Let's have a big hand for Richard Nye, editor of south-west London lifestyle glossy freesheet The Richmond Magazine, who is the inaugural recipient of my occasionally awarded Automoron of the Week Award for some extremely stupid comments he wrote in the September edition (link is to a photo sharing site, I refuse to help their Google rankings).
"After years of sullen rage against the cycling fraternity," writes Nye, "I tend towards the temperate view that the only good cyclist is a dead one."
This comment is plainly irresponsible and almost grotesquely offensive to many thousands of London cyclists who behave with responsibility on the roads and have almost certainly never come across Mr Nye, who sounds exactly like one of those drivers in a black German saloon who would pass you at six inches and then slam on his brakes for a traffic light, all for the sake of making up two seconds of time.
Hey, if Nye wants to generalise about people he knows nothing about, then so will I.
The effect of these comments, to paraphrase Pratchett and Gaiman, is like water on a prayer wheel, they may seem largely harmless, but they have a damaging and dangerous effect. Nye is essentially normalising the idea that cycling is an abnormal, minority activity.
Like it or not this kind of attitude rubs off on those who read it, and just maybe, that reader will overtake the next cyclist he encounters a bit closer, take just a bit less care on the roads, lose a bit of patience.
The net effect is to make our roads more dangerous for every cyclist, law-abiding bikers and red light jumping tosspots alike.
BikeBiz
has comment from two cycling specialists, one of which certainly
suggests Nye should be fearing for his job, the other appreciating that
he likely did not intend for his comments to be taken seriously. I think whatever side of that particular debate you choose to come down on we can agree this comment was spectacularly mis-judged.
But what strikes me as truly bizarre is that Nye's comments come
in an otherwise fairly positive editorial about cycling at the Olympic
Games; both the road race and time trial visited parts of the borough,
and he apparently watched and enjoyed them.
Doubtless in the face of today's Twitter backlash Nye will attempt to laugh it off as a Clarksonesque joke, but I also wonder, does he even know the first thing about the area his mag represents?
The Guardian Data Blog recently reported that Richmond in fact has one of the highest frequencies of cycling in England, by local authority; its data show that 25-35 per cent of borough residents cycle at least once a month, which I imagine can be quite easily attributed to the superb and largely safe leisure cycling routes in Richmond Park and along the Thames Path.
Happily, Nye seems to have got over his momentary lapse of reason. He concludes: "'Bastardo!' I yelled at the windscreen. 'Cycling swinehunt [sic]! Two-wheeled son of Beelzebub!'"
As one commentator remarked on Twitter, if Mr Nye can't keep his emotions in check when in control of two tonnes of metal, maybe he should consider returning his driving licence to the DVLA?
Thursday 6 September 2012
Wednesday 5 September 2012
Kit Moan: Altura Ascent baggies vs lycra
Last week I ordered my first pair of baggy cycling shorts for commuting off Wiggle, Altura Ascents.
This is not a renunciation of lycra, it's comfortable, does its job well and it would be fair to say I'm a fan. However, let's be honest, it leaves little to the imagination and off the bike and out of the company of cyclists it's easy to be left feeling a bit self-conscious. No such problems with baggies.
The Altura Ascents seem a pretty steady-seller over at Wiggle, if 22 pages of reviews are anything to go by. And after three days of commuting through a gloriously sunny start to September, my first impression is that they were a pretty good buy, particularly at the price.
Lightweight material gives the Ascents the feel of board shorts, in fact they could easily double up as beach wear. I like the big pockets on the legs and the removable padded inner is a bonus, although the pad is really too thin to be effective cushioning on longer rides, and I've been wearing them over regular bibs.
Crucially for me, the looser fit means that washing after every ride, an essential with lycra, is no longer mandatory.
Where they do fall down (almost literally, I'm afraid) is on the sizing. This is sort of what I feared would happen, and it's the one flaw in an otherwise excellent product.
I've always tended to steer clear of American-made cycling kit as I have found that as a smaller cyclist, the sizing at the small end of the lines is always just a little too generous for me and the Italians make a much better fit.
Unfortunately the same seems to be true for Altura. Even pulled up to my natural waistline there is simply too much give in them, and the Velcro straps at the back, designed to bring in the waist, are quite simply not up to the job.
It's a minor quibble though, and although to me these are medium-sized, not small I'm sure they comes up just fine on average sized people.
As to the question of baggies versus lycra, certainly I feel more comfortable moving around London on my commute, and walking into the office first thing, and I think some of my colleagues appreciate that as well. Would I wear Ascents on a weekend ride? No, I'll be sticking to what I know. But I might wear them to the beach.
This is not a renunciation of lycra, it's comfortable, does its job well and it would be fair to say I'm a fan. However, let's be honest, it leaves little to the imagination and off the bike and out of the company of cyclists it's easy to be left feeling a bit self-conscious. No such problems with baggies.
The Altura Ascents seem a pretty steady-seller over at Wiggle, if 22 pages of reviews are anything to go by. And after three days of commuting through a gloriously sunny start to September, my first impression is that they were a pretty good buy, particularly at the price.
Lightweight material gives the Ascents the feel of board shorts, in fact they could easily double up as beach wear. I like the big pockets on the legs and the removable padded inner is a bonus, although the pad is really too thin to be effective cushioning on longer rides, and I've been wearing them over regular bibs.
Crucially for me, the looser fit means that washing after every ride, an essential with lycra, is no longer mandatory.
 | |
| Not for stick insects (credit: Wiggle) |
I've always tended to steer clear of American-made cycling kit as I have found that as a smaller cyclist, the sizing at the small end of the lines is always just a little too generous for me and the Italians make a much better fit.
Unfortunately the same seems to be true for Altura. Even pulled up to my natural waistline there is simply too much give in them, and the Velcro straps at the back, designed to bring in the waist, are quite simply not up to the job.
It's a minor quibble though, and although to me these are medium-sized, not small I'm sure they comes up just fine on average sized people.
As to the question of baggies versus lycra, certainly I feel more comfortable moving around London on my commute, and walking into the office first thing, and I think some of my colleagues appreciate that as well. Would I wear Ascents on a weekend ride? No, I'll be sticking to what I know. But I might wear them to the beach.
Welcome to bizarro transport policy world
I felt like I had fallen down a rabbit hole into bizarro transport policy world this morning when I saw two staggeringly daft ideas for improving transport within London. Had I taken the red (Boris bus) pill or the blue (Boris bike) pill?
The first of today's cavalcade of lunacy comes courtesy of the Daily Mail (sorry about that), where a mad architect called Sam Martin is proposing segregated cycleways in the sky, following the lines of railways, to speed us on our merry way into London.
Oh Sam, Sam, Sam. How stupid is this? Let me count the ways.
My biggest objection is that despite providing a safe environment for cyclists, it will in fact contribute to decreased safety on the ground.
How so? Well, with the expenditure on this sort of infrastructure cyclists whose needs it does not meet - such as myself, my commute from Battersea to the West End does not shadow any railway lines - will find ourselves more vulnerable to bullying and road rage from the automorons.
"Keep on the f****** cycle lanes!" the cabbies will yell. "Get off our f****** roads!" the Transit drivers will scream. I hear it all the time already if I have the sheer gall to exit a cycle facility that is unfit for purpose and use the road instead.
Martin's proposals include charging cyclists to use his infrastructure, a pound a time, presumably using an Oyster card. Now, I cycle because on a good week, it saves me nearly £30. Okay, a pound a ride isn't too onerous, and is cheaper than both buses and trains but cycling is a free activity, it is one of its great benefits and daily cyclists will not take kindly to being charged to use a bike lane.
Martin says: "TfL estimate the number of journeys made by bike will treble to around 1.5 million by 2020. Where are they meant to go? SkyCycle is the next logical step, because you can’t realistically build more cycle lanes on ground level.
"You have to start knocking down buildings and there will always be the problem of traffic. It will be less safe than it is now and you can’t persuade people to get on bikes as it is even if you keep raising taxes on cars."
Excuse me, but this is total nonsense. You absolutely can build more cycle lanes and we should be doing so, and to portray the cycling lobby as agitating to knock down buildings is sheer idiocy. It is pointless to own a car in London and pointless to drive in London. The city's medieval street network is simply unable to cope with it, the pollution is insane, and the quality of life of everyone in the city suffers.
What we need to be doing is legislating and constructing to drive motorists out of London, not pushing cyclists off the road and surrendering them to even more lethal, dirty metal boxes. Let's not forget, cyclists produce such low emissions and cause so little damage to the roads that they don't have to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (aka Road Tax) for the privilege of using them, to the ire of the minicab set.
Should we introduce punitive taxes that target motorists to get them out of their cars?
One could make that argument, but I'm no fan of this approach; I think we should spend our existing taxes on creating well-planned, fit-for-purpose cycling infrastructure that takes us where we need to go, at speed and at the expense of good vehicular traffic flow. The inconvenience to motorists and the ease of movement for bikes will act like a carrot and drive more drivers onto bikes. Look at firms like UPS, they're already doing it, using Dutch-style cargo bikes for deliveries in parts of London.
Will that ever happen? The London Cycling Campaign's Love London: Go Dutch campaign reckons it is an achievable goal, but it will require serious political pressure and buy-in from a mayor who truly supports cycling. And people like Sam Martin. Hey, Sam, sorry I called you a nutter, but if you really want to help average commuter cyclists like me, you should be spending your time and energy supporting these guys and redesigning traffic flows and junctions to meet our needs, rather than shunting us off into a bizarre Le Corbusier-esque system of streets in the sky. Seriously, Sam, f*** Le Corbusier.
Talking of medieval street networks, which I briefly was, did you know that about 50 years ago the Government wanted to build a massive grid of motorways encircling and criss-crossing London?
They were called the Ringways and they were billed as a glorious system of urban motorways that would whizz cars around London at high speeds, a bit like Los Angeles*. There are probably Ministry of Information films about it somewhere. I expect they show six lanes of empty road, while a single Ford Zephyr driven by Mr Robinson of 25, The Gables, Chesham, pootles into London to his job as a clerk in a City bank. "Good show, Mr Robinson," shouts the narrator in a received accent. "Good show!"
If you're not familiar with it, the sheer insanity of the Ringways plan is documented in detail at CBRD and is worth a read if you have a spare hour or so.
Fortunately the project was dumped in the face of massive protests from homeowners, with only a few small sections of the network ever being completed (one of them is that bit of dual carriageway connecting Shepherd's Bush to the A40 by Westfield). The outermost Ringway was later to become the M25, but that's another story.
This is a roundabout way of introducing our second whackjob of the day. This comes courtesy of Lord Wolfson, a mate of George Osborne and chief executive at Next, which obviously makes him COMPLETELY QUALIFIED to sound off about town planning.
Wolfson is proposing a new motorway, elevated flyovers and all, that would whisk lucky, lucky motorists from Croydon to Westminster in 12 minutes flat.
I assume the route would follow the proposed line of the M23 (part of the Ringway grid) into London, blighting most of Carshalton, Mitcham, Streatham and Brixton as it goes. The A23 is a horrible road - and I speak from experience here - but it's still a very bad idea.
Of course, it would be good for Croydon, in that it would allow people to flee Croydon, but it would be bad for the rest of London, in that it would allow people to flee Croydon.
And talking seriously for a second, once all these motorists from Croydon have emptied out into central London - and where, precisely, my dear Lord Wolfson, would you like this road to terminate, the lobby of the Palace of Westminster, maybe - where exactly would they go? Ah yes, of course, into central London's medieval streets which of course, will be completely clear because all the cyclists are riding along transparent plastic tubes in the sky. I understand, now.
*And look how lovely Los Angeles turned out.
The first of today's cavalcade of lunacy comes courtesy of the Daily Mail (sorry about that), where a mad architect called Sam Martin is proposing segregated cycleways in the sky, following the lines of railways, to speed us on our merry way into London.
 |
| A really very stupid idea. Note the lovely Barclays blue. |
My biggest objection is that despite providing a safe environment for cyclists, it will in fact contribute to decreased safety on the ground.
How so? Well, with the expenditure on this sort of infrastructure cyclists whose needs it does not meet - such as myself, my commute from Battersea to the West End does not shadow any railway lines - will find ourselves more vulnerable to bullying and road rage from the automorons.
"Keep on the f****** cycle lanes!" the cabbies will yell. "Get off our f****** roads!" the Transit drivers will scream. I hear it all the time already if I have the sheer gall to exit a cycle facility that is unfit for purpose and use the road instead.
Martin's proposals include charging cyclists to use his infrastructure, a pound a time, presumably using an Oyster card. Now, I cycle because on a good week, it saves me nearly £30. Okay, a pound a ride isn't too onerous, and is cheaper than both buses and trains but cycling is a free activity, it is one of its great benefits and daily cyclists will not take kindly to being charged to use a bike lane.
Martin says: "TfL estimate the number of journeys made by bike will treble to around 1.5 million by 2020. Where are they meant to go? SkyCycle is the next logical step, because you can’t realistically build more cycle lanes on ground level.
"You have to start knocking down buildings and there will always be the problem of traffic. It will be less safe than it is now and you can’t persuade people to get on bikes as it is even if you keep raising taxes on cars."
Excuse me, but this is total nonsense. You absolutely can build more cycle lanes and we should be doing so, and to portray the cycling lobby as agitating to knock down buildings is sheer idiocy. It is pointless to own a car in London and pointless to drive in London. The city's medieval street network is simply unable to cope with it, the pollution is insane, and the quality of life of everyone in the city suffers.
What we need to be doing is legislating and constructing to drive motorists out of London, not pushing cyclists off the road and surrendering them to even more lethal, dirty metal boxes. Let's not forget, cyclists produce such low emissions and cause so little damage to the roads that they don't have to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (aka Road Tax) for the privilege of using them, to the ire of the minicab set.
Should we introduce punitive taxes that target motorists to get them out of their cars?
One could make that argument, but I'm no fan of this approach; I think we should spend our existing taxes on creating well-planned, fit-for-purpose cycling infrastructure that takes us where we need to go, at speed and at the expense of good vehicular traffic flow. The inconvenience to motorists and the ease of movement for bikes will act like a carrot and drive more drivers onto bikes. Look at firms like UPS, they're already doing it, using Dutch-style cargo bikes for deliveries in parts of London.
Will that ever happen? The London Cycling Campaign's Love London: Go Dutch campaign reckons it is an achievable goal, but it will require serious political pressure and buy-in from a mayor who truly supports cycling. And people like Sam Martin. Hey, Sam, sorry I called you a nutter, but if you really want to help average commuter cyclists like me, you should be spending your time and energy supporting these guys and redesigning traffic flows and junctions to meet our needs, rather than shunting us off into a bizarre Le Corbusier-esque system of streets in the sky. Seriously, Sam, f*** Le Corbusier.
Talking of medieval street networks, which I briefly was, did you know that about 50 years ago the Government wanted to build a massive grid of motorways encircling and criss-crossing London?
 |
| Good show, Mr Robinson! (Credit: Media Storehouse, Mary Evans) |
If you're not familiar with it, the sheer insanity of the Ringways plan is documented in detail at CBRD and is worth a read if you have a spare hour or so.
Fortunately the project was dumped in the face of massive protests from homeowners, with only a few small sections of the network ever being completed (one of them is that bit of dual carriageway connecting Shepherd's Bush to the A40 by Westfield). The outermost Ringway was later to become the M25, but that's another story.
This is a roundabout way of introducing our second whackjob of the day. This comes courtesy of Lord Wolfson, a mate of George Osborne and chief executive at Next, which obviously makes him COMPLETELY QUALIFIED to sound off about town planning.
Wolfson is proposing a new motorway, elevated flyovers and all, that would whisk lucky, lucky motorists from Croydon to Westminster in 12 minutes flat.
I assume the route would follow the proposed line of the M23 (part of the Ringway grid) into London, blighting most of Carshalton, Mitcham, Streatham and Brixton as it goes. The A23 is a horrible road - and I speak from experience here - but it's still a very bad idea.
Of course, it would be good for Croydon, in that it would allow people to flee Croydon, but it would be bad for the rest of London, in that it would allow people to flee Croydon.
And talking seriously for a second, once all these motorists from Croydon have emptied out into central London - and where, precisely, my dear Lord Wolfson, would you like this road to terminate, the lobby of the Palace of Westminster, maybe - where exactly would they go? Ah yes, of course, into central London's medieval streets which of course, will be completely clear because all the cyclists are riding along transparent plastic tubes in the sky. I understand, now.
*And look how lovely Los Angeles turned out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)