Following Mike Cavenett’s reponse to my previous blog (many thanks, Mike), I’ve provided a few responses and clarifications of my own. Mike’s points are in grey italics.
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.
The vast majority of the routes on Parker’s London Cycle Map (something like 98%) are identified as cycle routes on TfL cycling guides. The LCN forms the majority of these TfL routes – but there are plenty of others (including Greenways, local authority advisory routes, and Cycle Superhighways), and many of these are incorporated into Parker’s map. The fact the LCN isn’t finished is irrelevant.
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
As I said, even if these things were achieved – even if, say, hundreds of kilometres of Go Dutch developments were created in the next mayoral term – Londoners would not start cycling en masse.
There is a segregated cycling facility on Hammersmith High Street. Hardly anyone uses it, because it goes nowhere. Or, more accurately, it ultimately leads into a massive roundabout, which leads into endless major roads: that’s life in a metropolis. Unless all of the proposed Go Dutch developments link up properly, people will still be too scared to cycle. And the point is: there are too many main roads and terrifying junctions in London to make a continuous cycle network out of them this century let alone this mayoral term.
In this respect, the LCC’s campaign is inconsistent. On one hand, there is clearly a focus on main roads. Consider these campaign descriptions on the LCC website:
“Londoners from all walks of life will be able to enjoy cycling on main roads, which will be improved to make them more pleasant and attractive places for everyone” // “Ensuring that people feel happy riding along London’s major roads and routes is a key barometer for how cycle-friendly our city is.” // “Main roads are fast, direct, easily navigable routes that Londoners want to use. That’s why our 'Go Dutch' campaign calls for clear space, Dutch-style, for cycling along major roads in every London borough.”
But, on the other hand, the LCC website says the Go Dutch campaign champions “continuity”: “Londoners will be able to make continuous, unobstructed journeys across London by bike.”
The two objectives are completely inconsistent! If you want to campaign for routes on specific main roads then why not – this may be successful and will be useful in many cases. But you cannot achieve route continuity by focusing on main roads. It is impossible.
Of course, the deeper problem with the main roads policy is that it is ideological. Main roads will always be needed in London for buses, lorries, vans and crowds of shoppers. The best that can be done is to put cycle lanes on these roads when it is optimal to do so. Ideologies typically replace such common sense (optimizing the opportunities available to cyclists in London) with an unrealistic demand (space should be made for cyclists on main roads as a matter of principle).
The saddest thing about ideologies is that they are based on fear. In this case, it’s a fear of buses, trucks and fast moving traffic. But a confrontational approach hardly ever works when it comes to fear. It may sell newspapers or make a campaign more popular, but it won’t be as effective.
A non-ideological approach would look something like this:
Objective number 1. Create a continuous, safe cycle network in London, which people can navigate around as easily as the Tube. This cannot be achieved only using main roads. Thus a good solution would be Parker’s London Cycle Map. (Some time ago, I issued a challenge to see if anyone could come up with a better solution, and no-one has).
Objective number 2. Make more roads and junctions in London - main roads and major junctions wherever possible - cycle-friendly.
We dispute your assertion that back roads are just as fast as main roads for cyclists.
In my experience, two things are true. First, you can cycle more directly using back roads – London’s main roads don’t always point in the exact direction you want to go. This makes back roads quicker. Second, London’s main roads are punctuated by traffic lights, which slow you up (unless you are one of those cyclists who speed through).
Not to mention all the buses, trucks and pedestrians, which, even if the LCC’s campaign is wildly successful, will continue to be a menace to cyclists on the vast majority of London’s main roads.
Many cyclists choose to take the faster, more direct routes on main roads for their regular journeys.
This may be one of the distorting effects of being in the LCC. Only the most ardent cyclists take the main roads. London's back streets, especially the networked ones, are full of cyclists. I see them streaming down de Beauvoir Road. I see them around Bloomsbury. I see them on cycle paths all over London. Many of these routes are fantastic, because they have been selected, over the course of thirty years, as being suitable for making direct and safe cycle journeys. Not making the most of this network and accumulated expertise is a tragic loss to the cycling community in London.
A final point is that millions of people cycle because it is above all pleasant. So even if some of London’s backstreets are slightly slower, most cyclists won’t mind! Who ever took up cycling purely because it was fast?
The key thing is that politicians and planners commit to having cycle facilities integrated into all future projects.
This doesn’t come across as the “key thing” in the Go Dutch campaign. I can’t see it mentioned anywhere. It doesn’t sound quite as exciting as reclaiming main roads!
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.
'The endgame,' said Koy Thompson when he was Chief Executive of the LCC, 'is the prioritisation, completion and signage of an effective London Cycle Network.' This was in 2009. Have the LCC’s priorities changed? What about the Bike Grid, which was clearly inspired by Parker’s London Cycle Map? Does the LCC no longer consider the Bike Grid to be a good option for providing continuous cycle routes? Do they consider Parker's map to be a better option?
Saying that the London Cycle Map Campaign is just about ‘signage’ is putting it pretty mildly. It’s about signage corresponding to an ingenious map which would make thousands of kilometers of safe, quiet, direct, well-provisioned cycle routes easily accessible to millions of Londoners who are terrified of buses and lorries. What’s not to like?
By way of a summary, I’m more than happy to champion two causes: more cycle lanes in London – on main roads wherever possible – and a continuous network of cycle routes. But I don’t see how the first can possibly achieve the second. And I suspect that the second will be a great way to achieve the first; once people start using a London Cycle Map en masse, the political landscape will change, making more cycle lanes more likely.
Daniel James Paterson is the founder of 
This is why I believe the 
