Where do couriers like to go on holiday? courier events of course...with other couriers, riding their bikes and doing courier things.
These coming months are packed with messenger races and championships that will take us in all corner of Europe,well Switzerland mainly.
The summer kicks off with the Bern ECMC 2013 pre-event in Milano. I'll be heading off to sunny Italy next week to help out my good friend Matteo and catch up with fellow messengers.
Forgive me for using a title that is actually a tweet, but this post is a tweet that turned out to be too long to be a tweet, so it is a mini-blog instead of a micro-blog, but not a sub-tweet.
Having recently rejoined the London Cycling Campaign, I now get their e-newsletter thing. This week’s is a bit depressing, with the news that only 66 000 people have signed the Get Britain Cycling petition, which was started in April of this year, with support from the Times as part of its Cycle Safe campaign. The petition is also supported by all the major cycling organisations in the U.K..
I know I have signed, I’m pretty sure Anna has signed, and I had hoped that everyone I know that cycles in the U.K. has signed it, and everyone else that cycles in the U.K. regularly surely ought to have signed it too. In which case, why so few signatures? Is that really the level of support that cycling has amongst in its own constituency? What chance do we have of making major changes to Britain’s transport policy if we can’t even get 100 000 signatures on this petition?
The text of petition follows:
We the undersigned call on the Prime Minister to pledge that the Government will implement the recommendations in the ‘Get Britain Cycling’ parliamentary report. The inquiry, chaired by a cross-party panel of MPs and peers, heard that promoting cycling as a healthy and affordable way to travel can tackle Britain’s obesity crisis, save millions from NHS budgets, boost the economy and reduce congestion on our roads and trains. The inquiry’s 18 recommendations focus on reallocating investment, safer road design, lower speed limits, better training and strong political leadership.
This will require cross-departmental consensus led from the Cabinet Office and Downing Street, not just from the Department for Transport. In the Commons on February 22, 2012, the Prime Minister said of The Times’s ‘Cities Fit for Cycling’ campaign: “If we want to encourage the growth in cycling we’ve seen in recent years, we need to get behind campaigns like this.”
Now is the time to act on those words.
When I mentioned that I had been to the 2nd Hackney Cycling Conference, people asked me if I had enjoyed it. Enjoy isn’t the word. There was too much information packed into the event for me to enjoy.
A couple of the speakers were way above my head. Dr. Adrian Davis on Bristol’s ‘Public Health & Transport collaboration’ was too dense for me (Bruce Mcvean of Liveable London was kind enough to point me at Lucy Saunders’ presentation on the website, which is a lot more digestible). I got the principle, outlined in Professor Harry Rutter‘s illuminating presentation, that the public health benefits of cycling far, far outweigh the risks, I just didn’t really grasp what Dr. Davis was saying. I guess because I am neither a transport planner nor a public health professional it doesn’t really matter.
I also struggled with Keith Firth‘s presentation of the nuts and bolts of redesigning junctions for increased cycling. He took us through the process of modelling movements within the junction. During his presentation Mark Treasure tweeted that he was amazed ‘that 5 bicycles are “equivalent” to 1 car in assessing capacity, regardless of number of people in that car’ for the purposes of modelling traffic flows, which shows that I wasn’t the only one who got confused.
A lot of people responded negatively to that tweet, but Keith was merely saying that a bike occupies a fifth of the space of a car, for modelling purposes, in the same way that a bus occupies 4 times the space of a car, no matter how many passengers are carried on the bus. The much more interesting point that I took from Keith’s presentation was that pedestrian move
ments are not modelled at all.
I spoke to Keith afterwards, and he mentioned that microsimulations of traffic at junctions are incredibly computationally complex, and require a huge amount of calculating power, which is probably why they don’t model pedestrian movements as well. As an aside, Keith said that Advanced Stop Lines should be 4 or 5 metres long. I’m pretty sure I got this down right, as I had only had one or two beers by this time, and I wrote the number down.
If this is true, then there are a lot, a huge number, of sub-standard ASLs in London, which need to be widened or lengthened. Islington Council or TfL, whoever is the responsible authority, can start with the ASLs on the junction of Goswell Road / Clerkenwell Road / Old Street. I see that they are trialling the ‘trixi’ mirrors at this junction, finally, but it might be more useful to repaint the lines so that cyclists can get that little bit further forward, away from the lorries. This would possibly take them out of the blind-spot.
Another thing I took from the conference, and this won’t be welcomed by some, is that whatever infrastructure is going to be put in to support cycling in London, it will not be allowed to inconvenience bus passengers or pedestrians. This almost certainly means no diversion of bus routes to permit the installation of segregated tracks. Andrew Gilligan made this clear, as did Peter Wright, who is the Senior Delivery Planning Manager at TfL. As I have said before, the bus is king of the London roads.
This explains why Councillor Vincent Stops is so anti-tracks. He made a remark to me which reveals how seriously he takes the prioritisation of the bus. He talked to me of the bus network having lost 6% of capacity since Boris Johnson became Mayor, in terms that made it clear what a bad thing he thought it was, and that the bus network needs to be protected from increased depredation. I’m not suggesting that Councillor Stops has a major say in Boris’ transport policies, far from it, but I am saying that whatever changes are proposed to the infrastructure, those representing the interests of pedestrians and bus passengers will need to be reassured that they will not be delayed, diverted or otherwise pushed to the margins.
I participated in a workshop on pedestrian / bicycle conflicts on Regent’s Canal, led by Dick Vincent (a.k.a. Towpath Ranger on Twitter) and Rosie Tharp of the Canal & River Trust. They presented a shocking number about the speed that people cycle on the towpath. Although the data was collected in Kensington & Chelsea, there is no reason to believe that speeds in Camden, Islington & Hackney are substantially lower. The 85th percentile speed is 13.8 mph. The equivalent number for London Fields bike path is 13.4 mph. In other words, people are riding along the canal towpath, which is narrower by roughly half for large stretches, has pinch-points under the bridges, isn’t segregated, and has a body of water on one side, faster than they do in London Fields which is straight, smooth and segregated. This is obvious completely wrong, and needs to stop. I personally do not understand why anyone would want to cycle that fast in a space which so inappropriate for any kind of speed.
Dick Vincent said that it’s an inditement indictment of the state of the roads that people prefer to use the canal, but I think the resurfacing work, which has made the tow-path safer, has probably encouraged higher speeds as well. The CRT have no intention of banning bikes, but clearly people are riding too fast along the towpath. Developing a parallel network which is as convenient and safe as the towpath is clearly one answer, but the big problem is intersections with main roads. If you use the canal, you don’t have to stop at the main roads, whereas I imagine that any parallel route would not be given priority at Kingsland Road or Queensbridge Road, to give examples in Hackney.
In the short term, behaviour has to change, though, as the speeds recorded are far too fast. If you want to ride at more than 10 mph, you should really be using the road, not a narrow shared space that has a body of water running along side it.
Probably the presentation that I enjoyed the most was entitled ‘Principles of Permeability’, presented by Tyler Linton. It was designed to show what Hackney has done, and should have been retitled ‘Bollard Porn’. It was just one shiny bollard after another, which was somehow strangely calming and relaxing. Maybe that was just me, though.
At the top of the show was Jules Pipe, Mayor of Hackney. Hackney Council deserves praise for its approach, which, even if it is not pro-cycling as some would like, is unquestionably pro-people, particularly those people that do not have access to a private motor vehicle. Jules Pipe’s speech, in my opinion, was not Hackney Council’s finest hour for one reason only. The target, published elsewhere as well, given for cycling modal share in 2030/31 is 15%, or just over double the 2013/14 target, which is 7%. Call me impatient, call me unreasonable but I think that is PUNY. This target is easily achievable, but surely Hackney should be a lot more ambitious, and going for 25% at least?
And I’m going to end there. There was a lot of great stuff at the conference, and these events are inspiring, but there still remains a lot to be done, if a place like Hackney believes that it needs 16 years to double cycling rates in the borough.
Funny to be back at a bike race after a couple of years. Sights that used to be common, and entirely normal, such as a man in skin-tight lycra, click-clopping across the pavement in cleated cycling shoes, carrying a pint of beer, now seem bizarre to me. Pleased to see that there were no podium girls, only Paul Smith, to congratulate the riders.
Thanks very much to Volvo for hosting me!
This was forwarded to all the attendees by Jenny Jones’ office.
Findings from ‘Cyclists and the Law’ seminar, 22nd May 2013
Andrew Gilligan’s opening comments
Kevin O’Sullivan’s opening comments
Andrew Gilligan – main comments
Kevin O’Sullivan – main comments
Scott Wilson – main comments
Darren Johnson AM – main comments
Ideas from the floor
Initial vote – 15 initiatives
| Initiative | Ranking |
| Stricter liability – the assumption that injured cyclists deserve compensation unless it can be proved otherwise, or the Dutch scheme where at least 50% of responsibility for all cycle-related collisions lies with drivers | 1st (82 votes) |
| The courts should make greater use of driving bans in sentencing and should be much firmer in resisting pleas of ‘hardship’ | 2nd (79 votes) |
| Enforcement of 20mph limits by police | 3rd (53 votes) |
| Implement 20 mph limits on main roads, unless a case for exemption has been made and approved | 4th (41 votes) |
| Advanced Stop Lines to be treated the same as yellow box junctions | 5th (40 votes) |
| All KSIs to be properly investigated and the police should adhere to the Road Death Investigation Manual | 6th (35 votes) |
| All major new developments should include Crossrail-type clauses on HGV safety training and joining the Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS) | 7th (26 votes) |
| Road crash victims of speeding, drunk and careless drivers should be included in the Government’s Code for Victims | 8th (22 votes) |
| ‘Stop at red’ campaign | 9th (21 votes) |
| Cycle lanes should continue across side roads | 9th (21 votes) |
| Continental standards on vehicle design and fitting safety equipment, especially HGVs | 10th (20 votes) |
| Coroners should make greater use of their powers to make “Section 43” reports to highlight solutions that might prevent deaths, and particularly the recurrent causes of deaths | 10th (20 votes) |
| Combat pavement cycling | 11th (11 votes) |
| Legal priority for ‘straight across’ movements at junctions | 11th (11 votes) |
| Close proximity collisions should be prosecuted using plain clothes police officers with cameras | 12th (6 votes) |
Follow-up Vote (Audience ideas in red)
| Initiative | Ranking |
| Stricter liability – the assumption that injured cyclists deserve compensation unless it can be proved otherwise, or the Dutch scheme where at least 50% of responsibility for all cycle-related collisions lies with drivers | 1st (34 votes) |
| The courts should make greater use of driving bans in sentencing and should be much firmer in resisting pleas of ‘hardship’ | 2nd (9 votes) |
| Enforcement of 20mph limits by police | 3rd (8 votes) |
| Advanced Stop Lines to be treated the same as yellow box junctions | 4th (6 votes) |
| Decriminalise ASLs and mandatory cycle lanes | 5th (5 votes) |
| Implement 20 mph limits on main roads, unless a case for exemption has been made and approved | 6th (4 votes) |
| Tie cycle education to parking permits/DVLA | 7th (3 votes) |
| ‘Careless’ driving should not be default CPS choice | 7th (3 votes) |
| French rules on close proximity | 7th (3 votes) |
| Continental standards on vehicle design and fitting safety equipment, especially HGVs | 8th (2 votes) |
| All drivers automatically arrested in the event of a death or serious injury | 8th (2 votes) |
| Mayor should refuse to fund boroughs until they sign up to HGV training contracts | 8th (2 votes) |
| No more road building in London | 8th (2 votes) |
| Legal priority for ‘straight across’ movements at junctions | 9th (1 vote) |
| Police to automatically look at CCTV and check mobile ‘phone records after collisions | 9th (1 vote) |
| Focus on reducing number of potholes | 9th (1 vote) |
| All KSIs to be properly investigated and the police should adhere to the Road Death Investigation Manual | 9th (1 vote) |
| Larger road traffic unit | 9th (1 vote) |
| Create a legal inspectorate similar to that which operates on the railways | 9th (1 vote) |
| Police report form ‘accidents’ does not mention cyclists and should be changed | 9th (1 vote) |
| Tougher rules on dirty vehicles – air pollution | 9th (1 vote) |
| Speed limiters in London | 9th (1 vote) |
| Bigger, clearer cycle signage | 9th (1 Vote) |
| Trial covering repeater traffic lights (should result in better adherence to signals) | 9th (1 vote) |
| Ban on HGVs during peak hours (Games model) | 9th (1 vote) |
| Close proximity collisions should be prosecuted using plain clothes police officers with cameras | 9th (1 vote) |
| Ban taxis from bus lanes | 9th (1 vote) |
| ‘Stop at red’ campaign | 9th (1 vote) |
| Cycle lanes should continue across side roads | 9th (1 vote) |
| Coroners should make greater use of their powers to make “Section 43” reports to highlight solutions that might prevent deaths, and particularly the recurrent causes of deaths | 9th (1 vote) |
| Combat pavement cycling | 0 votes |
| All major new developments should include Crossrail-type clauses on HGV safety training and joining the Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS) | 0 votes |
| Road crash victims of speeding, drunk and careless drivers should be included in the Government’s Code for Victims | 0 votes |
Ideas for ‘legislative wants shopping list’
Jenny Jones’ office sent out the following emali:
We’ve realised that the ‘Cyclists and the Law – Summary of Findings’ report which you recently received contains a factual error.
Specifically, the comment ‘Stricter liability makes sense especially if we look at the cyclist as the ‘vulnerable road user’ – motorists cannot be classified as vulnerable’ was incorrectly attributed to Cycling Commissioner Andrew Gilligan. This comment was in fact made by a member of the audience and not Mr. Gilligan who has emphasised that he does not have any position on stricter liability.
Nhatt is a big miss, in lots of ways. Emily Chappell draws around the hole that she is leaving.
I’d heard of Nhatt long before I actually met her. Back in the summer of 2008, when I was procrastinating my MA thesis and wishing I was a cycle courier, I listened to her effervescent contribution to BBC Radio 4’s City Messengers, where she managed to distil her job’s peculiar mix of romance, suffering and humour, and started daydreaming even more frantically. A couple of months later I was on the road myself.
It still took me a long time to run into Nhatt in person, and by then I’d built up a formidable picture of her as the de facto princess of the courier scene, organizer of highly creative alleycats, up-and-coming cartoonist, contributor of witty articles to Moving Target, sought-after bike mechanic, and subject of the admiration and adulation of countless couriers, wannabes and civilians. I wasn’t even sure I wanted to meet her. She seemed a little intimidating.
Nevertheless, whenever I spotted a female courier, I wondered whether it might be her. Finally, after several months, I passed an unusually pretty girl on a cargo bike on Goodge Street, and she gave me a massive grin and said hello, and that was Nhatt, and that was that. She was nothing like the standoffish and superior queen bee I’d imagined.
Latest written questions and answers from the Mayor:
Cycling conditions on the Westway
Question No: 1373 / 2013
Darren Johnson
A constituent who was once diverted to cycle along the Westway during a bomb scare reports that high winds and traffic noise made cycling on it an unpleasant experience. Will TfL therefore be mitigating these problems by erecting sound barriers and wind shields when the proposed Westway cycle way is implemented?
Written response from the Mayor
The issues you raise are being considered as part of the engineering and design studies into this route. Further information will be available in due course.
This is a good question, and I am so glad that I am not the first person to ask it. I am probably not the ideal person to pronounce on the proposed two-way, segregated cycle path that is to be built on the elevated section of the M40 motorway between White City and central London, otherwise known as the Westway. I suffer from acoraphobia, which is an irrational fear of falling off things, and it becomes especially pronounced when cycling across bridges. Even allowing for this irrational fear, I don’t find the prospect of using this proposed lane appealing at all, and that’s not only my inbred prejudice against west London.
I’m sure the lane will be objectively safe, as it will be separated from the motorway by a substantial lump of concrete, but I’ll be surprised if it’s pleasant. One will, after all, be riding along a concrete gulley, exposed to the elements, with motor-traffic rumbling past at 40+ mph. Ok, there will be times when the traffic will be stationary, but row upon row of stationary cars, engines idling, is little more appealing for reasons that I won’t need to spell out for anyone that has ridden along Euston Road in rush hour. Is it just Darren’s constituent and me that find the proposed lane to be not altogether enticing?
