Westminster’s cycling strategy – how bad is it?

There was a flutter of excitement at the Cycle City Expo in Birmingham last Friday when Andrew Gilligan mentioned that the important (in many senses) London borough of Westminster would shortly publish a very ambitious cycling strategy, and not just any kind of ‘ambitious’ -

Gilligan said the soon-to-launch Westminster cycle strategy was *more* ambitious than the Boris one.

A draft of that Westminster cycling strategy was duly released this week [pdf], and, frankly, it simply can’t have been the same strategy that Andrew Gilligan was looking at, unless he was being exceptionally charitable. Because it’s miserable. It bears no comparison at all with the Mayor’s Vision.

It should be conceded that this is, of course, a draft of the strategy, and not a final version, but what is presented in the document as it currently stands is deeply uninspiring and half-hearted. In fact it’s not even half-hearted, it’s barely ‘hearted’ at all. I started reviewing it in a generous and open-minded way, but it’s so bleakly awful that I couldn’t help but end up trashing it. In places, it made me genuinely angry.

The introduction starts out promisingly enough, noting that

cycling is something that should be encouraged due to the returns that it delivers to the wider community through reduced congestion on the roads and public transport system, better local air quality [note - Westminster has some of the worst air quality in the country, with limits set by European legislation regularly exceeded] and improved health for residents and visitors. 

and admitting that while, some measures have been taken in Westminster to make cycling more viable,

there is still far more that can be done to make cycling safer and more attractive, particularly with the enthusiasm generated through Britain’s recent Olympic and Tour de France successes. This means further investment and improvements are needed to overcome barriers to cycling and to encourage more people to take it up safely.

Here are the first worrying signs – why on earth should the Tour de France have anything to do with making cycling as a mode of transport safer and more attractive in Westminster? And instead of referring to making the act of cycling safer, it is ‘people’ that are being encouraged to ‘take it up safely’ – the burden of responsibility being shifted to the individual. Indeed, this actually forms the main basis of the ‘safety’ strategy outlined later in the Draft; cyclists being encouraged to look out for themselves (and, worse, the way individual cyclists are treated being framed as a consequence of the behaviour of ‘cyclists’ in general).

76% of Westminster residents never cycle. Beyond that statistic, there is huge potential for shifting hundreds of thousands of trips in the borough made by ‘mechanised modes’ (car/motorcycle/bus) onto the bicycle, particularly those up to 5 km. Even using Transport for London’s highly conservative estimate of Cycling Potential [pdf], 230,000 daily trips into the borough could be made by bike instead (around a quarter of all trips in, on a given workday). This would obviously reduce congestion on the road network considerably, as well reducing demand on public transport.

As always, the main barriers to cycling uptake are perceptions of safety, concern over motor traffic, and a lack of confidence. This is acknowledged by the Draft, albeit in a slightly mealy-mouthed way –

… there is a school of thought that suggests that safety fears in particular are sometimes over exaggerated as they are perceived as more of a valid reason to give for not cycling, particularly if the real reason is more to do with lethargyNonetheless, this tells us that for new cyclists, we must place greater emphasis on making cyclists feel safer on London’s roads, and reducing accident casualties. There is also much to be done to build confidence amongst a broader cross section of society that almost anyone can become a competent and regular cyclist, through training, education and regular engagement activities.

A not-so-subtle hint that those who don’t cycle for reasons of safety in Westminster might be lazy slobs rather than people who are genuinely scared of venturing anywhere near the roads, coupled with an emphasis on ‘building confidence’ as a substitute for actually making the roads subjectively safer. Hardly inspiring.

The Draft Strategy then moves on to ‘challenges’. Having already acknowledged that more cycling would reduce congestion and ‘pressure on the street’, paradoxically the Strategy then suggests it is ‘pressure on the street’ that will make it difficult to encourage more cycling.

[There is] significant pressure on our streets from people arriving and leaving by different modes, all competing with one another and with other modes for limited space on the footways, at the kerbside and in the carriageway – more so than any other borough.

This is ducking the issue, because high demand for limited space suggests an even greater need to shift trips in the borough of Westminster to efficient modes like walking and cycling than would be the case in ‘any other borough’. However Westminster are apparently too short-sighted to realise this, or to even acknowledge what their own Strategy has just stated. Later we have the sentence

Westminster’s roads serve a vital function and it is imperative that congestion is minimised

Again, deliciously oblivious to how more cycling in the borough would actually serve to reduce congestion, not cause it. To repeat, the Draft has already stated this in the introduction.

There follow more unserious attempts to suggest that cycling cannot be provided for -

The narrow, historic nature of many of Westminster’s streets means that providing separate space for each road user on every street is simply not feasible and a balance needs to be struck.

The word ‘historic’ is redundant, because the age of the streets in the borough is obviously irrelevant; nobody is going to be knocking down buildings of any age to build cycle routes. But ‘narrow’? Really?

DSCN7920

DSCN7922DSCN7932DSCN8066

DSCN8096

DSCN8186DSCN8208DSCN8233DSCN8246DSCN8249DSCN8256DSCN9768

IMG_1126DSCN9809

IMG_1120

DSCN9845DSCN9915

IMG_0998

DSCN9899Hideously narrow roads, as I’m sure you’ll agree. Yes, unlike the wide open expanses  available in central Amsterdam, poor Westminster is desperately short of space.

DSCN0070

Joking aside, the main streets in Westminster – the places where cycling infrastructure is most needed – are plainly enormously wide. There is no shortage of space, and to talk of ‘balance’ while the width of these streets is used almost entirely for the purpose of funneling motor traffic around the borough is preposterous.

Later in the document we have the priceless

limited road space and competing demands… mean that the ability to physically segregate cyclists on the majority of Westminster’s roads is likely to be limited.

Amsterdammers would wet themselves laughing at ‘limited road space’, but in any case this is disingenuous, as there is no need to segregate cyclists on the majority of Westminster’s streets; they can be separated from motor traffic by means of its reduction and/or removal from side streets, using measures that reduce these streets to access only for motor traffic.

The main roads in Westminster, however, are a completely different story. Included in the Draft Strategy is a map that marks out these roads –

Screen shot 2013-05-02 at 23.22.34A map that could, theoretically, form the basis for a cycling strategy in a borough that had any serious intent. The red, green and blue roads are almost without exception of ample width, carrying high volumes of motor traffic on multiple lanes (sometimes as many as five or six lanes, as can be seen in the photographs above). Naturally the ‘local access roads’ (in white) should be precisely that – local access only, not shortcuts to somewhere else, and without any need for segregation as a consequence. You wouldn’t even need to tackle parking on these streets.

Segregation from motor traffic on the coloured roads is eminently achieveable (again, just look at the pictures above!) were it not for those ‘competing demands’, which in Westminster language should be read as nothing more than a desire to maintain the current flows of motor traffic, at all costs.

Indeed, the overwhelming impression from this Draft is that nothing will be done that might inconvenience the act of motoring – any act of motoring – in the borough. The cycling ‘objectives’ are vague and guarded, and hedged with exceptions and conditions. For instance -

The Council will… aim to deliver a range of improved routes for cyclists of different abilities, whilst recognising the needs of other road users and avoiding changes that place unacceptable additional pressure on the road network and kerbside.

That is – not interfering with motoring. Westminster therefore seem keen to ignore completely the main intervention that will enable the uptake of cycling in the borough – separation from motor traffic – and instead employ the spurious, unproven strategy of ‘integration’ with that motor traffic -

There is a need to encourage all road users to show greater consideration for one another and share space in a safe and responsible manner, enabling safer integration and shared routes rather than a presumption for segregation

How will this ‘consideration’ be achieved?

through training programmes, enforcement, education and campaigns targeted at both cyclists and non-cyclists, whilst recognising that many people are now becoming more ‘multi modal’ in their travel characteristics and should [my emphasis] therefore start to demonstrate a greater appreciation of one another’s needs.

Wow. A truly inviting vision of cycling for all – a hopeful reliance on the consideration of drivers as they whizz around you in all directions (and ‘whizz’ they will, because 20mph limits are out of the question, as we will see below).

This reluctance to consider the separation of cyclists from motor traffic on main roads appears to threaten the proposed central London ‘Bike Grid’ outlined in the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling.

Given that Westminster will be at the heart of the proposed Bike Grid, the Council’s participation will be key to the success of the Mayor’s Vision. For Westminster, an important element of this vision is the recognition that physical segregation or the provision of cycle lanes will not always be feasible or expected, particularly where there is significant pressure on footway, carriageway and kerbside space from competing demand.

In other words, Westminster think the flow of motor traffic should trump the comfort and convenience of cycling, even when this directly interferes with proposals contained within the Mayor’s Vision. Westminster can’t even bring themselves to fully endorse pitiful interventions, like feeder lanes and ASLs, that have relatively little or no effect on motor traffic flow -

The needs of cyclists continue to be taken into account in the design of all transport and public realm schemes. Features that benefit cyclists, such as Advanced Stop Lines and feeder lanes, will be integrated where feasible.

And even cheap, easy and painless interventions like a 20mph limit in the borough are rejected by this Draft, on utterly ludicrous grounds -

Whilst the implementation of 20 mph zones falls within the remit of the City Council, this is not something the Council is currently seeking to implement. In terms of cycle safety it is considered that a 20 mph limit could have minimal benefit as traffic speeds in the City of Westminster are often below 20 mph already, with the average speed being just 10mph.

‘We don’t think a 20 mph limit is a good idea, because the motor traffic speeding around our borough occasionally travels at below that speed.’ Hopeless.

With regards to safety, the strategy seems to be ‘encouragement’, training, and expecting road users to ‘look out for each other’ in a way that suggests different mode users bear equal responsibility for danger. The document even suggests ‘cyclists’, as an undifferentiated, monolithic bloc, need to start behaving in order to encourage ‘mutual respect’.

Whilst some accidents may be prevented through improved junction and road design, it must be recognised that accidents are primarily caused by the way that cyclists and other road users interact, and many could be avoided by improved road user conduct and caution…

If cyclists are encouraged to adhere to the rules of the road, hopefully [again, my emphasis] this will also help them to be perceived more positively by other road users and to encourage mutual respect and courtesy.

As someone who is considerate and abides by the rules while cycling on the roads of Westminster, I find it quite offensive that the borough could even imagine that ‘courtesy’ and ‘respect’ towards me is in any way conditional on the behaviour of other people who might be using the same mode of transport. My safety while cycling should be a given, not attenuated because of moronic prejudice. Shame on you Westminster.

Cyclists also need to be aware that pedestrians and motorists will not always be aware of or anticipating their presence, and that they need to play their part in ensuring that they are well seen and heard (for instance through maintaining a prominent position in the road and using a bell to warn pedestrians of their presence.

Miserable, miserable stuff, and needless to say there are no strategies outlined in the document aimed at improving the attitudes and behaviour of private motorists around cyclists, only a ‘hope’ that as more people might cycle, so outright, naked hostility will diminish each group will ‘have a greater appreciation of each other’s behaviour and frustrations’. Bless.

A big long list of piecemeal measures follows (including a passage that makes an erroneous connection between red light jumping and deaths as a result of poor visibility from HGV cabs), concluding with

The Council will also run a campaign called ‘Westminster chimes’ giving out free bells to cyclists, encouraging them to make use of their bell to warn pedestrians of their presence. The Council will also consider a campaign highlighting the dangers of the use of headphones whilst cycling.

Free bells! Such ambition!

It’s a stone-age document. What’s amazing is that some attempts have clearly been made to update it in the light of the publication of the Mayor’s Vision, which suggests it must have been even worse at some point before. There is absolutely no conception of what is required to make cycling an inviting and civilised mode of transport in the borough, even for those who currently cycle through it like me (albeit with some trepidation), let alone the vast majority of people who would not even dare to place their foot on a pedal on Westminster’s roads.

A re-write, please.

About these ads
This entry was posted in 20 mph limits, Andrew Gilligan, Boris Johnson, Car dependence, Cycling policy, Infrastructure, London, Subjective safety, Transport for London. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Westminster’s cycling strategy – how bad is it?

  1. Peter Gilheany says:

    Westminster is a thoroughly miserable place to cycle on the whole and from an entirely personal perspective seems to be getting worse, travelling in the opposite direction to some of the surrounding boroughs who are slowly, slowly waking up what better road planning can do for cycling and all other road users. They have managed something truly impressive recently, making Picadilly and Pall Mall worse than they were before. It has almost reached the stage where you know when you’ve passed into the borough by the almost complete disappearance of even the miserable cycling infrastructure you find in the rest of London. One of my favourite ways of spending 10 minutes I don’t have is trying to find somewhere to lock my bike up. Their new strategy seems to confirm this will not be changing for the better any time soon – truly shameful.

  2. Paul M says:

    As the late great Sam Goldwyn is reputed to have said “can a leopard change its stripes?” Westminster is never going to change until external pressures force it to. Even its opposition councillors are totally in thrall to the roads lobby – look at the crass remarks to emerge from the lips of Paul Dimoldenberg from time to time on the parking issue.

    Westminster is the most “successful” borough in generating surpluses on its parking account – £29m last year (or was it £39m?) from on-street parking. This helps them to keep their council tax precept at one of the lowest levels in the country and that in turn helps the Tories to get re-elected time after time. It would be interesting to know how tightly they comply with the law on use of parking surpluses for specified transport-related purposes only, and not as a prop to the council budget generally – and presumalbly you can get around that by funding your transport/roads budget entirely from parking and so be free to spend your council tax on other things. This is the council which was once run by Shirley Porter of “gerryamndering” fame, so anything is possible.

    With that much at stake on the parking account it is hardly any surprise that they will do nothing whatever to offend the motor lobby or risk killing the milch cow. Their warren of one-way streets – almost none of wihch have cycle contraflow which would make quiet routes across Westminster feasible – is largely dedicated to creating on-street parking capacity. With that in mind hey have no interest in either choking out through traffic in the “access-only” streets or permitting cycle contrfalow, so the two principal filtered permeability measures used successfuly away from the main transport grid in countries like the Netherlands are not open to them.

  3. monchberter says:

    I have to commute through Westminster daily and if i’m frank I don’t think they’ll ever see past their myopic adherence to keeping motor traffic moving. In part I believe that cabs are a big part of this. I see more cabs going about their business in Westminster than anywhere else in London.

    I’d say at times they are almost all the car-sized traffic on the roads, and I am sure that any moves to improve cycling will always come up against the cab lobby due to the huge amount of tourist and business work that Westminster provides for the London cabbie.

  4. brencud says:

    On my commute I cycle through Lewisham, Southwark, Lambeth, Westminster and Camden. Westminster has without a doubt the most hostile road environments of all of these, and unlike the others, no safe alternative routes through back streets.

    I had a look on the Westminster Council website but can’t see anywhere to comment on the strategy. Seeing as it is a draft, I would have thought they would be seeking comments. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

  5. Tim says:

    After all the praise for Mr Gilligan following Boris’ plans, seems to me that him heralding this document leaves him looking rather foolish.

    And the document looks even worse on a day when the Standard (which isn’t known for being progressive about transport) has published an article saying drivers are generally in the wrong in car-bike collisions. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-blame-for-twothirds-of-bicycle-collisions-in-westminster-8602166.html

    I’m not sure a few free bells are going to solve the problem here.

  6. fonant says:

    “It’s a stone-age document.” – too right!

    We used to get these sorts of fake platitudes towards cycling in West Sussex too. Although these days West Sussex don’t even pretend to have a cycling strategy, which is a blessing in that we don’t have to read this sort of meaningless rubbish any more.

    There are clearly powerful political forces at work that are successfully blocking out any application of logic to transport problems. Not only at a local level (mis-guided taxi drivers?) but also at a national level, where subsidies continue to go down for public transport users and up for motorists. Motor traffic congestion is a Good Thing, it seems, for our leaders.

  7. Perspicacious comments all round :) (Sorry, exam marking again…)

    I would add, it’s worrying that the final objective of broadening participation seems to be so closely linked to promotion, awareness campaigns, web information, activity days etc. The idea being that more promotion of cycling is what is primarily needed to increase cycling rates among women, working class people, ethnic minority Londoners, older people etc. etc. who are currently less likely to cycle.

    UK cycling policy has for the last 20 years focused primarily on promotion, awareness, activities etc. rather than substantive infrastructural change. We see the results of this – mostly, cycling has flatlined, and in those places where cycling has risen (e.g. London, Bristol) it’s primarily men, younger people, etc. taking it up. It looks like promotion has a bigger impact on those currently over-represented groups. This isn’t surprising – there are a range of reasons why under-represented groups are under-represented, both to do with attitudes to risk/intimidation and the types of journeys people tend to make.

    Where cycling conditions remain difficult/unpleasant (as in most of the UK), but there’s substantial suppressed demand, we’d expect the more simple (solo, non-chained, same origin and destination) commuter trips to rise rather than other trips (e.g. shopping, visiting friends). Both because the social groups that tend to make more simple commuting trips are relatively tolerant of risk, and because the trips themselves are relatively easily to cycle – repeated journeys with the same origins and destinations – safer but more complex routes can be learned and used again and again. By contrast if you make irregular trips or trips at different times of day (like many retired people, people with multiple caring responsibilities etc.) then given a poor cycling environment, barriers to take-up are much higher (as well as the additional safety people want when travelling with children, if their mobility is impaired, etc). You need a lot more skill to constantly figure out what works for different or irregular journeys that for simply doing the same journey over and over every day! This is a reason why I sometimes use public transport for work trips within Central London, while I almost always cycle to work.

    If we want to get under-represented groups cycling, the answer must be to make it easier for them to participate, reduce those access inequalities, not more advertising of a product that currently fails to meet their needs…

    • Jitensha Oni says:

      Quite. Another group that could be encouraged to cycle more especially in a place like Central London are tourists. Top dollar moving about. But that would obviously not, as fonant alludes to, be popular with the cabbies.

      But aside from all the transport mode stuff, it’s funny how many of those “historic” streets are surfaced with distinctly un-historic tarmac.

      • Fred says:

        Cambridge is also noted for how bad it is for cycling due to it’s historic streets, oh no hang on it’s the opposite. The good news is that jamming the streets full of cars is completely what they were designed for historically.

        Jokes aside, this is actually depressing :-(

  8. Excellent post. Westminster is clearly anti-cycling despite trying to sound otherwise.

    I realised recently that the point at which my regular ride from Camden to Waterloo changes from from being reasonably pleasant to being horrible is the border between Camden and Westminster. The change is palpable.

    When listening to Westminster Councillor Ed Argar at Living Streets’ talk in March, I was expecting this type of “strategy” with a sense of dread. He kept talking about “maintaining the balance of traffic” which suggests that he believes Westminster has some sort of balance already, rather than total motor dominance.

    I’ve had a post half-written for ages about what he said then – I think you’ve given me the impetus to finish it!

  9. Harry says:

    Completely agree with the comments on how hostile the environment is, and ridiculous this ‘strategy’ is. What I don’t think the council realise is what they’re missing out on – I actively avoid travelling into/through Westminster for any leisure activities (ie the times I spend my cash) if I’m on the bike (almost all the time) because I know it’ll be hideous, walking or cycling. Why go somewhere unpleasant when I can go somewhere in Hackney? I can’t be alone.

  10. rachelaldred124903432 I’m not sure about your Bristol observation. Superficially it looks difficult for cycling – narrow streets, hills and high levels of congestion are the norm. But with a variety of enthusiasts and groups inside and outside the Council’s Traffic and Transport Department some progress has been made over a number of years and cycling is a more diverse activity than I had imagined on arrival here two years ago. I have been out and about with a camera over the last week or so and have been delighted to see far more women, older people and youngsters on bikes than I had expected. Our new Mayor is a Brompton user (not. he says, “a cyclist”) and he addressed our recent Cycling Campaign AGM this week in very constructive terms. And, still too few I know, three women joined the Campaign Committee this time. Fingers crossed!

    We have one road in Bristol like those in the blog pictures. We call it the M32. (The Mayor hates it)

    • Hi Sam, I didn’t mean to sound like I was identifying Bristol as particularly problematic – like London, it’s one of the few places that has seen increases and this is very positive. While cycling environments in Bristol are still far from perfect there have been clear improvements. And as you mention the current policy/political situation is very encouraging – I’m hoping to help organise a London-Bristol policy/advocacy meet-up to discuss what we can learn from each other :)

      Rather I’m saying that even where there have been increases (as in London, Bristol, etc.), there is still a long way to go infrastructure- and spending-wise, and -relatedly – in those places, take-up of/access to cycling is still far from equal. The place we have the most detailed stats, London, shows men (for example) are still over-represented in cycling and cycling take-up. I don’t immediately have the current gender breakddown for Bristol, but in 2001, the male:female cycle commuter ratio was 3.2:1 – so I would agree with you that compared with 2001, cycling has likely been becoming more rather than less equal (which would support what you’re seeing on the street), but this would be compatible with male take-up remaining higher than female take-up. Will be interesting to have a look at the Census crosstabs for 2011 when those are available.

  11. rdrf says:

    Actually, the approach of Westminster might even be worse than you suggest.

    I think there are ways of supporting cycling through types of direct engagement which involve methods other than changing highway (and off-road) infrastructure. This can involve publicity and training – but it has to be of the right type. It should aim to be empowering and inform cyclists of their rights as well as their responsibilities. It should not go for victim blaming and a reliance on approaches which have no real evidence base: e.g. helmet promotion, advocating hi-viz – and the latest here, anti-headphone wearing activity!

    Do Westminster’s activities in the areas involving working with cyclists actually have this thrust? I would guess they will go for the victim-blaming rather than the empowering – quite apart from anything to do with highway layout.

    BTW, anything on supporting home parking for cyclists in the Borough?

  12. compared to centrel Bristol, Westminster’s roads are so, so wide. It’s a luxury they have wasted on providing resident parking areas for the global elite and the UK voters.

    Whenever a council proposes something like this, with fatuous comments about cyclists overcoming their needless fears, the cycling campaigners need to go to all the councillors and say “why don’t you cycle?”. In Bristol, the answer from the leaders is “we do”, in S Gloucs it is “we are too important”. Westminster’s proposal sounds like it will be backed answer #2, which represents a complete failure to value cycling as a transport option for residents, employees and visitors in the area.

    -they’ve opposed Boris Bike stands “out of character” -reducing the value of the tools for visitors and commuters
    -in the map above, marked the cross hyde park to soho route through grosvenor square as a local distributor road, when it could represent the best east-west route parallel to Oxford street (today: one way streets with too much range rover parking).
    -immediately reacted to the “blue route” proposals along the embankment with criticisms of the colour, which could be a thinly described attack on the whole idea “segregated paths are unseemly”
    -stripped bike racks.

    The LCC need to push back with the “well, why don’t you cycle” question, and follow it with “if your proposal is implemented, would you cycle then?”. As if they can’t say that they will, the plan is clearly a failure. That’s something that could be tested before implementation by asking people. The other tactic should be pointing them at Paris rather than the netherlands, to say “Paris is becoming a better place to live, work and visit”.

    Westminster Council is where the London plans are going to be tested. The suburbs: they could be tackled one-by-one. If westminster fails as a cycling borough, London will fail as a cycling city.

  13. Tim says:

    Since the conversation has expanded to cycle planning and strategy in other areas can I gratuitously point out the documents which Transport for Greater Manchester has made available on their website as part of their “Vélocity 2025″ funding bid? There is much talk of “safe, swift and
    segregated cycleways running into the heart of the city” and “use of Dutch style bus stops that enables bikes to pass buses without having to ride around the outside of the bus in the flow of traffic” and so on, all of which sounds good to me.

    Plus there doesn’t seem to be a huge requirement for people pledging support to be locals, so if anyone feels like ticking the box that would be welcome too. :)

    http://cycling.tfgm.com/velocity/

    (sorry it’s a bit off topic, but it does make for an interesting comparison, and I’d be interested in any thoughts people may have).

  14. Great set of photos dispelling this ‘narrow’ myth. Really cracking immediate visual evidence.

    Their argument about 20mph limits absolutely infuriates me too. It’s just… I can’t even express it in words. The fact that that kind of ‘logic’ can be printed in documents which adults are paid good money to create… Urgh!

    I would urge people to drop Westminster an email with proposed improvements to this admittedly atrocious plan though. A number of campaigners have been in touch with Martin Low et al. about their Haymarket plans and they are ready to, at the very least, listen.

  15. Pingback: Telling Mayors Big Cities: Go Promote Cycling Someplace Else | Stirring Trouble i

  16. Pingback: This Westminster crap: I saw it coming | The Alternative Department for Transport

  17. Nick Evans says:

    Agree with almost all of what you’re saying, but not sure the photos of road widths really help. Loads of those roads look like they’re TfL’s or the Royal Parks’, so not Westminster’s at all. Isn’t it best to concentrate on the ones that they are responsible for (e.g., Victoria Street)?

  18. John Stevenson says:

    “why on earth should the Tour de France have anything to do with making cycling as a mode of transport safer and more attractive in Westminster?”

    It shouldn’t, of course, but this amazingly lazy paper has clearly just swallowed the Olympic legacy narrative, to which Wiggins Tour success got melded. Never mind that Mintel’s latest report fails to find any evidence that Olympic and TdF success actually got people out on their bikes. Rather than going with the null hypothesis, even Mintel desperately explains it away by saying that it was the bad weather wot done it.

    *sigh*

  19. I don’t know what the moaning is all about. If you can manage to do all of your cycling journeys between 7:30am and 8am on a Sunday, Westminster is a perfect car-free area! Their approach to walking is about the same…

  20. Pingback: How westminster plans to keep the cyclists out and Simon Cowell in

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s