Tech-savvy developer types often ride bikes, and often instinctively back the idea of robot vehicles. After all, the subconscious asks, if I can code a computer to play a game, what’s so hard about getting it to move around a real map?
But driverless cars are not like ‘normal’ AI. They exist in a world with all-too real consequences. For the first time we’re asking billions of people to cede control of a lethal machine to a still-highly-experimental, incredibly complicated, autonomous system. Noise, edge cases and unusual behaviours not present in training data all abound. Autonomous vehicles will be more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians, not less.
Bikes and people can suddenly reverse, or move sideways, or in diagonally. They can even jump! This means to truly safely deal with these types of users – call it the ‘Friday Night In Peckham Test’ – is a much bigger challenge than a motorway, where three lanes of users move in predictable patterns, and all between 40-80MPH.
There’s a reason car manufacturers are testing away from towns, and won’t share testing data, or test specifications. They’d rather not have to deal safely with pedestrians and bikes because they know how much more costly they are. So car-makers would rather they went away. They’ll probably get their wish because they’re marque ‘heavy industry’ employers, and because AI belongs to the sleek shiny optimistic future of tech that all politicians are desperate to court.
Instead we will see two worrying developments to shift responsibility from car makers. There will be pressure to gradually remove troublesome bikes and pedestrians from parts of the roads ‘for their own safety’. We’ve already started to see this.
Alternatively manufacturers will introduce two levels of AI – a truly autonomous ‘safe mode’ which overreacts to all stimuli with infuriatingly (unworkably) slow speeds, or a ‘sport setting’ which makes much riskier decisions to enable faster speeds, under the flimsy caveat that users ‘monitor the system more actively’. Most will prefer to travel faster but few will be bothered to supervise the AI closely or consistently, when Netflix and social media are available distractions.
Finally, a growing body of evidence shows that too much automation of routine tasks can make them more dangerous, not less. Airline pilots’ skills atrophy when autopilot handles most of their flying time – with literally lethal consequences when an emergency occurs. Car drivers – most of whom already take driving far less seriously than such a dangerous activity merits – will suffer the same fate. Who would bet on a driver, suddenly handed control back in an emergency situation, taking the right decision in a split-second if they have perhaps hardly driven for years?
We’d just started to halt the decades long declines in cycling and walking rates, and lower urban speeds to 20MPH (‘twenty’s plenty’ initiatives), but the rise of autonomous vehicles will likely threaten this and see walking and cycling people relegated to third place, behind fleets of AI cars travelling bumper to bumper at far higher speeds than today and a few die-hard petrolheads defiantly navigating their own vintage tanks among the whizzing fleet.
One of the best things about my teenage years was romping around town on foot or bikes with my mates. My daughter turns 16 in 2030. It’s terrifying to think that by then, the killer robots that end her life might not be gun-toting drones, put plain old delivery vans.
Too many laws and customs of driving make speed more important than safety, from the driving instructors’ “make good progress down the road” (e.g. “hurry the fuck up”, which most drivers internalise as “drive at least as fast as the speed limit unless there’s literally another car right in front of you”), to every transport investment ever being marketed to (presumably furious) taxpayers as “reducing journey times”.
This is in contrast to other European countries, where safety is #1, and speed just a nice-to-have. Surely it’s time for the national Government to admit – as London’s TfL have – that the UK is blessed with only a fixed amount of road space, so with growing numbers of people using it, we all have to accept that journeys will get slower in future, not quicker.
We have a real blind spot (pun intended) in the UK about traffic jams. On the one hand, we are only too aware of all the time we **WASTE** sat in stationary traffic each day – most car journeys are fewer than five miles, made by commuters, and involve up to half that time in queues – so traffic jams are a fact of driving life here in the UK.
On the other hand, peoples’ frustration / anger / surprise about being stuck in a traffic jam on any given morning (when they are, every morning) is total. But this is bizarre… We know the traffic will be there, but still get in our car expecting a free road, at 08:30 on a weekday! Where’s all that traffic come from!
Surely it’s time to admit traffic jams exist, will get worse, not better, and constantly lurching from 0 to 30mph and back again is pointless as well as dangerous?
Imagine a world where the DoT’s published targets and main priority were to reduce accidents per mile travelled, and included walking and cycling targets, not journey times? Where 20mph became the standard urban default speed limit, not exception? Where satnavs routinely pointed out to users when (given traffic conditions) particular journeys, short and long, were quicker by public transport / foot / bike?
A safer UK. A calmer UK. And – just possibly – a healthier, richer, and happier UK.
Cyclists on Waterloo Bridge waiting to cross the Strand (CTC/Roger Geffen)
I’m really pushed for time this week so I won’t write a detailed post on this. In short it is terrible. Virtually nothing proposed at all, and what little there is is for pedestrians, not cyclists! Loads of car parking retained, no modal filters.
Worst of all, on Waterloo Bridge and the Strand junction itself there is nothing, absolutely nothing to protect cyclists. A line of paint on the road is all that’s going to protect you from busses, lorries, coaches and cars. This is 2015, not 1995. The council are mad.
This is the absolute centre of civic life in London and if there isn’t a case for pedestrianising large swathes of it (allowing black cabs to some bits, and perhaps loading/deliveries outside peak hours), then I can’t think where in the UK it would be appropriate to pedestrianise.
As I say, I’m in a mega hurry, so here’s my pasted consultation response:
What on earth is the Council doing? These are appalling proposals. The Council seem to have utterly disregarded the LCDS2 and LCC recommendations for Quietway provision and instead decided to do virtually nothing. Where money *is* spent it is on pavement widening to benefit pedestrians, not cycling. There is no reason whatsoever why these streets, right in the heart of London, should be accessed by private cars. Taxis, yes, deliveries/loading yes (at prescribed times) but all private cars, all the time? Madness.
Unless additional permeability measures benefit bikes, and modal filters discourage cars, they will struggle to create a cycle-friendly network that encourages cycling as an everyday activity.
Furthermore lots of car parking and loading bays *are* retained which (contrary to stated on the plan) create pinch points and encourage car use. Instead the spaces should be inset to the pavement if they are to be retained at all.
Section 1 (Bow St etc) – there is hardly anything here proposed to comment on. No modal filters, nothing. Strongly oppose.
Section 2 (Covent Garden etc) – again nothing for cycling to comment on at all. The gain of raised tables will be more than offset by retained car parking and to include footway resurfacing as part of a ‘cycling scheme’ is laughable.
Section 3 (Strand) – the only element of this proposal that is genuinely welcome is dropping the junction across the Strand to carriageway level. The rest of the section propsal is nonsense (again, why are private cars to be allowed to drive and park outside the Lyceum, exactly?!) and the unprotected central feeder lane on Waterloo Bridge n/bound is utter madness. It belongs in the 1990s and will be incredibly dangerous – encouraging some novices to the centre of the traffic whilst providing zero protection. If a traffic lane can be lost then why not provide a fully segregated facility on this incredibly busy bridge?
Section 4 (Waterloo bridge northern end) – this proposal is so close to criminally liable I’m amazed the Council even let it out into the public domain. Given the documented incredibly high cycle mode share on this bridge, to protect cycle traffic with a **single white line of paint on the road** eg a mandatory on-road cycle lane, when there is a central reservation present, is beyond belief. This won’t do anything, *at* *all* to improve safety.
TO call this a cycling scheme is wholly disingenuous and the Council should consider seriously whether they have opened themselves to a judicial review by doing so.
Southwark Council propose expensive and disruptive alterations to Camberwell Green junction and area. The plans are terrible. Southwark Cyclists have thoroughly examined their proposal with expert advice and we have decided to formally reject these plans.
The consultation closes tomorrow (Thurs 13th August). It only takes a minute or two to do. Please forward this email to all your friends and cycling or walking colleagues, encouraging them to reject the proposal too. Because this is a formal council consultation, not some online petition your voice counts – the council have to rethink if enough people object.
The council have to go back and rethink these terrible plans, which do nothing for cycling, and could do much more for walking. They are purely cosmetic alterations which do nothing to improve the terrible safety record of this junction, which includes one death already this year.
This is our reasoning – you can read the document in full at this link:
Southwark Cyclists reject these proposals.
Southwark Council’s proposals for Camberwell Green alterations do nothing to address serious and worsening safety issues for cyclists.
These largely cosmetic alterations also miss several opportunities to substantially improve crossing times and safety for pedestrians.
These proposals assume increasing traffic flow when TfL’s own figures show car ownership, use, and miles travelled are all decreasing in this part of London. The Council’s own figures and transport policy forecast a rise in cycle numbers.
We urge Southwark Council and Transport for London to reconsider their approach to this key junction and the Camberwell Green area. Space for cycling at the junction and/or a cycle bypass are feasible alternatives to their proposals.
Sensible Alternatives
A number of sensible alternatives exist which could be built in a similar amount of time and disruption, and would greatly improve the safety and convenience of the area for cyclists and pedestrians alike:
Six lanes of traffic at Camberwell Green – on Denmark Hill looking south.
The public environment. Firstly, even the council recognise that the Green itself is a retail and services destination. Thousands of local people use the Green every day for shopping, the library, pharmacy, clinic and courts. But the public environment on Camberwell Church Street and Denmark Hill (outside Butterfly Walk) is intimidating for pedestrians and cyclists alike, with trucks and coaches hurtling down six lanes of traffic at 30mph+, as this picture shows. It’s hard to cross and no wonder so many people prefer to drive short distances to these shops. The proposal does nothing to improve the environment – although the pavement itself will get some expensive new stone, nothing will be done to make it easier or more inviting to get to the Green by bike or on foot, or cross the road once you’re there. Southwark Cyclists propose the town centre, one of the historic local greens of South London, be more imaginatively redesigned as a retail and services destination where pedestrians and cyclists come first. This can be done while maintaining traffic capacity, but calming it.
Space for Cycling at the crossroads. Although both Southwark Council and Transport for London are committed to decreasing cycle and pedestrian deaths and injuries on the roads, and increasing numbers of cycling and walking trips in Southwark by 2020, the junction design Southwark Council propose is straight out of the 1980s – ‘stuff traffic through as quickly as possible, and hope nothing goes wrong’. In fact it’s barely different from the current layout here (one death already this year…) except that, incredibly, there are fewer cycle facilities than now. In conjunction with experts from another London borough and the London Cycling Campaign, Southwark Cyclists propose an alternative design for the green where pedestrians, cyclists and motor traffic all move separately. This layout will retains motor vehicle capacity, is safe for cyclists, and far more convenient for larger numbers of pedestrians. To read more, see our consultation response.
A bus hub – in Orpheus Street, not the high street. One of the council’s motivations for doing anything at all is the large numbers of pedestrians waiting for busses on the pavement outside the shopping centre. Often these spill out into the road; it’s unsafe and hard to get past with a pushchair or wheelchair. Instead of the council’s plans (which actually add hardly any space at all on the pavement in question, and do nothing to calm the traffic at all) we suggest several bus stops could be moved 10-20m down, into Orpheus Street, creating a local bus hub. With proper lighting and other features, this could also be a much safer place to wait, and would create additional retail or services frontages in Orpheus Street, which at the moment is a barren alley with just the art shop. Why move the bus stops at all? Well, moving them from the high street (Denmark Hill) would make the crossing simpler for pedestrians, make driving easier for cars (no busses cutting in and out suddenly), make cycling safer (by freeing space for a bike lane) and the environment far more pleasant for everyone.
Basically, there are several options, far better than the Council’s plans. Reject these plans today (Thurs 13th August closing date) and send them back to the drawing board!
Here’s where I’m coming from with this one. Let me say it simply:
More regular cyclists means lower private car ownership, less congestion for taxis to deal with, and more non-car-owners taking taxi trips.
OK, now for the detailed bit…
An organisation called the London Taxi Drivers’ Association (LTDA) – representing about a third of black cabs apparently, so a minority – has been railing against Transport for London (TfL)’s £913 million investment in cycling over this decade. They’re led by a bloke called Steve McNamara, who (when he’s not comparing cyclists to ISIS) complains that this is far too much money. It’s kicked up quite a fuss.
Now I’m going a bit out of my comfort zone here. I’ve had run-ins with taxis, including one serious accident (he pulled a U-turn without signalling as I filtered outside stationary traffic, wiped me out, and drove off after giving false information, illegally). But you can attribute that to us both being in a hurry. Generally, although there isn’t an additional driving competency test to be a cabbie (the Knowledge tests wayfinding, not driving skill – which means cabbies are no less or more qualified than anyone else with a cat B license), cabbies are fairly aware of their surroundings. And they’re used to driving near bikes. This means that when finely judging risk – as I have to do every second on the road as a cyclist, something I barely have to bother with when I’m driving – I am more worried by a tourist in a private car than a taxi.
So I’m happy to share the roads with cabs. But it seems a minority of them don’t really reciprocate that – in fact they hate cyclists – and I really, really can’t see why.
The argument against bikes, from the taxi cab, is two-pronged as far as I can tell: that bikes clutter up the road, slowing traffic, and secondly that bikes take fares away from taxis. Let’s look at those:
Do bikes clutter up the road? Well in a word, no! On a typical zone 1-3 trip, even on Mrs. LJP’s clunky old sit-up-and-beg bike, I’ll overtake every vehicle along the way except motorbikes. And that’s without jumping lights, overtaking unsafely, or breaking a sweat. Congestion is just so bad that I can’t help it, something the data proves. So I don’t cause congestion, I leapfrog it. That row of stationary cars with a single person in on the A11? Those aren’t bikes, they’re, well.. cars.
Ah! Say the drivers at this point: Bikes are causing that! By taking road space! So if only we built more roads! Well… most of the vehicles on the roads are still private cars, and each one takes the space of 4-10 bikes, depending on the traffic conditions, so I think we could make our own minds up on that one. Not that we need to: TfL have said, officially, that they are simply unable to wring any more space out of London’s roads for private cars [link 2]. In the next decade-and-a-half, London will gain an extra million-and-a-half-people. That’s why they’ve been investing heavily in bikes, walking, and public transport for the last 10 years. It isn’t that they’ve suddenly become hippies – I’ve met a fair few of them and they’re all pretty small-C conservative – but because, as engineers they make decisions based on evidence, and the simple fact is there isn’t any more space to use in London, and cycling, public transport and – yes – taxis are the most efficient use of that space, not private cars.
Secondly do bikes take fares away from taxis? Well taxi fares are under pressure from minicabs and Hailo, but that’s nothing to do with cycles (although it is a lot to do with private car use in the centre of London again) so let’s just note that it would be more appropriate for the LTDA to focus their ire on that and move on. I suppose we can split
taxi fares into two types – regular short hops during the day/evening, in central London, and longer trips that happen occasionally. Taxis prefer the first type as it’s a much better income stream – more predictable and less hassle (fair enough).
Well if city workers are choosing to use bikes over taxis, presumably because it’s cheaper, quicker, and more convenient, then that’s a pretty damning indictment of taxis’ levels of service. And does the LTDA think it’ll win these customers back by ranting at them? Doubt it.
This leads onto the second point about bikes and taxi fares – cyclists are also taxi customers – and big ones. Car ownership has been declining in every London borough, for two decades – but driving licence registrations have held steady. So how do all these non-car-owners get about? Well, our daughter is nearly a year old, and we walk, we cycle (without her), we use public transport, we hire cars for longer trips and, for shopping trips etc, – guess what – we take taxis! Now at the moment our daughter is small enough that’s not a problem, it works well. But in a year from now, we’ll need to cycle with her for some trips – if its safe enough to do so. If it isn’t we can’t afford lots of taxi trips to take her to the nursery etc – and we’ll be forced to buy a car. And then we’ll probably never take a taxi again; why would we when we have a car?
Put really simply, more regular cyclists means lower private car ownership, less congestion for taxis to deal with, and more people taking taxi trips.
So I’ll ask it again: why is the LTDA so against cyclists?
Not minicabs?
Not Hailo?
Not unlicensed mopeds?
Not private cars?
These are all far bigger inconveniences to their working lives, and far bigger threats to their livelihood – but the LTDA have picked on cyclists – why? The simplest explanation to me is they just don’t like bikes. It’s visceral, it’s illogical, and it’s short-sightedly picking on the one group of other road users who ought to be natural allies. If I was a cabbie, especially an LTDA member, I’d be spitting teeth at LTDA’s failure to spot a natural ally, and work with them. But hey, it takes all sorts… right?
A lot of people are concerned about whether driverless cars will be safe in cities, and you can see why. But tonight I wondered whether perhaps they can’t come soon enough…
Over a century ago, driving a car was hard. There were a whole set of levers (levers!) you had to operate, and if you ran out of petrol or oil you were screwed – there were more velodromes or stables than petrol stations in those days. But everyone took it pretty seriously, and you couldn’t go all that fast. So accidents, although everyone worried about them, were rare(ish).
Fifty years later, it all changed. Ford et al had made driving a car far, far, easier, and they were much, much more powerful. People got a lot sloppier, and (until safety features came in) the accident rate soared.
Tonight I had a fairly close shave at a lights with some bloke in a Lexus. He had three – three – LCD screens in the car, and was tapping away on his phone while gently wobbling sideways to squash me on the nearside (he was overtaking, I wasn’t filtering inside, before anyone complains). It wasn’t that fast and I’m experienced enough that dealt with it, but we see this played out every day on the roads in cities.
Here’s the thing: would a driverless car have done worse? I doubt it.
I’ve realised that we’re already living with driverless cars – in the sense that most people are safe enough, and distracted enough, in their cars that they’re not really paying attention. On the motorway or a small town you can get away with it most of the time. But in London, with pedestrians, bikes, and generally more stuff, these can become lethal lapses of concentration.
So if we’re already living in a functionally driverless city, why not do the real thing? Allow only driverless cars in the centre, or those driven by humans with extra qualifications and no distracting electronic devices. It might be more unsafe. But I doubt it.
Given many parents already cycle (20% riding once a month in central London where we live, and 4% nationally) or want to, and given the importers of some of these specialised items do not have access to bulk purchasing, I am very disappointed to find you apparently don’t stock these.
For instance, in the next 6 months when our baby is big enough, I am looking to purchase a Bakfiets centre-mount cargo bike. These high-value items are €899 in Germany but since distribution channels in the UK aren’t mature, retail at £1299 minimum here. So I may possibly have to travel to Germany to pick up a cargo bike at a sensible price. If a large specialist manufacturer like Mothercare stocked these at ~£1000 however, I would certainly wait and buy from you.
Do you have any plans to stock these lines in the next 6-12 months? Or should I buy from a German retailer?
Two major TfL consultations are out today. Both involve key strategic roads which have to be made safer for the large (and ever-growing) numbers of cycle commuters they carry from South London to work in Central London. One has some very promising ideas, though a few tweaks could help. The other continues the same welcome attitude forward as far as the Embankment – and then stops, abruptly. TfL’s second proposal is fatally compromised by the anti-bike attitude of the council they have to work with.
That’s right: Westminster City Council have shown, again, that they don’t understand or care about the safety of the cycling journeys their own policy aims to promote. The best indictment of their involvement is the first proposal, so let’s have a quick look at that…
The good
The first proposal concerns the ‘Oval Triangle’ junctions – the junction of two extremely busy key routes at Oval – northeast from Stockwell to Central London / Waterloo (the A3); and west from New Cross / A2 to Central London / Victoria.
Both routes are major arteries for motor traffic as well as cycles: the A3 / A202 continuation of the A2; and Cycle Superhighways CS7 (built) and CS5 (planned). As you’d hope, TfL have treated cycling as a serious, essential part of the transport infrastructure. There are lots of great aspects including segregated space and advanced early-start traffic light phases to separate cycles in both space and time from other road users:
Artist’s impression of segregated cycle tracks at Oval. Copyright: TfL
There are a few niggles. A few motor left-turns that create danger for straight-ahead cycles (left-hook risks) disproportionate to the number of motorists actually using these routes have been banned, without provision for cycles to turn left themselves. One of these (A3 junction with Harleyford St) does so without segregated space for cycling – I suspect some motorists may ignore the no-left-turn prohibition and turn left anyway, so this cycle lane needs protection to be safe. But overall these plans are a massive improvement on the status quo ante, so TfL and Lambeth Council should be proud.
The bad
The second proposal effectively picks up one of those routes (Cycle Superhighway CS5 / A202) – northwest from Camberwell to Victoria – where the first left off. The contrast couldn’t be more stark. As far as the north end of Vauxhall Bridge the physical segregation of cycle traffic introduced at Oval is continued, and there are some promising ideas for the lethal Vauxhall Cross gyratory. Not perfect, but much better than before, and probably near-to-acceptable with some tweaks:
Detail of the proposed CS5 round Vauxhall. Copyright TfL.
But once cyclists cross the Thames, into Westminster City Council territory, they’re shepherded safely as far as the junction with the Embankment at CS2, and then left abruptly in the lurch. This is because instead offering segregated cycling along the obvious, direct, desirable route to Victoria – Vauxhall Bridge Road – TfL and Westminster have elected to shove cycles down a back street hundreds of metres from there. In fact, rather than picking the one obvious route and working to improve it, they’ve offered three circuitous ones, for us, the public to prioritise – all of which are irrelevant to commuter journeys west from South London.
Three ‘options’ to get from Vauxhall to Victoria. All of them pointlessly indirect. Copyright TfL.
The stated destination of this route is ‘Belgravia’ but a majority of cycle journeys along the rest of CS5 are to Victoria (rail) station (not many cyclists commute on coaches…) or onwards to Hyde Park Corner. So surely this route has to have these trips in mind?
EDIT [10th July 2014]: I’ve realised readers may not be familiar with the history of CS5, which cycle groups – and TfL – originally hoped would follow the obvious, sensible, direct route past Victoria on Vauxhall Bridge Rd. Westminster blocked this too – Mark Treasure has a good summary history.
Instead these pathetic back routes are chosen for the convenience of Westminster Council – whose cognitive dissonance on cycling issues is now impossible to ignore – and not commuters. Indeed, the map (schematic) doesn’t make clear quite how far out of anyone’s way these routes would go, since the actual distances are distorted:
This is like needing a coffee, but being offered tapwater, drainwater, or urine. What is ‘ambitious, transformative, innovative’ about this? What part of ‘direct, coherent and safe’ don’t they understand? Why have they ignored the Mayor’s vision of direct, coherent, safe, child-friendly routes laid out in his Vision for Cycling, which other central London boroughs have embraced with concrete, ambitious but sensible schemes of their own?
The ugly
We can’t be sure, but given the strength of these TfL proposals south of the Thames, and the ludicrous options north of it, we have to assume that Westminster successfully blocked whatever TfL came up with on their patch (I suspect this is so from the fawning comments about Westminster’s cycle policy in the proposal notes). More than a decade ago, they torpedoed sensible plans for a cross-London network linking major rail stations (Camden went ahead anyway, with the isolated, but still useful Tavistock Square link). Now they’re at it again, and in a 21st-Century London council this is unforgivable.
Many inner London councils, including Lambeth, Camden, Hackney and my own Southwark, are on-board with cycling because they recognise it’s a logistical, not just political, necessity. Given their location, Westminster’s involvement in delivering a truly useful and safe cross-london cycle network is vital. I’m left wondering whether Westminster’s apparent stranglehold on planning for cycle infrastructure is down to deliberate malice, not incompetence.
This is not a political point
At present, these roads are unsafe, some lethally so. But they don’t need to be – there is space, and money, to improve them. But if Westminster City Council don’t start building for bikes, then to my mind, they’ll be culpable for the inevitable deaths that will occur.
This year, for the first time since 2010, every single councillor in Southwark is up for election/re-election. Southwark Council – not TfL – is responsible for more than 90% of the roads in Southwark, including a lot of the dangerous ones. So I’ve been doing a fair bit of volunteering for the #space4cycling campaign. You can read more about it in the link, and I’ll give my personal opinion of the parties further down, but in a nutshell, what is ‘Space4Cycling’? It means:
Making streets safer and more pleasant for all road users, specifically cyclists of all ages, sexes and abilities.
This guy should be able to cycle safely in Southwark (Wikimedia; cc-by-sa)
Well, essentially every party political manifesto in history has made this ‘pledge’ and yet, oddly, we’re still not there. The blindingly obvious reason is that although this pledge is very praiseworthy, it’s also incredibly general. Seasoned campaigners know that the way to get politicians to ‘do something’ is to make that ‘something’ very specific indeed, so they can’t wriggle out of it later. That’s why party manifestos don’t (any longer) say things like ‘fewer hungry school children’, because the anti-poverty campaigners would rightly collar them for making a vague flaky commitment that’s hard to measure progress against. Instead manifesto pledges around ‘traditional big issues’ say things like ‘free school meals for all under-5s’ – the specificity reassures us, the voters, that the party in question is serious.
So now that cycling is a Big Issue Of The Day, London Cycling Campaign members (12,000 of us!) decided last year that we needed some highly specific pledges against which cycling voters could compare the parties. And that’s how the Space4Cycling campaign works:
Ask for a single, specific, badly-needed piece of physical cycling infrastructure in every electoral ward in London, and lobby all the candidates to support it so that the ‘ask’ gets built, no matter who gets elected.
(Wikimedia Commons; cc-by-sa)
The Parties
I volunteered for Southwark Cyclists / London Cycling Campaign, and we attempted to contact all the major parties. Even for a professional lobbying organisation it’s a big effort, and the number of candidates just in Southwark is staggering. But we tried. Individual candidates were encouraged to go on record as supporting the ‘ask’ in each ward, to demonstrate a concrete commitment to safer cycling. The ideal situation (happily realised in some London wards) is for 100% of candidates to support the ask. Where that happens we can rejoice as campaigners, because as far as cycling goes, the candidates’ commitment are identical and there’s nothing more we can add to inform your choice – as far as cycling goes.
You can check which candidates support the cycling ask in your ward here (live updating).You can also use this link to email your local candidates with one click – as 83,000+ Londoners have already done!
Unfortunately at the time of writing not all the candidates / parties have made this commitment. Some of them were hard to contact at all. Some we simply ran out of time for. And some, well, they’ve talked about cycling, but stopped short of supporting our asks. This puts us voters in a difficult position, as we have to try and judge some parties’ will to act on a critical issue of safety, the daily commute, based on some very vague information. Here’s my personal effort (I’ve included manifestos where I can find them).
APP are a new and small party focused on social issues. However I was able to speak to one candidate, who was broadly supportive of cycling issues. Their manifesto is short on cycling detail but they do have highly specific pledges, including repair of all potholes within 7 days. All candidates have signed up to Space4Cycling where fielded.
Specific support for asks: Complete support
Party line on safe cycling: No coherent policy, but specific where relevant.
The picture for the Conservatives in Southwark is very mixed. Broadly speaking, those candidates in the north of the Borough (e.g. Bermondsey, Borough) ‘got’ the campaign, and those elsewhere across Southwark either opposed Space4Cycling, or hadn’t even heard of the campaign. Although I couldn’t find a canonical manifesto item on cycling, at the 11th hour they’ve issued these pledges, which apply to Bermondsey and Old Southwark, but not the South of the Borough. So as with Labour, I suggest you check the Space4Cycling site to see if your candidates are on board.
Specific support for asks: Bermondsey and Old Southwark – check for details
Party line on cycling: Promising, short some on specifics
The Greens are the party most obviously associated with cycling, and Green politicians in government have backed that up with legislatory support and regulatory oversight of cycling issues in local, national and European government – but then all the major parties have politicians who do similar work (apart from UKIP). Unlike the 80s, the Greens no longer have a monopoly on sustainable transport as a policy issue.
Greens have not held control or balance of power in Southwark so we can’t judge them on that record, but a Green council in Brighton was one of the first to adopt citywide 20mph limits. All the candidates standing support the Space4Cycling asks, and their (London-wide) manifesto pledges infrastructure improvements on ‘… all roads where people live, work and shop’ (Manifesto, pp.13). This is a big promise (‘all’ roads?) but it is ambitious and specific, which is what cycle campaigners have been asking for, after all. They also have a cycling policy specific to Southwark.
Labour took full control of the council in 2010. So, although this period includes the financial crisis and consequent spending cuts, it is fair to look back on their record as well as their manifesto. There have been some improvements to road maintenance, some improved ASLs (green boxes at traffic lights) and cycling programmes. But the killed / seriously injured (KSI) statistics show that cycling casualties have increased since 2010. Cyclists should be concerned about this trend. On a positive note, Southwark Labour councillors in office who ‘get’ cycling have engaged actively with Southwark Cycles, including the formation of a joint steering group.
Their manifesto pledges to ‘…deliver Southwark a safer cycling network’ (Manifesto, pp.7). This is a promising pledge but a vague one. Engagement continues, but unlike the Lib Dems or Green party, Labour haven’t given a blanket commitment to Space4Cycling across Southwark. For instance, although Brunswick Park candidates Mark Williams and Radha Burgess won’t support the Space4Cycling ask in Southampton Way, they have agreed to meet Southwark Cyclists in June, if elected, to discuss alternative ways to prevent rat-running there.
The Lib Dems held control of the council in 2002-2006, and were equal-largest block (with Labour) from 2006-2010, sharing power with the Tories. So a lot of responsibility for infrastructure spending (or lack of) in this period might be laid at their door. However they have made the right ‘cycling noises’ throughout this campaign and were the only major party (along with the Greens) to make a blanket commitment to Space4Cycling in every ward in Southwark. They made this commitment very early on in their campaign.
Their manifesto also has pledges which are specific, including “introduce protected cycle lanes alongside all major roads in Southwark” (Manifesto, pp.8). Overall, of the two parties most likely to win control in Southwark, they have the strongest support on record and the most specific manifesto commitments. They also have a cycling policy specific to Southwark, which includes a 20% target modal share by 2025.
Specific support for asks: Complete support
Party line on cycling: Promising and specific
Others
I wasn’t able to meet personally with any independent candidates, or any of the other parties, e.g. TUSC, BNP etc. I have a day job! However you can have a look for yourself which are supporting cycling in your ward at the space4cycling site. A lot of independents are…
No contact from UKIP, despite LCC/SC trying to. So we have to judge on their individual support, and party cycling policy. At the time of writing, no UKIP candidates are supporting any of the ward asks I’ve been monitoring. UKIP do have a policy on cycling, which you can read about. It’s more about enforcement against anti-social cycling (personally I’m against any anti-social behaviour, whether via bike, car or steam-roller, like most sensible adults), but there is very little commitment to safer cycling.
Specific support for asks: no
Party line on safe cycling: No coherent policy
So… how will Southwark vote? It’ll be interesting to find out.
We need safer environments to cycle in – everyone knows that. Safe protected space to cycle in reduces conflict with motor traffic and pedestrians, improves congestion and most importantly brings the health and wellbeing benefits of cycling to all cyclists, old and very young – not just macho 30-somethings like me.
Well-designed cycle facilities have been tough to find in London for years, but things are changing, with real momentum to finally sort it out properly. The Space4Cycling campaign is a good example of that. Launched by London Cycling Campaign and other groups last year, it really effectively highlighted the dangers we face, and the easy ways to remove them.
This year’s campaign is a once-quadrennially (ahem) opportunity to get things done using this year’s local elections to put pressure on councils effectively. Teams of LCC volunteers have polled thousands of London’s cycle commuters to highlight the most important sections of their particular routes and drawn up a proposed infrastructure improvement, or ‘ask’ in every singleBy joining the campaign, you can send a message to every prospective council candidate in your ward that you want to sort cycling out – and they’re listening. At the time of writing this, more than 1-in-3 candidates across London have responded to over 33,000 messages from the public by committing to deliver the cycling ask in their ward over the next 4 years.
Space4Cycling in Southwark – Ride Sat 10th May
Southwark, where I live, is one of the best and busiest boroughs in London. As well as hosting thousands of cyclists (>3000 LCC members live in Southwark!) there are tens of thousands of commuter trips through the Borough every day. Of course, our central location means lots of other road traffic as well, and it doesn’t help that the Council is one of the poorest in London.
Things are changing though, with the Cycle Superhighways CS7 and CS2 due to be improved ‘soon’ (crossing my fingers) and joined by CS5 from New X to Victoria (after a terrible start and a couple of rounds of consultation, TfL are now looking at more physical segregation here).
So to get the maximum possible impactSouthwark Cyclists, the LCC local group, are running a fact-finding ride / demonstration this Saturday 10th May through some of the most dangerous parts of central Southwark. Candidates are invited to see for themselves, and a number (including all major parties) are likely to come. So come along, and you can tell them in person about the dangers you face on Southwark’s streets.
The ride will be guided, and take approximately 1 hour from 11am, finishing at midday at the Park Life Café, in Burgess Park. Meet at Queen St on the north end of Southwark Bridge (start of CS7) – just look out for a load of cyclists!
The Big Ride – Saturday 17th May
The focus of all the cross-London campaigns is The Big Ride, where thousands of cycle campaigners, celebs, politicians and well, the rest of us are marching (cycling) on Westminster to show our demand for change.
Last year’s ride attracted tens of thousands of cyclists and as a direct result, Boris signed up to Love London, Go Dutch at the eleventh hour. Come along for the ride this year and get some real change on London’s roads!
