MailOnline employee calls on council to keep Kensington High Street cycle lanes, saying “it made our journey safer”

Did you look at the other side of the road as there are several cyclists in view using it. You also had 40-50 bikes on the central locking areas which must have got there somehow.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Well that and the fact that he's recorded himself cycling with not a single other cyclist in sight, also lending credence to the viewpoint that virtually no one is using them.

To be fair I haven't been anywhere near there, so I don't know how busy it is on a day to day basis, but it doesn't look great on the evidence that there's only him cycling on a clear sunny morning.

There's no other cyclists in view because they have all actually got to their destiniation. Cars however, are often stuck in a traffic jam which makes them more obvious to observers. You never see a bicycle equivelant of a traffic jam on a cycle lane. Could that be an indicator of their efficiency?

I have no doubt this is true, but I am nervous for the future of the cycle lanes in my area of London (which I support) because to be honest they do not seem well used at the moment, even taking that efficiency into account. Whilst I think it's great that COVID made a case for creating infra quickly, I think there is a bit of a danger in using COVID and social distancing as the ongoing justification for them when large numbers of people still seem to be working from home and therefore don't need to travel, and vaccines are on the horizon. I'd much rather hear a strong position from central and local government that cycle lanes are good for the long-term, not just a COVID solution, and being honest with opponents that we don't expect the cycle lanes to be full (a) because they're efficient and (b) because you have to build them first to encourage people out of their cars.       

Nigel Garrage wrote:

 

Really? When the Telegraph and Daily Mail report.

Yep, that will fly. Like the Hindenburg.

TFTFY

Hindenburg flew very nicely. It was a botched attempt to stop flying that was the problem. I'm glad you're getting with the programme.

What does the < 2% claim actually mean, by the way?

If it is an independent report with a breakdown of all the traffic types, I would take more notice. The Mail and the Telegraph with an obvious agenda sending the Work Experience kid out to count for them is not something I would take with a barrowload of salt. 

For example of potential issues with their methods. Most people would use roads to travel to work. So between 7-9am, I expect the amount of Journeys by bike would be a lot higher. (Like I said earlier, look at all the parked bikes at the stands). Obviously the car journeys would be as well. However after those times, buses will still be running to similar time frames at 10-11am with a very small drop in frequency. Vans deliveries will also be higher but I expect car and bike journeys will be well down. However if they are literally counting everything but bikes as other traffic it would skew the results as the buses would run if only the driver is there or if it is brimmed. 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Well that and the fact that he's recorded himself cycling with not a single other cyclist in sight, also lending credence to the viewpoint that virtually no one is using them.

But that view becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Car drivers object to cycle lanes and declare that "nobody uses them" within a few days on their installation, when evidence from the parts of the world that did it properly is that it takes time for the lanes to bed in, for drivers to get used to them and for people to make the choice to switch their form of transport and make use of them. Expecting that within two weeks the lanes would be clogged with bikes is ridiculous. 

This country has then compounded that by calling them "temporary" or "emergency" or "pop up" lanes, which will in itself put some people off ... what is the point in starting to use them if they might not be around long? And that is then further compounded when we get reports that other councils have been removing lanes after a few days or weeks because "it hasn't worked". 

No. 

You haven't allowed it to work by showing that you are committed to it, and then giving it time to make a difference. 

As a nation, we have become so accustomed to the idea of instant results that we can't see beyond the end of our collective noses. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Maybe the Mail Employee should fire off an email inviting the journalist responsible for each anti cycling story they run to say hello to the staff in his employ who have had these life changing injuries.

Probably wouldn't make a difference. They're only continuing this theme of "road wars" because people like to read it and it gets them clicks. Their priority is simply for advertising revenue. They'll support any position that gets them attention.

You made in 5 years in the future? Did you hit 88 mph ?

i wish. I cant work out how to change the time and date on that camera, so i just left it. Id love to travel fifty years into the future though and see how bad the road network is, or whether it actually gets better for bicycles and traffic jams are a thing of the past. Id also like to go back to around 1920/1940, see what it was like to cycle in england but with so few cars around. To be fair taking a modern TT bike back and holding 30 mph would probably shock so many people back then. 

eburtthebike wrote:

I hope all those people supporting the lane are using the democratic system and deluging their councillors with emails demanding the lane be retained.

This. There's a lot of support (and opposition) on social media, but I wonder how much of that registers with the decision makers, as opposed to direct contact.   

the little onion wrote:

...... I felt victimised, especially as the police know who I am......."

Hmmmm

the little onion wrote:

Oooh, just found this tidbit from Havers' wikipedia entry

 

So we can now change it to "actor and unrepetentant drink driver Nigel Havers"

 

 

"Havers was arrested in February 1990 on suspicion of drink driving, and taken to Harrow police station.[16] He was later banned from driving for one year, and fined £500, but told a woman's magazine "I don't regret it at all". He continued, "I thought the whole thing was pretty unfair. I was only 300 yards from home in a restaurant and had only used my car anyway because it was pouring with rain." He said "I got the same punishment as people who are three times over the limit. I felt victimised, especially as the police know who I am." He was criticised for these comments by John Knight, co-founder of the Campaign against Drinking and Driving, while a spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers said "I think he's probably a little bit out of touch with public feeling."[17]"

so he drove to a restaurant only 300 yards from home? because a 2 tonne car is an equivalent to an umbrella?

Then having arrived and knowing he needed to drive home he chose to drink?

Knob

wycombewheeler wrote:

.....

so he drove to a restaurant only 300 yards from home? because a 2 tonne car is an equivalent to an umbrella?

Then having arrived and knowing he needed to drive home he chose to drink?

Knob

To make a cockwomble decision like that, he must have been rat-arsed in the first place.....

wycombewheeler wrote:

the little onion wrote:

Oooh, just found this tidbit from Havers' wikipedia entry

 

So we can now change it to "actor and unrepetentant drink driver Nigel Havers"

 

 

"Havers was arrested in February 1990 on suspicion of drink driving, and taken to Harrow police station.[16] He was later banned from driving for one year, and fined £500, but told a woman's magazine "I don't regret it at all". He continued, "I thought the whole thing was pretty unfair. I was only 300 yards from home in a restaurant and had only used my car anyway because it was pouring with rain." He said "I got the same punishment as people who are three times over the limit. I felt victimised, especially as the police know who I am." He was criticised for these comments by John Knight, co-founder of the Campaign against Drinking and Driving, while a spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers said "I think he's probably a little bit out of touch with public feeling."[17]"

so he drove to a restaurant only 300 yards from home? because a 2 tonne car is an equivalent to an umbrella?

Then having arrived and knowing he needed to drive home he chose to drink?

Knob

There is nothing like that between my legs!

You can see Havers character If you read up how he "won" extra money from his dead wifes estate because the initial will she had drawn up AFTER they got married gave him nothing apart from a house to stay in until he died rent free. 

the little onion wrote:

"actor and convicted drink driver, Nigel Havers, who lives locally"

 

Fixed that for you.

And you - you're welcome 

deleted duplicte post