http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Times Cycling Campaign en Mon, 18 May 2026 09:45:28 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186&page=3#post-58781 Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:57:29 +0000 chdot 58781@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"The government essentially washing its hands of the issue and saying "it's a local government matter""</p> <p>Pretty much the same in Scotland. </p> <p>Also still seen largely as a 'transport issue'. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186&page=3#post-58780 Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:51:06 +0000 Roibeard 58780@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The letter is indeed disappointing. The government essentially washing its hands of the issue and saying "it's a local government matter". Which will result in local government saying, "we can't afford it, because Westminster have cut our funding".</p> <p>Hence, status quo, with the MPs assured of the cyclist vote come election time.</p> <p>Robert the Cynic </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186&page=3#post-58777 Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:46:06 +0000 chdot 58777@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Letter from From Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State Norman Baker MP and Mike Penning MP"</p> <p>"<br /> We are writing to let you know the action the Coalition Government is taking both to promote cycling and to improve safety for cyclists, and to ask for your help at the local level to further these aims.</p> <p>Cycling has risen up the political agenda in recent weeks, not least due to the excellent campaign run by The Times, and we are keen to seize the moment to make good progress on a number of fronts</p> <p>"</p> <p>Full text - <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3334735.ece" rel="nofollow">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3334735.ece</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56398 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:27:55 +0000 chdot 56398@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>LOTS of personal stories here -</p> <p><a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3314591.ece#tab-5" rel="nofollow">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3314591.ece#tab-5</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56183 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:50:15 +0000 Instography 56183@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I can see why The Times' campaign is unsatisfactory if what you're expecting of them is to argue two things: that the conditions in which people are being asked to cycle is sufficiently dangerous to justify intervention, particularly in the form of expensive segregated infrastructure, while simultaneously arguing that cycling is great fun and certainly safe enough to be enjoyed by the bulk of the population.</p> <p>I doubt there was anyone on the brink of going out and buying a bicycle, thinking that cycling was all sunshine and country lanes, who opened up their Times and were horrified to find that cycling is actually way more dangerous than they thought. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56182 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:10:04 +0000 Dave 56182@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I don't think anyone other than cyclists who've buffed up on their law, knows there's a difference though. I fully expect everyone else who sees me walk across gets just as annoyed as if I'd ridden through! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56180 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:50:22 +0000 wingpig 56180@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Walking across a ped phase is fine. 'Shooting' it, assuming that means rolling across it, is not. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56179 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:45:11 +0000 Dave 56179@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@etc.etc.etc. - that was actually a typo (possibly freudian though!) I had to go and look back on the previous page to understand what you were talking about. Oops!</p> <p>Can't see your media at work, so I'll not try to reply just now, except to say that I've found great success with just walking across on the pedestrian phase. Very impressed with the dedication to do a field test, so I'll match your pioneering spirit by timing the sequences on the way home, and we can see. :) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56170 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:40:33 +0000 wingpig 56170@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Iseewhatyou'retryingtodothere,butIwouldn't<br /> bedoinganythingwarrantingpoliceintervention,<br /> soyourattemptedcombinationofthelabelwithmyuser-name,whilstterriblyamusing,isinvalid Assuming that you were excluding various country-inhabitants such as those too young to understand traffic signals and those who genuinely think that road signs and signals only apply to motor vehicles but being willing to gather fresh data, I watched a popular road junction at lunchtime, though gave it four minutes rather than thirty seconds in order to see the full sequence. I have summarised the inferences about the lights' instructions which were able to be drawn from various vehicles' behaviours in this flowchart:<br /> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/wingpig/6846817471/"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7190/6846817471_f233b4ec23.jpg"></a></p> <p>There are probably variations, such as the RLJ-ing cyclists' "proceed across anyway, but hunch the shoulders slightly to pretend you're invisible" technique, but no-one did that in this instance.</p> <p>The wait time at purely pedestrian crossings isn't much. A light-controlled junction could conceivably introduce a 'delay' of a couple of minutes (if there are a couple of other directions of traffic to be signalled through as well as a short pedestrian phase) but I find it's easier and less stressy just to wait for the green rather than introduce an extra re-joining-the-traffic event after scampering across potentially live traffic streams (where it's not possible to saunter across on the pedestrian phase and then re-mount and head off before traffic starts steaming past again). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56150 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:24:09 +0000 Roibeard 56150@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>'Tis an old argument - "we don't want the public to think cycling is dangerous and thus be discouraged to ride", versus "we do want the public to think cycling is dangerous and be so outraged that matters are improved". Usually citing the mythical "child murder" moment in Europe - "mythical" because it has become a powerful myth, not "fictional".</p> <p>To be honest, I can't see which is the best approach, but then again, I'm not a cycle evangelist (although I may at times be a cycling evangelist!)</p> <p>Robert </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56148 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:20:43 +0000 Dave 56148@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@wingbat, I daresay there's nobody in the country who doesn't understand the meaning of red lights, even if they had to derive it from first principles (by standing in the street for thirty seconds). </p> <p>It's exactly like speeding. The reason people do it is because the risk is less than the reward - in this case, a tiny chance that they might get a very small fine, versus a significant saving in time and effort.</p> <p>Not that it's necessarily relevant, but at least with cycling you really can make big step changes in journey time by shooting red lights, so the reward side is understandably large enough that people find it worth pursuing (unlike driving at 40mph between traffic jams, when the person in the car behind - my good self - is sticking to the limit and catching up at every junction).</p> <p>For me, I reckon red lights add an average of 5 minutes to a 15 minute commute (33%!) and could easily be shot, as in case of point, I often dismount and walk across them all. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56138 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:54:52 +0000 chdot 56138@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<br /> I am pleased that the Times are launching this campaign; it is much needed. But, it is also sad that it takes yet another tragedy to make important newspapers and others sit up and take notice.</p> <p>Is this what it is going to take? For more and more people to actually know someone who died or was seriously injured while riding a bike; before the situation changes and people start taking responsibility for the control of the vehicle they are driving.</p> <p>Because this is what it boils down to; almost all of these tragedies are avoidable.</p> <p>"<br /> <a href="http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2012/2/2/changing-times.html" rel="nofollow">http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2012/2/2/changing-times.html</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56132 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:28:53 +0000 wingpig 56132@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The "did you just do that because a: negligent and ignorant, in that you were unaware that you were going through a red light, b: ignorant, in that you were aware of it but didn't think it applied to you on a bike, c: negligent, in that you were aware of it but didn't bother to stop because you're too hurried/important/arrogant/you're taking part in a timed event/you looked around and saw that there was 'no point' in stopping as there was no-one waiting to cross?" question (and the "are you now pleasingly illuminated, remorseful or obstreperous as a result of having been pulled up about it?" follow-up) is probably one for Sgt. Quentin and colleagues the next time they have a hauling-over-RLJ-ing-dingbats session. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56126 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:11:46 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 56126@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>No, again, I'm not saying that the more experienced you are the more likely you are to break the rules; but rather that those who break the rules are more likely to be experienced. Tis a subtle difference.</p> <p>Certain peer groups will also act differently, as you say. On audaxes anyone running a red has been shouted at. Happened on PfS as well. Whereas I've seen ERC groups happily go through the Duddingston Crossroads lights, either on the road, or riding onto the pavement (round a blind walled corner).</p> <p>Neds on BMXs are definitely experienced. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56125 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:08:52 +0000 Dave 56125@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That makes sense I suppose, although the more I think about it, the more holes I see in it. For instance, go on a brevet that passes through a busy city and people (IME) are unlikely to bounce lights even though they are probably most experienced of all. Neds travelling via BMX don't worry too much about red lights - but then do they count as experienced or not? They probably rack up decent riding times overall? </p> <p>Racers on the other hand, like the ERC posse, are very badly behaved, but I'm not 'in' enough to comment on whether more or less experienced racers ride better or worse. Kap might be able to offer some help there.</p> <p>I find it difficult to rate commuters in terms of experience. If their jacket is not covered in muck, is it new because they're new to riding, or new because they ride so much they wore the last one out? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56108 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:11:09 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 56108@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>True, my post does give that inference. It was more <em>reversed</em> in that those who break the law (thinking more of the dangerous aspects) are more likely to be people who have ridden for a while and think they can do so safely.</p> <p>Although that doesn't always extend - I think many novice/nervous cyclists ride on the pavement because they feel the road is dangerous.</p> <p>I'm talking myself out of my own point here... Right, the way I'd put it is the very deliberate and blatant breaking of the law is done by those who would be more experienced; whereas the 'negligent' (trying to think of a better word) and reactive breaking of the law tends to be done by the new/inexperienced. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56107 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:58:22 +0000 Dave 56107@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"but equally are less likely to be the people whose attitudes to running lights and so on need to be changed"</p> <p>I'm not sure if this is true or not. You seem to be saying that people get less likely to follow the law the more experience they have, <strong>although I may be reading you wrongly</strong>? Although thinking of myself as a driver, I guess that *is* true. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56105 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:51:24 +0000 chdot 56105@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>STAY AT HOME!</p> <p>Sorry</p> <p>Forgot</p> <p>That's not too safe either... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56104 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:50:29 +0000 chdot 56104@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Driving is VERY dangerous. </p> <p>LOTS of people die - even when protected by large metal boxes with lights at each corner. </p> <p>Walking is pretty dangerous too. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56103 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:43:54 +0000 crowriver 56103@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Yeah, I got the "Oh noooooo..." moment when I saw the illustrated diagrams of how to cycle safely. </p> <p>Basically, the message is, cycling is really, really, dangerous, don't do it unless you have all the right gear and know all the tricks.</p> <p>Sigh. Well meaning, but ultimately misguided. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56101 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:34:06 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 56101@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Yep, I think we're coming from the same place. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56100 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:33:01 +0000 wingpig 56100@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@anth Saw the tweet I think you're referring to.<br /> It is unknown whether new/irregular/arrogant/uncaring/unobservant cyclists respond more to the opinions of regular cyclists or non-cyclists when the latter attempts to inform the former of how they come across on the roads (and pavements and paths). Might a reasonably-presented opinion from someone who shares their mode of transport [insert optional reference to psychological grouping-concepts] be more likely to be considered than the bile of the opponent who doesn't understand why they'd try in the first place and sees only the bad? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56097 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:20:33 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 56097@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@wingpig, sorry the comment that was given to me was in relation specifically to the anti-cyclist tirade of the driver, not the lorry blindspot stuff and everything else.</p> <p>And you're right, the occasional or non-cyclist might not know about the prejudice felt against us, but equally are less likely to be the people whose attitudes to running lights and so on need to be changed. And also, reading that piece and realising it might well stop the occasional cyclists, and completely put the non-cyclists off...</p> <p>Definitely needed more 'actual citycyclists' writing, rather than relying so heavily on celebrity endorsement of the dangers. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56096 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:19:32 +0000 Dave 56096@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'd have thought there's an equally good argument that the possibility of new/irregular/occasional/unobservant cyclists neither knowing or caring about prejudice against them is a good thing, rather than something to be disabused (especially using such a poor excuse as safety!)</p> <p>Some good points are being made though that the main outcome of this campaign, surprise-surprise, is that cycling is looking more and more dangerous and foolhardy. I've had a couple of comments at work about it that I wouldn't normally expect. (Of the "na, I'd never cycle into work, look at all that stuff in the paper" line of thinking). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56093 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:15:48 +0000 minus six 56093@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Perhaps I was dreaming, but one of saturday's opinion pieces had James Cracknell pontificating that the non wearing of cycle helmets was morally equivalent to being an eighties style football hooligan.</p> <p>I can't check, because I threw it out thereafter. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56091 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:13:22 +0000 wingpig 56091@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><blockquote><em>"...but I think any regular cyclist is well aware of how they are viewed by a certain proportion of the driving public..."</em></blockquote></p> <p>Whereas the irregulars and occasionals might not. Much as they lack telepathic taxi-prediction skills, knowledge of the turning envelopes of long vehicles and the large ironic question-marks our visual cortices overlay on top of all turning-indicator lights. They might not even know that they should never ever voluntarily interpose themselves between a BMW's bonnet and anything anywhere in front of it. Knowledge that there are other road users out there who are not only unwilling to tolerate a cyclist's relative weakness but who will also deliberately exploit it given the slightest opportunity should be at the top of any list of safe cycling requisites. It would have more helpful if some of the whinefroth had been anticipated and new/irregular/occasional/unobservant cyclists apprised of the way they may be perceived by other road users by someone who also cycles rather than someone who doesn't (including those who claimed that they used to at the start of their article to try and pretend that they can see both sides). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56089 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:00:57 +0000 Min 56089@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"But Rebecca Romero (the first article) telling us that she trains indoors now because the roads are too dangerous to ride on, "</p> <p>Does she? That is really sad. :-( </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56085 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:53:13 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 56085@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I meant to come back to this after buying the Times for the 'How to Cycle Safely' supplement at the weekend. Wish I hadn't really...</p> <p>I guess they're trying to show <em>why</em> things need to change on the roads, and articles pointing out how wonderful cycling is aren't going to do that. But Rebecca Romero (the first article) telling us that she trains indoors now because the roads are too dangerous to ride on, and her friend had a big crash, and James Cracknell had a big crash, was very much <em>we're dooooomed!</em> in its tone.</p> <p>Other articles followed suite, and the illustrated (poorly, they needed kaputnik - I think citycycling should strike back) 'this is how to cycle safely' had strange slants. The first tip listed equipment, so naturally helmet and hi-viz ranked ahead of 'good working brakes' in the safety stakes. Also listed was 'wear flat shoes'...</p> <p>Dave would have hated the little illustration of lorry blind spots.</p> <p>The piece de resistance, however, was a short article by a motorist, trotting out the usual anti-cyclist tirade. It has been suggested to me that this might make cyclists wake up to how they're seen on the roads if they do something wrong, but I think any regular cyclist is well aware of how they are viewed by a certain proportion of the driving public.</p> <p>Oh, and it was all <em>very</em> London-centric. One of the main tips in the illustrated section, given a panel all of its own, was not only to 'always' use cycle paths where they exist (I thought we'd argued that one to death in the Highway Code revisions!), but specifically to use the London Superhighways. I guess if I'm riding in London I'll definitely not be at risk of being run over in Edinburgh... And of course it misses the point that there have been a huge amount of complaints and problems with the superhighways since they started <strike>putting them in</strike> repainting the cycle lanes blue. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56068 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:25:01 +0000 wingpig 56068@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><blockquote><em>"...but we do obviously support the spirit of what is intended."</em></blockquote></p> <p>Presumably the spirit of the intent was to Make Cycling Popularlier/Safer, but perhaps CEC's laggardness has saved them from publicly supporting the drift into celebrity endorsements of cycling's unsafeness and an excuse for other media outlets to find their Clarksoniest or most Parrisesque mouthbag to trot out "and NOW the bleating parasites want THIS!" froth-pieces. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5186#post-56063 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:10:07 +0000 Roibeard 56063@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Following my request that Edinburgh might add themselves to the list of supporting city councils, I've had some responses from my councillors, including:</p> <p><em>Thank you for your email. I wrote to the head of Transport and spoke with the Convenor of the Transport Committee, Councillor Gordon Mackenzie and yes they are investigating signing up to this. Sadly we do not do work that quickly as it needs to go to a committee but we do obviously support the spirit of what is intended.<br /> </em></p> <p>It is indeed unfortunate that ten other city councils, including Glasgow, are so agile in pledging their support, making us look bad.</p> <p>Perhaps the Times gave them notice of the campaign, that we did not receive?</p> <p>Robert </p>