Forum Topic

Cycling: it's never been more relevant

https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/transport/cycling-may-be-old--but-it-s-never-been-more-relevant--?fbclid=IwY2xjawEvx21leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHdhwOWy1GL4Q2e6K9GlyzlF3H9VupKAxuLYFupwkw71ce2nYvMEJVMHMcg_aem__RpCMUaj__KHozjBAOqyiw&sfnsn=scwspwaThe article explains the answer to the question 'why did all UN member states vote for a World Bike Day?'

Ben Owen ● 285d112 Comments

Oh dear. There will be a ceiling on the number of regular cyclists, probably close to that already. It’s a leisure activity for many, as you know.Even Cycling UK say this:‘ EnglandChildren and adultsCommuting: 35% (2015-19); 20% (2020); 27% (2021)Leisure*: 34% (2015-19); 55% (2020); 46% (2021)Shopping: 11% (2015-19, 2020 & 2021)Education/escort education: 11% (2015-19); 6% (2020); 8% (2021)Personal business + business + other escort – 11% (2015-19); 8% (2020 & 2021)*Visit friends at home and elsewhere, entertainment, sport, holiday and day trip.The drop in commuting for 2020 and 2021 is probably explained by more people working from home more often.The figures above come from the National Travel Survey (NTS).’They also say the risks most commonly cited by cycling lobbyists are exaggerated, and you know that incidents in Ealing are very rare, Ben.‘ Great BritainEvery road casualty, of course, is a road casualty too many. Cycling is safer than many people think it is, however, and the health benefits outweigh the risks.On public roads, over a distance equivalent to 1,000 times round the earth at its widest point:From 2015-19 on average each year:One cyclist was killed (0.72)32 were seriously injured97 were slightly injuredThe figures for 2020, when motor traffic dropped significantly and cycling levels rose, are:One killed (0.66)20 seriously injured56 slightly injuredThe figures for 2021 are:One killed (0.66)26 seriously injured71 slightly injuredAlso:There are around 9 to 10 million cycle trips for every cyclist fatalityThe general risk of injury of any severity while cycling is very small per 1,000 hours of cycling on public roads: 0.045 (2015-19); 0.025 (2020); 0.039 (2021). About three-quarters of these injuries were slight. (Includes incidents reported to the police only)The risk of being killed while cycling per billion miles cycled has been trending downwards since 2012, as has the risk of being seriously or slightly injured. (Includes incidents reported to the police only)’Source for this is CyclingUK website.

Simon Hayes ● 271d

The infrastructure has been in place for years, in some cases decades. If 5% (and that is optimistic) is the peak then it is time to start ripping out these vast wastes of space and money rather than wasting yet more money on a minority transport choice. The savings could be spent on paving repairs which would benefit far kore people than a few whining cyclists.

N V Brooks ● 271d

Preview MessagePlease review your post. If everything is OK, click Submit below. Otherwise,click the Back button on your browser to make corrections.Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Cycling: it's never been relevant Message:We both know that providing cycle lanes for cyclists reduces the risk of crashes between cyclists and drivers. What is wrong with that?The knock-on impact of this is that with a safer road, cycling really starts to grow and becomes more of an attractive option to others. It can then lead to a reduction in traffic. What is wrong with that?

Ben Owen ● 271d

If you are happy to use 5% of journeys Ben then so am I.Because that only underlines the abject nonsense of dedicating a third to a half of road space to a minority of road users. I'd either shut up and go away or consider how fortunate you are to get what you have as someone who pursues a minority, largely leisure, mode of transport.

N V Brooks ● 271d

> You say that thousands of people in London are cyclists.Out of interest, where did I say this? Or more like you think you know I said this! > I say that the majority of those people don’t cycle regularly and mainly do so as a leisure activity. Of course, I know that you believe you understand what you read, but I'm not sure you realise what you read is what is meant.I did not realise that I needed to explain that thenumber of people cycling during the week are higher mid-week than there are at weekends. Now that you are aware of this, does it now matter what the numbers are of journeys made, in London, by bicycle. Let's call it around 5% give or take, are you ok with me using that kind of figure? Of that 5%, right now, more than 85% of cyclists in London (just call it the vast majority!) are innocently using their bikes, as a mode of transport, to get from A to B.

Ben Owen ● 271d

Hilarious. You might have missed a meal. Low blood sugar levels making you aggressive.Does it need to be spelt out for you in very simple terms? Probably.You say that thousands of people in London are cyclists. Yes.I say that the majority of those people don’t cycle regularly and mainly do so as a leisure activity. Government statistics support that.I haven’t denied that there is a minority of Londoners who cycle daily as commuters or for other purposes, but those numbers are minute in the overall population size of this city. Their numbers are absolutely dwarfed by people commuting by other transport modes. Even with a lot of recorded cycle ‘journeys’ being those of Deliveroo and Uber eats riders.Ben, you seem to have a genuine problem understanding that your opinion isn’t necessarily correct. It certainly isn’t the only opinion that counts.

Simon Hayes ● 271d

>I haven’t said cycling is ONLY a leisure activity. I said it’s the main purpose for people cycling.Simon, are you telling me that right now, in London, the vast majority of people cycling are on their bike for leisure reasons only? If so, I challenge you on that. Where shall we meet? I would love to know what you have for breakfast that makes you think that only your opinions are factually correct.

Ben Owen ● 271d

Of course it isn't. You have posted in the past that you had no alternative to driving as you felt unsafe cycling that route with your son. Need a better memory chap.

N V Brooks ● 271d

Ben, are you capable of reading posts, understanding the content and then digesting that? Clearly not.I haven’t said cycling is ONLY a leisure activity. I said it’s the main purpose for people cycling. Even the government stats support that contention. Your gaslighting attempt isn’t going to work.What you need to do is understand that only a minority of individuals are paid up members of the cycling cult. For most of us it’s an irrelevance.

Simon Hayes ● 271d

Simon, you have been going on and on about cycling only being used as a leisurely activity. Your last response has been a shift away from that - you are seeing that there are differences: Leisurely: when you go out on your bike for a bike ride (and likely to come back feeling proud of the mileage you clocked up!) Transport trip: When you are going from A to B and are only using it as a convenient way to get there.Going to the doctor is a purposeful trip. If I went to the same doctor as you and chose to cycle there, instead of driving or walking, for no other reason than it is likely to be quicker, does it all of a sudden become a leisurely trip for me?

Ben Owen ● 271d

Close all roads to vehicles. Stop rain. Have someone carrying any goods by hand. Make kerb out of sponge & marshmallow roads.Or just don’t bother

Peter Yale ● 271d

Now, how can we get that up Nigel, to say 25%?

Paul James ● 271d

>To drive a motorised vehicle you need taxI've already given examples of several types of motor vehicles for which the VED rate is £0, so you statement is not true.Again I ask you, I pay council tax, a portion of which is used for road maintanance, so please tell me how, as somebody who doesn't own a car, I pays nothing for roads Peter.

Paul James ● 271d

Wow Paul, you must never tire of your monotonous repetition of utter drivel.You know full well that the driving part of those things isn’t the ‘fun’ element. The activity at the destination is the purpose of the journey. Driving for ‘fun’ traditionally means taking the car out for a spin on a Sunday afternoon, usually somewhere rural. You know that of course, as it’s what you and a lot of other cyclists do on your bikes at weekends.Your life must be very dull if a tip run was fun.And surely your pool trip could have been done by bike or on public transport? Doesn’t sound like it was an essential journey.

Simon Hayes ● 271d

That’s right. All you do is twist (or try to) words.To drive a motorised vehicle you need tax (HOWEVER you try & phrase it).A legal requirement, insurance & a license.Motorists are subject to stringent rules & regulatiions, MOT etc.A bike you can hop on & do as you please with no costs

Peter Yale ● 271d

People drive because they need to, for convenience

Peter Yale ● 271d

I had a really great morning driving to the tip a couple of months ago. I really enjoyed itLast year I also drove the kids to a swimming pool and really enjoyed that.Tell me again how gaining please from driving is long in the past and that nobody drives for fun any more (driving to the swimming pool is literally driving for fun right?),

Paul James ● 271d

Peter. My council tax bill literally has a line on it for road maintance. So some of my council tax I pay goes directly to the upkeep of local council roads.Not only that I pay income tax, VAT etc... all of which go into general taxation, which is used to pay for roads.Tell me again I'm paying nothing toward road costs?

Paul James ● 271d

Gaining pleasure from driving is long in the past. Take to long to list the numerous reasons why

Peter Yale ● 273d

Perhaps we should dismiss all figures for those who gain pleasure from driving?

Philippa Bond ● 273d

More people walk to work than cycle, even if it’s just going downstairs in their home.Of course, cycling is apparently fun, so by that definition you are actually on your bike for pleasure.I wonder how many of Paul’s acquaintances cycle to work. Not a huge number I’d imagine.

Simon Hayes ● 273d

Yes, given that the total number of journeys is under 7%

N V Brooks ● 273d

They contribute nothing towards road costs unlike motorists

Peter Yale ● 273d

>It is however an inescapable fact that the cycling is predominantly a leisure activity The many many people I see on bikes every day in London don't look like they're doing it as a leisure activity Nigel.I ride to work along with many many others, is that a leisure activity to you?

Paul James ● 273d

>cyclists [] contribute nothing.More rubbish from you Peter, people that ride bikes pay council tax (a portion of which is used for council roads) and other taxes too. Saying cyclists pay nothing is incorrect.

Paul James ● 273d

>manipulate the truth, motorists have to pay a levy (is that better), by law?No they don't Peter, only some do.It's not a levy, it's a duty, clue is int he name, vehcile excise duty.A Tesla is a motor car, as is a Nissan leaf, both of those attracts £0 VED. I'll ask you again, where do I send my £0 VED for my cycle?

Paul James ● 273d

And?I do sometimes, lots of other cyclists do brazenly.There’s the problem, not held to account like motorists

Peter Yale ● 273d

I'm a cyclist and I don't ride on the pavement or go through red lights  and oh I've had a driving licence  for fifty years. So what's your problem ?

David Burke ● 273d

Yet Phillipa, cyclist demand more than motorists, yet contribute nothing.Unregulated & ride with impunity

Peter Yale ● 273d

Keep ducking and swerving as much as you like Philippa. The inescapable fact is that cycling is a minority mode of transport far more aligned to leisure than to business and commuting use hence the very very low uptake for the latter

N V Brooks ● 273d

Cycling ISN'T a one thing or the other transport - just as driving isn't.  So why are you trying to make a beating stick out of it?  It is a means of transport and if you want to make huge purchases then you will arrange for them to be delivered.  We don't live in a 9-5 working in the office world any more.

Philippa Bond ● 273d

Wikipedia, that font of knowledge. I just can’t respond!!!That’s NOT factual, same as whichever way you twist, lie, manipulate the truth, motorists have to pay a levy (is that better), by law?Cyclists don’t, oh by the way I cycle too.I just get on with it, jump lights with impunity, up &down pavements etcI wear a helmet & more lights than Piccadilly Circus.I do not want or demand road space or dedicated cycle tracks

Peter Yale ● 273d

Paul, some fell on stony ground.

David Burke ● 273d

Peter, road tax that directly funded roads was abolished in 1937, one of the reasons was it gave some people the impression they owned the roads, such as yourself, for paying a paltry sum every year that in no way covered the cost associated with roads.From wikipedia:"A vehicle tax was first introduced in Britain in 1888. In 1920, an excise duty was introduced that specifically applied to motor vehicles; initially it was hypothecated (ring-fenced or earmarked) for road construction and paid directly into a special Road Fund. After 1937, this reservation of vehicle revenue for roads was ended, and instead the revenue was paid into the Consolidated Fund – the general pot of money held by government. Since then, maintenance of the UK road network has been funded out of general taxation, of which VED is a part".Again, electric vehicles are not subject to "road tax" (proper name VED), so if you introduced VED for cycles I guess it would be the same, so I ask again, where do I send my £0 per year Peter?

Paul James ● 273d

Ben, you can Troy the classic diversion swerve as much as you like. It is however an inescapable fact that the cycling is predominantly a leisure activity and, as such, does not justify the tens of millions of pounds being invested in dedicated infrastructure I am suddenly not going to try to dissuade anybody from cycling however you must recognize Ben there's in the current economic climate any investment in minority leisure activities has to take a very very low priority in the grand scheme of things.Far from "never having been more important" it is bordering on an irrelevance.

N V Brooks ● 274d

Will you stop looking at the hard costs, Nigel? It's the benefit to cost where you will find the return on investment, to talk in finance jargon.For every £1 invested, walking and cycling return an average of around £5-6, which is double the return you will find roads do. Build your cycle lane and people will cycle. Cycle parking delivers five times higher retail spend per square metre than the same area of car parking.Cycling generates predictable journey times; people who cycle to their destinations are much less likely to be late for their meetings or appointments, saving time and money. Missing a NHS appointment, only because you are stuck in traffic, costs £167 to the taxpayer.  Talking of the NHS, the saving to our NHS from cycling is something in the region of £5 billion. It is the wider softer impacts, particularly reductions in loss of life, obesity, and reduced pollution and congestion where cycling comes into its own. What part of this do you not understand? 

Ben Owen ● 274d

Philippa. Here is the governments official statistical breakdown of cycling activity:‘From 2012 to 2019, most cycling stages were for commuting purposes accounting for an average of 36% of all cycling stages. In comparison, the largest proportion of average cycling stages in both 2020 and 2021 were for leisure (54% and 45% respectively), highlighting the change in personal travel trends during the pandemic. In 2022, leisure continues to be the purpose of most cycling stages, with leisure responsible for 35% of average cycling stages in 2022 (or 6 average cycling stages per person).’https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/walking-and-cycling-statistics-england-2022/walking-and-cycling-statistics-england-introduction-and-main-findings#walking-and-cycling-trips-in-towns-and-cities

Simon Hayes ● 274d

It IS largely activity and that is an inescapable fact Despite all of the promotion and tens of millions of pounds being spent, as example the stretch of CS9 from Brentford through to the Hammersmith border has thus far cost at £22.3 million (source written answers to Mayor Khan) cycling still represents, using the most optimistic data, less than SEVEN PER CENT of all journeys. This places it firmly outside the mainstream and firmly in the mix of leisure activities.Many more people walk than cycle and I wonder how many pavements could have been repaired or maintained for the £22.3 million spent to appease some leisure cyclists.

N V Brooks ● 274d

"Cycling - it's a leisure activity for most."  Simon you seem to be trying extremely hard to convince everyone of this and from the number of times you repeat the same phrase it gives the impression that you are still trying to convince yourself - because you certainly haven't succeeded in convincing everyone else.  Do you stop every cyclist and ask them - because otherwise how on earth would you actually know?  Why should getting from A - B always be some sort of leisurely pursuit?

Philippa Bond ● 274d

Yes, there's generally a bigger picture which some of you seem to be too tunnel-visioned to appreciate whilst you are concentrating so hard on criticising anyone who may not quite agree with your echo chamber.

Philippa Bond ● 274d

They won’t only buy a Porsche to go to 1 meet.They will pay insurance, road tax ( which apparently doesn’t exist according to PC James) great deal of outgoings.Use their car for commuting etc.Fair enough the chap is able to cycle.However it doesn’t suit all & needs to be stopped trying to force people too

Peter Yale ● 275d

When were you last in Hartlepool Ben? Anything less like a rural idyll would be difficult to find. So, once again, you're wrong. Stop digging and making yourself look foolish .

N V Brooks ● 275d

Drivers under the age of 26 are far more likely to drive for fun, which is why they are 4 times more likely to die from driving than they are from smoking a cigarette. Of course people drive for fun: only 3 days ago (26th) there was a Porsche social meet up at the Ace Café. In an opposite way there are people who only use their bikes for going to work (my next door neighbour is a good example).

Ben Owen ● 275d

I don’t know where you get your figures from ( I’m not disputing them) except to say it’s not 30;000 cyclists. They are the ones who won’t settle for anything less other than a car ban.There are umpteen reasons people drive, or choose to. No one drives for fun

Peter Yale ● 275d

>it’s cost rather than health that’s the driver behind expanding cycling infrastructure. (Simon)It's both. Many put cost before health as the reason for cycling, and health benefits come as a direct result. The top 3 reasons for cycling are that it is cheaper, quicker and predictable. Healthier and environmentally friendly come too but, for most, are never the main reasons. They come as a bonus.>Health has very little to do with being a cyclist (Simon)As explained above, for commuters, exactly so. For road cyclists, dressed in Lyrca on their top end bikes, it is all about exercise.>As for driving, well why not make it a condition of cycling to give up your car entirely? (Simon, again)Most adult cyclists do not own a car to give up! I have mentioned on here before here that it is something like 80% of adult cyclists will hold a driving license, 60% of those 80% drive regularly and 40% of the 60% own a car.>‘local journeys’ (Simon)I would describe a local journey as anything under 10 miles. Interesting to see that the average journey in UK as under 5 miles.>Hartlepool is hardly rural.It is three-quarters the size of Salisbury, a rural town (that was made a city 25 years or so ago). As well as being outside a main metropolis, it is also a poor attempt by Nigel to niggle.>How are the roads not safe? (Peter)30,000 people die on the roads every year! That is almost a tenth of Ealing's population - or 2 Brentford home games!

Ben Owen ● 275d

Wow, some great sweeping generalisations there. So now it’s cost rather than health that’s the driver behind expanding cycling infrastructure. If only things were as black and white as you like to portray Ben.Perhaps you should look at the demographic who cycle regularly and compare it with the demographic of those who cycle very little or not at all. Health has very little to do with being a cyclist and rather a lot to do with affluence. It’s always overlooked when the cycling lobbyists start this argument.As for driving, well why not make it a condition of cycling to give up your car entirely? Indeed, why not go the whole hog and make cyclists take a pledge never to drive, whatever the circumstances? After all, something like 80 percent of cyclists own a car. Imagine how empty and clean the streets would be then!You see, Ben, your logic falls apart once it gets unpicked a little. All the talk of ‘local journeys’ and ‘essential journeys’ is nonsense. There’s no statutory definition of such things, nor will there be. At the moment the strategy is to make driving ever more expensive and inconvenient but there will be a tipping point when people will say enough is enough. We might even be approaching that now.

Simon Hayes ● 275d

How are the roads not safe?Yes there are accidents, but that’s the case with any & every aspect in life.Some junctions in central London are of concern & steps are being taken to address this.The ridiculously stupid idea of ltns to close roads to traffic, just causes resentment. Local cars can still drive, so technically cyclists ( like anyone) will still be at risk.Basic common sense & obeying traffic regulations would help

Peter Yale ● 275d

Hartlepool is hardly rural. Poor attempt at diversion. When you are in a hole Ben, put the shovel away at least

N V Brooks ● 275d

Car ownership is expensive, insurance as a young driver is completely out of reach, fewer people are learning to drive (and driving tests for those that do learn are booked months in advance), what have I missed? Fuel prices too are gobsmacking! Having access to safe cycle routes is a basic element, some would go so far as saying it fulfils a basic need.There is absolutely no doubt that there are a lot of drivers who would prefer to cycle but, because of the dangers, dare not too. I am also sure that there are loads of people who cycle who would prefer to drive, if they could only afford a car. It is important to make roads safe for drivers, just as it is important to make roads safe for cyclists.

Ben Owen ● 276d

Who said this earlier?:‘Where there are towns with extreme poverty, such as Hartlepool, where car ownership is low, it is more essential than ever to build safe cycle routes.’So now Hartlepool is a rural area it seems. And nobody is talking about economics, it’s health that was the argument you put forward Ben.

Simon Hayes ● 276d

I thought you knew that those living in rural areas are more likely to own a car than those living in urban areas. Oh well, you do now. Car ownership does not mean that a car is economical to run.

Ben Owen ● 276d

Forgot to cite the source: government data sheet  household car availability published 2023

N V Brooks ● 276d

Oh dear Ben facts have never been your strong point have they? Car ownership in Hartlepool is actually higher than that in Ealing and Hounslow and Barnet and Croydon and any number of London boroughs.I would quit while you're so far behind chap.

N V Brooks ● 276d

The Labour Party ‘fact sheet’ the Grauniad reports on the car being preferred to thebije. The very obvious point the writer of the article has missed is that people prefer other modes of transport to the bicycle, and building more infrastructure won’t necessarily change that. It’s a leisure activity for most.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/28/english-are-walking-record-distances-but-car-is-still-most-popular-form-of-transport

Simon Hayes ● 276d

Ben, I worry about your mental health. You seem obsessed with this topic and seem eager to project your fantasies onto others.You do seem to struggle to understand counter opinions to your entrenched views. Let me explain very simply for you.Cycling is mainly a leisure activity for most people. That’s why there was more during the pandemic and a subsequent massive drop off. It’s not a practical commuting option for many (let alone those who wfh full time!)Building cycle lanes doesn’t really result in a boom in cycling numbers, as you have to acknowledge. The figures for use of the C9 in Chiswick haven’t really changed much in the past 12 months. Otherwise we’d be hearing about it all the time. About 3,000 a day (on a good day), significantly less than that most of the time. That’s why any increase is always presented as a percentage, because it hides pitifully small changes. Take that 3,000 figure, Ben, and compare it to the population of west London and you will see how insignificant it is.Cycling doesn’t actually do much for overall health. The report on the least health places in England highlights the prevalence of alcohol dependency, smoking and vaping and obesity. Al huge contributions to poor public health and none that can really be solved by a bike lane. The obesity levels in this country are down to ever increasing consumption of fatty, processed foods with very high calorie counts. Had you a basic understanding of biology you would know that consuming more calories than you burn results in weight increase. I suggest you go away and look at the calorie burn for a 10 minute bike ride and equate that with a Big Mac meal and a pint of beer.The irony no doubt lost on you is that a lot of people enjoy their ultra processed fat feasts after they’ve been delivered by a poor sod on a bike.Have you been to Hartlepool? I suggest you visit before making your blind assumptions. Probably the biggest deterrent to cycling there is the likelihood that your bike will be nicked after a day or two. I’ll ask my mate on the Hartlepool Mail if he’s got some handy stats for you.I’ll ask my friends if they’d like to cycle more and drive less, and I expect I’d get the same answers I’ve had before, which range from they cycle all the time to they don’t like cycling. Only a simpleton would insist that it’s a human right to be allowed to ride a bike.Since when is five miles the standard for a short journey? Not really local is it. Even your cycling overlords only obsess with 15 minute journeys, so your point is, frankly, pointless. And your last sentence mentions walking, which is how most people do short local journeys (even me, Ben). You might have noticed the infrastructure for that is already there. They are called pavements and are pretty safe, apart from idiot cyclists who seem to view them as private bike lanes.I feel sorry for you Ben. It’s amazing that you have reached adulthood without seemingly learning anything remotely useful.

Simon Hayes ● 276d

Actually, Simon, you are absolutely wrong in giving an example of Hartlepool. Where there are towns with extreme poverty, such as Hartlepool, where car ownership is low, it is more essential than ever to build safe cycle routes. One day, Simon, you will accept that most people would like to cycle more but are put off from sharing the roads with traffic. It will not be long before you will recognise that it is women more than men who are put off from cycling the most. Even you, Simon, are far more likely to hear from your friends that they would like to cycle more than to say to you that they would like to drive more! Roughly 75% of journeys in England are less than 5 miles - that's only 30 minutes for most - the same distance as Ealing to Notting Hill Gate. Finally, cycling and walking have very high returns on taxpayers money - far higher than on roads - so investment in cycling, especially in the north, is good and sensible.

Ben Owen ● 276d

Hartlepool could do with some decent cycle lanes down by the harbour. Rotherham could certainly do with some separate cycle paths although, like most road signs there, they would probably he ignored. As to criticism of going off tack, Philippa has a long standing record of swerving and avoidance, ideal qualities for a cyclist.

N V Brooks ● 276d

Hmm, doesn’t appear to be a response to anything I posted. Philippa likes to stray well off topic when threads start to become a it much for her.Anyway Ben, presumably you’d like to see all the cycling money spent in those deprived areas like Hartlepool. After all, why should Ealing get all the cash if cycling is so marvellous? Or do people outside the M25 not count?

Simon Hayes ● 276d

>What does this have to do with cycling?I can see it, why can't you? Where would you like to suggest is the most relevant place for Phillipa to respond to one of Simon's answers on this thread?

Ben Owen ● 276d

What does this have to do with cycling?

N V Brooks ● 276d

Not sure what relevance your latest post has to this thread Philippa. Maybe all those absent workers are out riding their bikes.

Simon Hayes ● 276d

"Not having managers doesn't work either..." (28/08/24 07:04:00 Philippa Bond)Philippa, there needs to be a balance. Try to tell that to the conceited political wing of the Jehovah Witnesses, i.e. the Labour Party, especially when they are high on power.

Anthony Hawran ● 276d

Not having managers doesn't work either.  Right now we have companies who automatically send out bills (because it's easy when mechanised and the figures show it's cheaper to get rid of staff) for jobs that have not been carried by staff who are unmanaged and which they have no knowledge about or control over their actions or of their actual whereabouts.  The amount of chasing up needed of everyone and everything strangles business.

Philippa Bond ● 276d

Well, by Ben’s logic there are any number of places ahead of Ealing in the queue for such essential’ funding. Peterborough apparently is the least healthy place to live in England.https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1853785/uk-city-unhealthiest-place/ampOf course, the government could spend money on improving transport used by everybody, including making trains fully accessible as today’s shameful report about Tanni Grey-Thompson highlighted. But then the entitled Metropolitan morons (including Keir Starmer) don’t really understand real life, do they?!

Simon Hayes ● 277d

Ben, time will tell. There is the danger of me stereotyping and making generalisations. But I think the disingenuous Labour Party are only good at virtue signalling, including in relation to cycling issues. After all, the Labour Party are, including Louise Haigh, the party of officious jobsworth managers in the public sector.

Anthony Hawran ● 277d

As we all know, what politicians say and what they do are ofter fundamentally diffeent.  No Transport Secretary is going to invest in infrastructure that directly affects the £32.3 BILLION (2022/23 figure) thatflows to the Exchequer from motorists alone, not including HGVs.

N V Brooks ● 277d

Louise Haigh, the new transport  secretary, has said that she will invest “unprecedented levels of funding” in cycling and walking as she understands how critical it is to improve health and inequality. She recognises that a national network of safe cycle routes could lead to more people cycling, more activity in their lives that in turn could cut GP appointments “by hundreds of thousands, if not millions a year.” She also recognises that access to safe cycle routes are “essential” to tackling the country’s carbon footprint.She sounds like a darn good transport secretary so far......after all, she is saying all the right things.

Ben Owen ● 277d

I think you will find that I've commented on Ealing Broadway station and the lack of accessibility to trains quite a lot over the years.  There are too many different organisations involved - a lot of fragmentation with a lack of overall management and teamwork - just like there is in a lot of the country.

Philippa Bond ● 279d

Go and patronise someone else Philippa. I’m very busy every day, unlike an individual who seems to spend their time looking up obscure links on the internet. You do realise you should cut down on your electricity usage as it’s bad for the planet.Cargo bikes? Seriously, go down to Wickes and suggest that.Change happens of course. But change isn’t always progress.Oh, and if you don’t know about Ealing Broadway station then you are really showing your ignorance.

Simon Hayes ● 280d

https://jorviktricycles.com/the-jorvik-story

Philippa Bond ● 280d

There are different types of train at Ealing Broadway Station which is why there is a problem.There are also problems with HS2 and platforms.BTW Simon  There is no such thing as normal.  We are all different and you can cycle when you can't walk well. You can also carry some tools in a cargo bike.  Have you never seen the ladders that contract to a much smaller size than when they are extended? Change happens.  There are window cleaners who use cargo bikes.  However if you spend all your time sitting and moaning about change then you won't end up being able to do much at all.

Philippa Bond ● 280d

Now here’s a thought, Eric. How much of that money would have been needed to make the Elizabeth Line station platforms at Ealing Broadway safe for all passengers?What annoys normal people is the total blindness the decision makers have when it comes to allocating funds. Pursuing an ableist, niche transport policy doesn’t serve the wider population, despite what the cycling lobbyists (and Philippa Bond) say.

Simon Hayes ● 280d

The ridiculous £8.6 million TfL LiveWestEaling (LWE) project to make West Ealing Centre more cycle-friendly has still yet to be killed off. Although launched four years ago, it still might survive Covid and TfL's £11 billion debt mountain. Of course the project is run by cycling zealots Sustrans. So - no level playing field here. Keen cyclists Ealing Council are also LWE cheerleaders.

Eric Alan Leach ● 280d

D’oh, Philippa. If people want to cycle then that’s fine. You obviously don’t read posts properly, or if you do then you don’t understand the arguments. But then you do tend to fly off at tangents every time.Cycling has its place but it’s not the answer to everything. The money spent on infrastructure is way out of proportion to the numbers who cycle regularly. Most londoners use public transport to travel longer distance, and money should really be spent on making that better, including making all stations fully accessible.I guess you are not someone who has ever had a job that requires transporting tools or equipment. Why don’t you pop down to Wickes or Screwfix and ask all the tradespeople there why they aren’t cycling? You won’t because you don’t live in the real world.And if someone can’t walk easily they aren’t likely to be cycling much either. Do you never think before you post?I wonder how often you cycle.

Simon Hayes ● 280d

Simon  Your flat rejection of cycling as an activity that gets you from A to B, which can also work for those who can't walk far and which can take you further and more safely with better infrastructure, and which can carry some shopping and/or work tools is ridiculous as is your insistance that a rebellion whipped up by social media as a knee-jerk reaction to sudden change now shows.  Better organisation should now mean fewer huge vans making deliveries against the clock and an increasing number of alliances and places you can easily visit like supermarkets to click and collect from make shopping less stressful with fewer car and van trips necessary.  It also reduces the temptation for, likelihood of and hassle of doorstep theft.  It seems better manners and more consideration for others is still necessary from EVERYONE travelling - HOWEVER they are travelling - and WHOEVER they are.  Let's hope this continues to improve and now's the time to plan further changes to improve getting from A to B or sometimes just reducing it or avoiding it altogether with online meetings.

Philippa Bond ● 280d

Philippa. You will find that it’s the cyclists who are the aggressive ones in this. The ridiculous demands of the LCC has resulted in a huge imbalance in transport planning in London, to the extent that it is strangling commercial traffic. The argument that it’s all private vehicles doing short trips on the roads is nonsense.You clearly can’t comprehend the concept that cycling isn’t the only form of exercise, and there are plenty of other activities that are far more efficient at improving health. As usual the cycling lobby claims they have the only game in town, but you have to do a lot of cycling to gain even marginal health benefits. I’m sure you can find a link on it.

Simon Hayes ● 280d

Simon. I'd like to see how you manage to trampoline or play tennis your way to work and back and tobthe shops and back.  They're just notbthe same.  You can also get bikes that are adapted so they are easier to use whenbyou have a disability.  What has made you so aggressive towards cyclists snd cycling?  It is high time they got some space back on the roads back from motorists!

Philippa Bond ● 281d

Annoying for ALL drivers Natasha, or just some of them?

Paul James ● 281d

‘ Ealing has loads of LTNS old and new.’Yes, there are some roads that aren’t through routes. What the people of Ealing objected to on a massive scale was wholesale block closures of roads, ostensibly as a social distancing measure. They created far more problems than they solved, Paul. As you know because it’s been discussed many times on here. Thousands marched, twice, demanding their removal. And they were removed, and it led to Julian Bell being ousted as council leader.Your attempts to rewrite history are as risible as your desperate straw clutching.

Simon Hayes ● 281d

A brisk walk is good exercise Philippa, and requires no expensive equipment or infrastructure. You seem to think that the only exercise is cycling. You might just as well say the money should be spent on free trampolines or tennis courts.And your assumption that exercise is a cure for mental health problems is facile. There are plenty of cyclists who suffer depression and all other manner of mental health issues. Just ask Bradley Wiggins.

Simon Hayes ● 281d

So many don't however, one of the leading velophiles was well known for transporting his bikes on top of an old smoky Audi, while castigating motorists on Twitter.

N V Brooks ● 281d

Cycling is exerciseand exercise IS good for your mental health as well as physical health.  It can help you to concentrate better and sleep better as well as stay mobile for longer and stave off other illnesses.https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/exercise-and-mental-health#why-does-exercise-make-us-feel-better-mentally(On this mobile by applying a little pressure on the link above I can easily highlight and then open the link.)

Philippa Bond ● 281d

So long as you practice what you preach virtue signalling is not hypocritical.  Goals are there to strive for and that does not mean that you always achieve them. 

Philippa Bond ● 281d

'annoying for drivers'. Is that because drivers seem to think they have some divine right to overtake cyclists?We were driving behind a cyclist the other day on a 20mph road and couldn't overtake - the road was too narrow to allow the requisite amount of space (car width) AND the cyclist was pedalling at ...20mph!  You can't always presume that you should be overtaking just because you are in a motor vehicle.  We had earlier passed a much slower cyclist.  Cyclists vary considerably in their desire and capability to cyclr at 20mph and those faster cyclists would prefer to be innwith the rest of the traffic and not on a pavement with the more vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists including unpredictable children and the elderly.I do wish shared pavements were better signposted and people were considerate however they are travelling!

Philippa Bond ● 281d

>They didn’t & don’t want themEaling has loads of LTNS old and new.Oaklands Road has a filter on it and St Kilda, there is a huge LTN around Hanwell Station, Ealing Broadway and Acton and a few in Southall.Residents in deans motague were so besigned by idling lines of traffic and huge lorries taking chucks out of street furniture they got an LTN, despite people living in OTHER 20 YEAR OLD LTNS campaigning against it.

Paul James ● 281d

Ben, of course you are denying people the right  to drive. If anyone wants to get by a ridiculous ltn in a vehicle, they are fined.So basically they can’t & ARE denied right to drive.Discrimination, roads, pavements open for EVERYONE.Mr Hayes is exactly right, the people of Ealing fought back against the council, implementing foolhardy schemes. They didn’t & don’t want them

Peter Yale ● 282d

> Oh, and the long term aim of the LCC is to eradicate private car ownership. It states that in its websiteExtraordinary claim. Where does it state on the LCC website that the long-term aim of theirs is to eradicate private car use? And if it does (!) there lies another reason why I am not a member of LCC!

Ben Owen ● 282d

A good example  of  shared pavement for cyclists and pedestrians is over Kew Bridge, yet despite this  cyclists still use the road  which is not only more dangerous for them but annoying for car drivers given the narrow 2 lanes.

Natasha C ● 282d

Ben Owen insists that cycling is relevant. Perhaps for him it is, but not for the vast majority of people who live normal lives as simply aren’t interested in it. Most who do cycle do so as a leisure activity. Even the LCC know this. It’s not a mass transport option for most people. Simply repeating yourself, Ben, doesn’t make it true.Oh, and the long term aim of the LCC is to eradicate private car ownership. It states that in its website and it’s the reason ill conceived schemes like LTNs and  the like are pushed through at taxpayer expense. As you know, they were very unpopular in Ealing. What don’t you understand?

Simon Hayes ● 282d

Competence isn’t a prerequisite for cycling.

Simon Hayes ● 282d

Grossly not ghostly. Interesting autocorrect though.

N V Brooks ● 282d

Persecution complex Ben? No one point of the finger at you I simply mention velophiles.Zoom is wonderful, for those who can afford it, ghostly inflated prices to have a few bits of grocery delivered by a man on a bike. Big deal, it's not going to save the world.

N V Brooks ● 282d

Where have I ever denied people the right to drive? I will push to make roads safer by installing cycle lanes etc, create LTN's and more besides, but that is not the same as denying people the right to drive. Do people ever question that 'Ocado by Zoom' is the wrong way to go? Not that I know of. How often do you see these cargo bikes whizzing along and say to yourself 'I am never ordering from that lot!' You are probably more curious in how they operate, as well as being supportive of their green credentials.  (I have never used Ocado by Zoom!)

Ben Owen ● 282d

I don't go pistol shooting I have friends who do. It doesn't stop me disagreeing with what I see as wrong. But it is their choice and I would not deny them. No one is denying you the choice to cycle Ben it does see however that velophiles want to deny those who choose to drive that right.  There is everything wrong with virtue signalling, it's simply a newer term for hypocrisy.

N V Brooks ● 282d

Cycling can be completely immersive. When you are on a bike, whether that be 10 minutes or an hour and a half, you forget what is wrong with this world, the pain of writing these repetitive posts on Ealing Today, the worries that you might have in your life, it’s all fun. It does improve your well-being, just as Phillipa said. If you do not cycle, how can you disagree with any of this?

Ben Owen ● 282d

Cycling on the pavement? Absolutely, the precedent of shared use pavements was set a long time ago in Ealing and there were many in place already. If you don't feel safe cycling there Paul then don't cycle there simple as that. There is a bus/cycle lane from Hanwell Bridge to Ironbridge. If you don't feel competent to use a 10 foot wide cycle lane then perhaps you shouldn't be cycling at all.

N V Brooks ● 282d

> or make the pavement shared use.  Cycling on the pavement outside the hospital Nigel?>People have the choice to cycle there without any additional provision and always have had.I'll cycle up that road, but I know many that wouldn't and I wouldn't do it with my 11 year old in tow, so the fact the road is such a mess there does take people's choice away to cycle.

Paul James ● 282d

Keep using your brain will help stave off Dementia - not cycling.Cycling is only relevant to those who want to cycle and are able to cycle. This is probably not 1,000s of people in Ealing. It's 1,000s who walk and use public transport - they are the relevant ones.

Eric Alan Leach ● 282d

There's nothing wrong with virtue signalling.  He should practise what he preaches.  Exercise is key to good physical AND mental health!!

Philippa Bond ● 282d

LTNs have little to do with cycling and far more to do with flawed consultations from those who would love to live on a private road with no through traffic but are simply not successful enough in their lives to do so. Creating cul-de-sacs impede flow and INCREASES pollution on boundary roads. The primary study which states that it does not uses a flawed data model which does not count staionery traffic- a nonsense.Yes, I am totally in favour of removing poorly implemented cycle lanes or those which dispropotionately affect traffic flow for all users. Even at the most inflated usage figures Paul cycling represents 8% of users. Even doubling that (which is most unlikely) it makes absolutely no sense to remove 50%$ of road space for other users, To demand otherwise is simply idiotic. Take the stretch by Ealing Hospital westbound (which you know well). Cyclists have demanded an isolated lane. NO! Either extend and use the bus lane or make the pavement shared use.  People have the choice to cycle there without any additional provision and always have had.

N V Brooks ● 283d

>but would not want to deny others the choice to cycle if that is their choice. This statement doesn't line up with your stated desire to remove cycle tracks/block then in the first place, or your anti LTN stance.All of these things give people a choice to cycle where there wasn't one before.

Paul James ● 283d

Still lacks clarity. Yes, I want to keep driving (out of necessity) but would not want to deny others the choice to cycle if that is their choice.  The idea of surpressed demand is simplistic, bordering on facile, even when safe infrastructure is provided, it is not used. Bike sales are down, miles cycled are down Too many velophiles want 'cycling or nothing'. Modern society will not survive that nonsense.

N V Brooks ● 284d

I'm not sure you're gettign what I mean Nigel.Reasonable people (and the Government): "We need less driving, more people need to feeel like they can cycle or walk"Nigel:"I want to keep driving!"Sure Nigel keep driving, but don't just think about yourself, there are thousands of others who would love to cycle if the roads felt safer for cycling, it doesn't have to be you, you keep driving, that's fine.What's more if many more people stop driving it's BETTER for you, less congestion, more parking spaces etc...That's what I mena whan I said "It's not all about you" Nigel.

Paul James ● 284d

Absolutely, it's about choice Paul, something that many totalitarian velophiles appear to want to deny to people.

N V Brooks ● 284d

Ah, virtue signaling again.The health benefits of cycling are overstated. You don’t burn many calories in a five minute ride to the shop. A slice of pizza and a beer will negate any burn. Otherwise you’d never see a fat cyclist, and there are plenty if those around. Add in electric bikes and the benefits are virtually zero.I know a few GPs. They all say the majority of sick notes they write are for mental illness, not physical maladies. Thinking that cycling will cure all is the logic of a simpleton.

Simon Hayes ● 284d

>You choose not to drive (except when it suits you)I very rarely drive Nigel, four or five times this year so far maybe.It would suit me to drive much more often as it can very convenient, but so many people using a car all the time is not without some seriously detrimental impacts, so I try very hard NOT to drive and resort to car use only when I really need to, which so far this year has been about four or five times.

Paul James ● 284d

It's not all about you Nigel!

Paul James ● 284d

No surprises there. The original biased article alludes to cycling being almost a panacea for all ills. It may well be in underdeveloped countries where the alternative in many areas is walking. We have, fortunately, choices. You choose not to drive (except when it suits you), I choose, for any number of reasons to drive. It's called choice and no amount of cajoling, scaremongering or political interference is going to make very kuch difference irrespective of the posturing or greenwashing which becomes increasing desperate  seemingly daily.

N V Brooks ● 284d

The adults are back in charge here in the UK at least:“We’re in a climate crisis. We’re in a public health crisis; getting people walking and cycling and moving more are essential to solving both of those in the immediate term and in the long term,” she said. “There’s lots of evidence to show that will reduce the number of GP appointments by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, a year.”https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/20/labour-investment-cycling-walking-unprecedented-louise-haigh

Paul James ● 284d

Touche' N V Brooks!  😁

Rosco White ● 285d

Yes indeed, ideal as transport for impoverished, developing nations, which we are not. Fully supportive of cycling as a personal mobility initiative particularly for women in those societies that cannot even spell equality.Hardly an unbiased article though given that the author is a former member of the Polish National Olympic Cycling Team.

N V Brooks ● 285d

Can’t follow these links, but I think you forgot the IR before relevant

Peter Yale ● 285d