Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Jeremy Vine hits out at 'loud minority' opposing CS9

“If Hieronymus Bosch had lived in 2018 he would have used the Hammersmith roundabout to inspire his painting ‘Visions of Hell’”

Jeremy Vine has said that it is “sad” that taking space away from cars and giving it to bikes has become such a divisive issue. The Radio 2 presenter was responding to complaints made about CS9 in the wake of the recent consultation which saw those in favour outnumbering opponents by three to two.

A letter published in the London Evening Standard last week said: “It is appalling that our quality of life will be reduced on the basis of a half baked consultation.”

Vine seemed exasperated by the tone, saying: “All I want is to be able to say to my young daughters, ‘Let’s cycle to Trafalgar Square’... and be able to do the seven miles on a protected cycleway. Or even to go shopping, less than a mile. This is not revolutionary — and I’m not alone.”

He went on to cite some of the bizarre objections to the project.

“Those against the scheme, the minority 40%, were far louder,” he said.

“They complained that the cycle path will be used by ‘snatch thieves for planned heists from jewellers’; would ‘prevent high-speed police chases’; and even that it would increase rudeness.

“Some residents dread being trapped in their streets, as if passing cyclists are more frightening than the vans and buses who will now give way to them.”

Referring to the current layout, he added: “If Hieronymus Bosch had lived in 2018 he would have used the Hammersmith roundabout to inspire his painting ‘Visions of Hell’.”

A 2016 INRIX report into congestion concluded that Transport for London’s £4 billion Road Modernisation Plan, together with the £15 billion Crossrail programme, would ultimately reduce congestion by 20 per cent and characterised the ongoing construction work as “short term pain for long term gain.”

Vine views the work similarly.

“For sure, the construction period won’t be fun. But after that, surely we can look forward to cleaner air, fewer vehicles, safer streets, and less worry about our kids?”

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

10 comments

Avatar
Cugel | 6 years ago
5 likes

There's no real solution in building cycling infrastructure .... nor any need for such a "solution" since we already have acres of roads very suitable for cycling. Or they would be if motorised traffic didn't degrade them and present a highly dangerous obstacle to cycling on roads in safety.

The real solution is to deal with the blight that is the car, van & lorry. They are the problem, not lack of cycling infrastructure. Moreover, were their dangers to be dealt with via much more draconian enforcement of already existing law, the only cost would be the policing. This could easily be recouped via the fines and car-confiscations.

Until the dangerous and damaging car et al are dealt with, there will never be any fully-realisable safe cycling infrastucture that's anything more than a near-empty gesture or some inadequate lines painted on the road.

Of course, the car-addicted voters will not agree to limitations on their Toad-style driving and so effective restraint of their damaging behaviours will never happen. Best that, instead, all study how to deal with sudden bereavement and/or a high degree of car-wreaked disablemet, in yourself or your loved ones. There are plenty of experienced folk who can inform you about how to deal with these things (as far as they can be dealt with).

Cugel

Avatar
maviczap replied to Cugel | 6 years ago
2 likes
Cugel wrote:

There's no real solution in building cycling infrastructure .... nor any need for such a "solution" since we already have acres of roads very suitable for cycling. Or they would be if motorised traffic didn't degrade them and present a highly dangerous obstacle to cycling on roads in safety.

The real solution is to deal with the blight that is the car, van & lorry. They are the problem, not lack of cycling infrastructure. Moreover, were their dangers to be dealt with via much more draconian enforcement of already existing law, the only cost would be the policing. This could easily be recouped via the fines and car-confiscations.

Until the dangerous and damaging car et al are dealt with, there will never be any fully-realisable safe cycling infrastucture that's anything more than a near-empty gesture or some inadequate lines painted on the road.

Of course, the car-addicted voters will not agree to limitations on their Toad-style driving and so effective restraint of their damaging behaviours will never happen. Best that, instead, all study how to deal with sudden bereavement and/or a high degree of car-wreaked disablemet, in yourself or your loved ones. There are plenty of experienced folk who can inform you about how to deal with these things (as far as they can be dealt with).

Cugel

 

Unfortunately carmagedon is upon us, but they can't see the solution is to give up their cars. Although you cantc blame them when riding anywhere is so dangerous.

When the hospital's are full of people with lung diseases from polution, then someone might doing something.

Avatar
Spangly Shiny | 6 years ago
3 likes

London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London...

... yawn!

Avatar
Grahamd replied to Spangly Shiny | 6 years ago
3 likes
Spangly Shiny wrote:

London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London...

... yawn!

Agree. If only the rest of the UK had funding for transport on a proportionate basis to London...

 

 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Grahamd | 6 years ago
1 like
Grahamd wrote:
Spangly Shiny wrote:

London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London...

... yawn!

Agree. If only the rest of the UK had funding for transport on a proportionate basis to London...

Yes, it would be a good start, but most local authorities already have extremely pro-cycling policies, but the reality never matches the rhetoric, and they still spend all the money on more roads.  Or if they do spend a crumb or two on cycling, it is usually not fit for purpose.

Avatar
atgni replied to Grahamd | 5 years ago
1 like
Grahamd wrote:
Spangly Shiny wrote:

London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London...

... yawn!

Agree. If only the rest of the UK had funding for transport on a proportionate basis to London...

 

 

You know London is quite populous?
It's bigger than the next 16 UK cities put together.

https://thegeographist.wordpress.com/2016/04/07/largest-cities-uk-popula...

Avatar
EddyBerckx replied to Spangly Shiny | 6 years ago
1 like
Spangly Shiny wrote:

London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London, London...

... yawn!

Blah blah blah!

Avatar
salokin | 6 years ago
0 likes

It won't reduce congestion by 20%, by the time it's all built the population increase will negate any congestion reduction. People need to stop shagging like a virus to reduce congestion. Idiotic evaluation.

Avatar
Beecho | 6 years ago
1 like

Rare to see public opinion sitting happily alongside sound research and common sense.

Avatar
mike the bike | 6 years ago
11 likes

 

Unfortunately an argument based on sound research, public opinion and common sense will not prevent attacks by the legions of the self-interested and the plain stupid.  It were ever so.

Latest Comments