The launch of the LCC’s latest campaign has got me thinking: What does the LCC think about the London Cycle Map Campaign? Your guess is as good as mine. Despite attracting over 1,500 petition signatories, receiving endorsements from a range of cycling experts, and winning Ordnance Survey’s prestigious GeoVation competition, our campaign has not merited comment from any of the major cycling charities (including Sustrans and CTC).
That’s not for the want of trying on the part of Cycle Lifestyle. As well as disseminating 90,000 free cycling magazines in the past three years to London locations such as schools, workplaces and student unions, we’ve contacted the LCC, Sustrans and CTC on numerous occasions to express the hope that they might offer their members the opportunity to make up their minds about the London Cycle Map Campaign.
It hasn’t worked. When our messages haven’t been ignored (which is, sadly, the most frequent outcome) our plea for our campaign to receive some attention has been quickly dismissed on partisan lines: “we’ve got our own agendas to think about”.
What are those agendas? How, in particular, do these charities propose to turn London into a city where cycling is mainstream?
CTC is a national organisation, so doesn’t have a specific policy on this. Fair enough – although it is disappointing that they’ve explicitly declined to run an article about the London Cycle Map Campaign in their regular publication Cycle.
What about Sustrans? In recent times they’ve been busy creating numerous Greenways – corridors of off-road cycling/walking routes connecting miscellaneous parts of the capital. This is a valuable project, make no bones about it. But Sustrans have remained silent on London’s pressing need for a unified network of signed cycle routes and a single map showing how to navigate around them. Can a similar result be achieved through Greenways? If so, how many Greenways would be needed before Londoners start commuting by bike en masse? These questions remain unanswered, partly because Sustrans have declined to engage with the London Cycle Map Campaign.
Finally, the LCC. But some background information is necessary first.
A recent YouGov poll asked Londoners what encourages and discourages them when it comes to cycling. Worries about “safety around motor traffic” came top of the list of discouraging factors, while the provision of “safe and convenient cycle lanes all over London” would provide most encouragement.
Notice the phrase all over London. There is already a network of cycle lanes all over London. It’s called the London Cycle Network (LCN). Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on it over the last thirty years or so. The routes on the LCN are mostly on backstreets away from the heaviest traffic, yet they are direct, fast and often superbly provisioned with cut-throughs and other state-of-the-art cycle facilities, as well as cycle lanes as standard.
But you wouldn’t know it. The LCN is appallingly signed and mapped. In theory you could get from anywhere to anywhere in London, safely and conveniently, using this vast network of thousands of kilometers of routes. In practice you can’t, because you don’t know where they are or where they go.
What does the LCC think should be done to make it easier for people to use the LCN? I don’t know. Presumably nothing. Their ‘Go Dutch’ Campaign is lobbying, instead, for more cycle lanes on main roads, major roundabouts and busy junctions (an approach also taken in The Times's recent foray into cycle campaigning). Evidence suggests that cyclists in the capital are particularly vulnerable at traffic-rich locations, so it makes superficial sense to overhaul the busiest road infrastructures. But when you look deeper, the LCC’s Go Dutch Campaign makes no sense at all.
You only have to ask yourself what would happen if a successful result was achieved. The LCC is calling for “three flagship Go Dutch developments on major streets and/or locations” by 2016 – the end of the next mayoral term. Will these three(ish) developments turn London into a cycle friendly city? Of course they won’t. The same old problems will persist. The vast majority of would-be cyclists will still be put off by London's main roads. And navigating will still be a nightmare.
Put it this way. If my mum is going to ride from Woodford to Stoke Newington, she doesn’t care if there are some segregated cycle routes – even hundreds of kilometres of them – scattered throughout the capital’s main roads. She only wants to know if she can get to Stoke Newington safely and easily on a bike. And the only way to make this happen is to provide a well-signed, safe cycle route between the two areas, and a map showing this information. The same goes for any journey she may wish to make.
A London Cycle Map would provide this – and right away. Simon Parker’s ingenious “compass colour system” shows how the LCN could be signed and mapped to provide a direct and fast connection between ANY two areas of the capital. Cyclists could get from anywhere to anywhere on the LCN by remembering no more than a few route codes. Cycling in London would become as safe and simple as catching the Tube.
Surely the YouGov poll supports such a plan? You’d think so, yet the LCC has cited the poll in support of their Go Dutch Campaign. Apparently, three new cycle developments would be more useful than a London Cycle Map in helping non-cyclists to avoid traffic and to cycle on safe routes throughout London.
It’s not even as if the costs would be different in each case. In other words, it's a question of what we should spend our money on: An iconic Tube-style cycle map supported by signage on the streets connecting the entire capital by a vast network of safe routes? Or three new developments?
In this light, the folly of the LCC’s Go Dutch proposal is frankly staggering. I can only surmise that it is a tragic case of spin over substance. Making London as cycle-friendly as Holland sounds nice, doesn’t it? But a few new cycle developments on main roads – even a hundred kilometers of new developments – are not going to bring about a new culture. Indeed, the grossly expensive Cycle Superhighways scheme, which Go Dutch seems to be a continuation of, certainly hasn't done so.
I know London. I grew up here. And I know Londoners: they won’t ride bikes en masse without what they see as a very good reason for doing so. Only a London Cycle Map, which provides the convenience of the Tube and the safety of the LCN, will bring cycling into the mainstream in the capital.
I’m not saying that cycle developments on main roads would not be a good thing. Where such developments are possible (and it's far from clear they always are), they can only help. But it is delusional to suggest that this policy is going to turn the metropolis of London into a replica of, say, the smaller, canal-dense city of Amsterdam any day soon. London has different needs – and it needs different solutions.
Ironically, one of the LCC’s founding aims was a unified network of cycle routes in London. Thanks to the efforts of many of their members over the years, the LCN came about. If the LCC really wants to Go Dutch, they should finish the job they helped start, and support the London Cycle Map Campaign.
Click here to sign the London Cycle Map Campaign petition.
Click on this current map of the LCN, below, to see how it compares with Simon Parker's London Cycle Map:
Comments
Hi Ben,
Hi Ben,
Some points on your article:
First, the London Cycle Network+ has never been a 'network' as such because it's only 60% complete. Sadly, the 40% that isn't finished includes most of the 'difficult' parts, such as major junctions.
And we dispute your assertion that back roads are just as fast as main roads for cyclists. This isn't true in many people's experience, which is why so many cyclists choose to take the faster, more direct routes on main roads for their regular journeys.
Second, you appear to have missed the fact that there are three demands for the next mayoralty attached to our 'Love London, Go Dutch' campaign:
1. Three flagship Go Dutch developments
2. Superhighways upgraded to Go Dutch standards
3. All new city developments to adhere to Go Dutch standards
We're trying to be realistic about what can be achieved in four years, though you should note that 'all new developments' could include a huge number of streets/junctions all over London. The key thing is that politicians and planners commit to having cycle facilities integrated into all future projects.
Third, our campaign is also not solely about main roads: there are Dutch solutions that would help your mum and other local people make safe local journeys too, such as creating low-traffic shopping streets and cutting out rat-runs in residential areas. These would benefit walkers as well as cyclists.
Finally, LCC staff have met and spoken on the phone with Simon Parker numerous times during the many years he's been promoting his map project. Our opinion then, as it is now, is that the priority for change in London is safer junctions and streets, not signage.
btw, if anyone wants to sign our petition, please visit www.lcc.org.uk/go-dutch
kind regards
Mike Cavenett
Communications manager
London Cycling Campaign
This is not something I can
This is not something I can agree with, not least as we are the principal sponsors of the LCC’s LLGD campaign [interest disclosed].
I am unhappy to see the broad church of pro-cycling/liveable-cities campaigners being invited to divide into separate camps in this way.
It is most disappointing to see you use a campaign launch that you should be backing to peddle your own agenda.
So what if the LCC, CTC and Sustrans haven’t backed your campaign; I don’t recall them publicly denigrating it either, as you have here.
I don't see how the views
I don't see how the views expressed in the Cycle Lifestyle blog are 'denigrating' the LCC's campaign. The issue expressed in the blog, as I understand it, is with the LCC's proposed STRATEGY, not with their CAMPAIGN. Unfortunately, this goes right to the heart of the problem identified in the blog: the LCC appears to be viewing the 'Go Dutch' phenomenon as a communications device, rather than as a practical strategy to be implemented for the benefit of London and cyclists. The campaign itself is actually just for 'more cycling' and 'safer cycling'. Here is what the LCC petition is actually asking people to sign to say they agree with: "I want the mayoral candidates to pledge to make London more liveable for everyone by making our streets as safe and inviting for cycling as they are in Holland". 'As safe as they are in Holland' simply means that the Mayoral candidate needs to say he/she will try to achieve a specific STATISTIC – i.e. that the number of cycle-related deaths in London does not exceed the number of cycle-related deaths in Holland – as this is the most realistically tangible measure of safety. Therefore the LCC's petition has nothing whatsoever to do with the particular approach the LCC is proposing to adopt in order to achieve this statistical correlation. If I understand correctly, the Cycle Lifestyle blog is challenging the 'Lets encourage cycling by spending loads of money getting cyclists onto the main roads' approach. And given the results of the yougov survey on which this is all apparently based, in which people said they would be encouraged to cycle if they weren't so intimidated by traffic, I too find the LCC's proposal to bring cyclists closer to traffic by encouraging them onto the busiest roads somewhat perplexing. It’s just not clear, from the LCC campaign literature, how the (obvious, generic) survey results have led to the LCC’s strategic policy - I think that's the point.
A brave and I think totally
A brave and I think totally justified and needed post – well done!
Come on Mike Cavenett and LCC
Come on Mike Cavenett and LCC... Surely Simon's cycle map would compliment your Go Dutch campaign.
Due to LCC's early lobbying, there is most of the makings of the infrastructure that covers much of London. The London Cycle Network would make cycling safer and with 60% complete, it must be easier and faster to add the 40% and finish the long overdue job, with all the advantages highlighted in Ben's blog.
Not backing this brilliant idea divides the cycling fraternity. Surely finding funding to develop both projects is the way to propel our great city towards a cycle friendly future.
Hi Mike. Many thanks for your
Hi Mike. Many thanks for your comments, which I've responded to in a new blog.
Emerson, thanks for yours. 'Denigrating' is a strong word. My aim was to write a critique, nothing more.
I'd like to see a unified front - but the truth is, I can't back a campaign which prioritises cycle routes on main roads over route continuity.
I don't believe that Cycle Lifestyle's London Cycle Map Campaign is in any way divisive. As I say in my new blog: route contunuity doesn't have to be achieved at the expense of routes on main roads. But it can't be achieved BY routes on main roads.
I'd be more than happy to back a dual approach which aknowledged these subtleties.
Hi Ben,
Hi Ben,
Thank you very much for posting this, and for your subsequent blog.
Regrettably, LCC's attitude towards my proposal can be summed up in just three words: deny, deny, deny. There is a substantial amount of misinformation contained within Mike's reply, which is most unfortunate, but the main thing I wanted to pick up on was his final sentence.
Mike says "the priority for change in London is safer junctions and streets, not signage." That's long been LCC's position, it was suggested, and I suppose it hardly matters that this is the first I have heard of it.
The key to making cycling safer, as the CEoGB have correctly pointed out, is in the way that junctions are made to work. The question is not where to end up, but where to begin.
'Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities' is fairly emphatic about this. Think in terms of a network, it says, and do as much as possible at least cost first in order to get this network to function. It's amazing how many people are able to find ways to misunderstand or misinterpret this.
Emerson, I would actually welcome a bit of 'public denigration' from LCC, but except to say that they have some 'misgivings', which they won't explain, LCC's preference seems to be that my proposal should die in silence. You talk about dividing the broad church of pro-cycle/liveable cities campaigners, but what makes you think they are united behind LCC's proposed strategy?
Simon
@Des it's not just a set of
@Des it's not just a set of maps, every existing sign on a LCN route would have to be replaced with another very similar sign. It will all become irrelevant because in 3 or 4 years, even the cheapest mobile phone will provide access to a better, personalised mapping service.
As far I can see this campaign reinforces the view that cyclists should stick to designated, safe back streets and 'here is the map'. But many cyclists (notably [lcc] Hackney Cyclists) believe that cycling should be safe on all streets, including main roads not just a set of approved routes.
@Becca LCC is proposing that TfL fix the routes that many cyclists, especially the younger fitter cyclists prefer to use i.e. the main roads. LCC cannot ignore the poor quality of the CSHs implemented so far.
LCC office might be cool towards this idea but I think LCC members would be cool as well. Ben, why don't you put a poll on the website to let people vote against as well as for the idea?
Hi John,
Hi John,
I've addressed all of your points in the Q and A, here:
http://www.cyclelifestyle.co.uk/questions-and-answers
The reason I haven't done a poll is that on the internet people tend to make snap judgements without reading things properly (e.g. the Q and A).
Also, current cyclists are not the people who need a London Cycle Map the most. Since current cyclists would be the people most likely to vote, the results would be biased. The whole point of the LCM is that non-cyclists need it most - it's just that they don't necessarily know it yet!