What I find rather interesting, in retrospect, are the images that the LCC used to illustrate the four campaigning strategy options on their website. Here is the image for Option 1 – Cycling to School –
Option 2 – Neigbourhoods –
Option 3 – Gyratories –
Finally, Option 4 – Go Dutch –
Is this really the best image LCC could come up with to represent ‘Going Dutch?’ Here’s an alternative photo I took, that they could have used, free of charge.
Some actual ‘Going Dutch.’
I’m not the only one who has noticed how tepid LCC have been on this issue, both before and after the vote. David Arditti has observed how the wording – extremely vague from the outset – has been changed, after the vote, from clear space for cycling to just space for cycling, also pointing out that Tom Bogdanowicz
notably both fails to clarify the obtuse “clear spaces” message, and dilutes or further obfuscates it by mentioning a number of other unrelated campaign objectives in the same paragraph – almost as if he were wishing he did not now have to campaign on “clear space for cycling on main roads in every borough”, but could go back to the easier stuff about cycle parking.
The ‘Going Dutch’ option was listed at the bottom of the four, and illustrated with a photograph that doesn’t exactly sell it as attractive. In fact, quite the opposite.
It couldn’t be that the LCC leadership aren’t really that interested, despite what their members voted?