">http://cyclingedinburgh.info/2009/08/05/government-relies-on-spokes-statistics</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9653&page=3#post-104392 Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:11:42 +0000 chdot 104392@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"There are not that many regular posters, really"</p> <p>That depends which way you are looking at it. </p> <p>There are a few who post a lot (yeah including me). </p> <p>Some who say <em>something</em> almost every day. </p> <p>There is a bigger category of 'irregular, but when something needs adding'. </p> <p>Some people who mostly just add (useful) info. </p> <p>There are a few people who have posted two or three times over two or three years. </p> <p>I'm still a bit surprised at the number of people who register and never post. </p> <p>Not a problem - unless they are too shy/feel intimidated. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9653&page=2#post-104384 Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:54:26 +0000 fimm 104384@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The good thing about this forum is it is not seen as being "the voice of" any other organisation. So one can get a good debate going like this thread.</p> <p>There are not that many regular posters, really, I think? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9653&page=2#post-104380 Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:31:52 +0000 chdot 104380@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"if CCE had been a forum on the Spokes site"</p> <p>Part of the reason CCE was set up is because Spokes <em>did</em> have a forum on its site. </p> <p>But it was hardly used. </p> <p>CyclingScotland had one which was probably even less visible. </p> <p>I had a coffee conversation with Mr. <a href="http://www.citycycling.co.uk/">.citycycling</a>. </p> <p>We agreed the concept and the name and a couple of weeks later emailed our 'mail lists'. </p> <p>People seem to like it. </p> <p>Though people go and others join (and some have been here for ever). </p> <p>There are far more 'observers' - but that's all fine! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9653&page=2#post-104378 Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:12:37 +0000 Cyclingmollie 104378@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I don't think the criticism levelled here at Spokes would have been as strong if CCE had been a forum on the Spokes site. I think Spokes has been overtaken by Web 2.0, the democratic web or whatever you want to call it. We expect to be heard as individuals in organisations now. When Spokes started its handbook was typed by the secretariat of Edinburgh Voluntary Organisations or some-such. It's changed days. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9653&page=2#post-104373 Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:41:57 +0000 chdot 104373@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"They show in a microcosm how 'the people of Edinburgh' think about things. Those making decisions don't seem able to distinguish between 'shouty minority' and 'the people of Edinburgh'."</p> <p>Yes and no. </p> <p>ENews commenters are no more representative than CCEers. </p> <p>We're just better behaved and more rational...</p> <p>I'm sure there are people at the EN, and politicians, who are well aware that the commenters are not 'representative' - and so ignore or 'adopt'. </p> <p>I think there are (very broadly) two sorts of blog -</p> <p>Option and 'fact'/analysis. </p> <p>There are people who write what they think and theorise and may become 'followed' and influential. Increasingly often people are coming on TV and Radio described as "bloggers" - usually associated with convenvential political parties - though not usually toeing the party line...</p> <p>A lot of the cycling bloggers are going into great detail about existing road conditions or new proposals and (in general) pointing out inadequacies - and suggesting improvements. </p> <p>This helps people like Boris who is broadly supportive as it will at least give him questions to ask TfL. </p> <p>The Greener Leith blog has analysed the proposals for Leith Walk. The organisation behind the blog has produced responses and coordinated various organisations to support them. </p> <p>I suspect that ideas expressed on here have been incorporated. Certainly the CCE LW thread has been read by relevant council officials and some politicians. </p> <p>So CCE is a sort of 'multi-user blog' - which may or may not be influential... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9653&page=2#post-104364 Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:18:17 +0000 Instography 104364@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>If you want to influence someone there's no substitute for getting in a room with them over a protracted period and making your argument again and again and again, backing away, coming back, compromising, making some progress and giving way on something else. It's a messy business, all the time to cries of 'sell out' from people carping from the sidelines.</p> <p>The people in the room need to negotiate. The other side's job is to win them over, make them 'see sense'. Spokes is in the room, doing the negotiating. The people carping need to make sure they don't get too cosy. Sometimes, like on the QBC, they get it wrong. That's how it goes. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9653&page=2#post-104363 Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:08:28 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 104363@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>You can certainly be much more coherent and intelligent in blog posts on subjects - the difficulty is with that having visibility to those who matter.</p> <p>Ties in with what steveo says - the EEN is very visible, and the commenters are a subset of that visibility. The posts are short and snappy (and angry). They show in a microcosm how 'the people of Edinburgh' think about things. Those making decisions don't seem able to distinguish between 'shouty minority' and 'the people of Edinburgh'.</p> <p>A blog post sits there - generally read by like-minded people. Preaching to the converted essentially (I've often mused on this with citycycling and not done many pieces aimed at non-cyclists because I know they won't have clicked anyway to be there and read it). The Council aren't converted. Ergo the Council don't even hear that voice in order to take it on board.</p> <p>Which gets us back to why Spokes are good. Their voice IS heard (not quite as strong as some of the EEN commenters seem to think - it's been said quite a few times that Council transport policy is actually decided by Spokes, which once more ties in with a previous point, in that the people who believe that aren't reading anything that would counter that view because they're unlikely to read a blog about how awful the QBC is, and so simply have their prejudices confirmed by articles talking about how expensive it was which allows them to rail at Spokes forcing the Council to put in a corridor that inconveniences motorists).</p> <p>That's not to say stop blogging, far from it, but know what your audience is likely to be - and therefore you're not trying to change minds in a blog (or in a monthly online magazine), but rather fire up those readers to do more than just read, and to take to the comments pages, or twitter, or write to their councillors, or... join Spokes. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9653&page=2#post-104362 Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:07:58 +0000 Dave 104362@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>I know that some people were unhappy when Spokes was supportive of the tram going along the Roseburn Corridor (subject to suitable cycle route at the side of course). </em></p> <p>Given the inestimable value of the NEPN I still find this hard to believe - we all know any path provided will be terrible, if useable at all, not to mention the immense damage of closing the route for construction for an indefinite (years?) period.</p> <p>The argument might be made that it was inevitable the trams would go down the old railbed, in which case why annoy the council by campaigning for cyclists in all of this, but that very much hearkens back to the AlternativeDfT comment above. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9653&page=2#post-104360 Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:54:59 +0000 steveo 104360@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Blogging strikes me as somewhat more constructive than EEN commenting. </em></p> <p>You know I'm not sure it is. <em>If</em> you subscribe to the EEN <strike>world</strike> parochial view then by commentating support you create a feedback loop that ensures, for example, the next time the Council tries something different like closing half of Princes St to traffic the EEN will take the side of it commentators and not give any other point of view a second paragraph. There by giving the impression to the council that the "public" are against the plans and they quietly go away. The council seems to still give more weight to the views of the EEN and its readers than any other group.</p> <p>Commenting against their mind set is usually shot down by a few muppets and thus any one who disagrees with their editorial stance is shot down and goes away. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9653&page=2#post-104355 Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:28:53 +0000 chdot 104355@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"only to be told that I'm the only one to have contacted them"</p> <p>If true that demonstrates a general 'British'(??) reluctance to complain. </p> <p>I know that some people were unhappy when Spokes was supportive of the tram going along the Roseburn Corridor (subject to suitable cycle route at the side of course). </p> <p>I don't know if people told Spokes or if any were members - or if any members decided not to renew. </p> <p>Spokes is made up of individuals doing (in some cases a lot of) work in their own time. </p> <p>Over the years it has achieved a lot - by the work of a few <em>and</em> by encouraging members to write/email on many issues. </p>