The London Cycling Campaign has always argued that the typical active member of that group is white, male, and middle class (fortunately, and due in part to the efforts of the LCC this is begining to change). Hackney does have poor areas, but it is also next to the City, and is home to some of London’s more affluent populace. As I argued in the article it is a combination of factors that are at work here. On another note, The ‘Standard’ article referenced above baffled us all with it’s claim that Hackney’s success is due to cycle lanes, because there simply are none, there are plenty of cycle routes however.

Andrew and I are 100% on the same page about this!

I think connecting low-volume roads has a greater potential to increase cycling (especially short-trip cycling) than bike lanes. If I was thinking about going to the store with kids, I’d be more inclined to do it on a series of quiet streets than in a bike lane on a busy highway.

Twice in December I rode with my mother (who is new to cycling) and observed her comfort level. It was instructive to see the road and facilities from the perspective of the “target audience” of most PnP advocacy. Mom was much more comfortable on the quiet streets than on any of the bike infrastructure. The side path on U.S. 98 was fine (albeit extremely noisy), until it unceremoniously dumped us onto a sidewalk and then a parking lot. It’s really unhelpful to build stuff like that without a commitment to terminate it sensibly in a way that facilitates the cyclists’ reintegration. But again, we lack an underpinning of respect for bicycle transportation that is the foundation for good facilities, civility and lawful behavior.

…

Another important point in the hierarchy. Pedestrians must come first. Pedestrian fatality rates are so much higher than cyclist FARs.

Any “sprawl-city” that tried to do that would be a ghost town in five years.

1.10 The Hackney Transport Strategy adopts a hierarchy of road users which places cyclists in the second place, after pedestrians:
• Pedestrians
• Cyclists
• Public transport users
• Powered two wheelers
• Freight distribution (local)
• Car users (multi-occupancy)
• Car users (local)
• Car users (non-local)

Good!!!!

…. and then this further on …

3.10 Well designed routes, reduced traffic speeds, designated road space, and more parking facilities will encourage more cycling in Hackney. In keeping with MTS – Streets reference 4G.Po2 – in balancing the use of street space, Hackney will take into account the new road hierarchy proposed in the Hackney Transport Strategy. This provides for a general presumption in favour of vehicle distribution on the TLRN and most other ‘A’ roads. On other roads and local routes there is a presumption in favour of access and amenity, particularly for residents, buses, pedestrians and cyclists.

As I read this, what they are saying is that certain roads may have a presumption for autos (hi speed arterials, I am guessing) and then other roads a presumption for pedestrians and cyclists (lower speed neighborhood-type roads).

This makes some sense for I think most cyclists would prefer staying off the hi volume/hi speed roads. But when you don’t have the connectors between neighborhoods, you are forced onto these high-speed roads.

I’m thinking …. perhaps when we talk about “infrastructure” we need to be putting a higher imphasis on “connectors” between neighborhoods ……….

mindlessness:
inanity: total lack of meaning or ideas
heedlessness: the trait of acting rashly and without prudence

People who place the promotion of cycling BEFORE the rights and well-being of cyclists are a powerful force for making things worse for us. People who burst onto the advocacy scene without thoughtful research and consideration of the problems, the possibilities and the unintended consequences of various “solutions” are a powerful force for making things worse for us.

Whether you agree with my positions or not, they are based on experience, education and thoughtful research into the legal and cultural issues faced by cyclists. And where I have developed “hostility” toward certain actions, it is far from mindless.

I do believe that infrastructure is part of the solution. I have never said otherwise. And I discuss good infrastructure solutions in a number of my posts. But infrastructure—whether is it greenways, connector-spurs, bike lanes or side paths—needs to be appropriate and well-thought-out. WAY too often it is not. Instead it is the product of political expedience to please a constituency that is not mature or thoughtful in its advocacy. If you look through many of the DOT studies, you’ll see a pattern… “what’s the minimum we can do to get the bicyclists out of the way while tricking them into thinking we did them a favor.”

visit: http://bicyclingmatters.wordpress.com/

We are legitimate vehicle drivers and we are entitled to the same rights, safety, acceptance and respect on the road as any others. In many states, ill-conceived bicycle advocacy has resulted in a reduction of those rights to mandatory facilities.

Why not a both-and approach for starters? Make motorists pay the real costs of driving– i.e. more– AND couple that with infrastructure improvements to facilitate a broader mode shift to the bicycle.

And let’s drop the mindless hostility while we’re at it.

But Andy always denies this applies to the USA. Here, it’s all infrastructure, all the time. Shameless.

http://www.hackney.gov.uk/local_implementation_plan_-_hackney_cycle_plan.pdf

http://www.londoncyclenetwork.org.uk/uploaded_files/library/documents/22%20hackney.pdf

http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/2008/12/hackney-insults-memory-of-dead-cyclist.html

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/6487.aspx

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23414744-details/Cycling+in+the+square+mile/article.do

This last link make the point about demographics and economics, which always play stronger roles than infrastructure or education. Hackney has a younger, somewhat poorer population than neighboring London. And a key factor is the London congestion fee of 8 pounds per day (about 11 dollars) to enter the central city. No doubt American cities would see significant cycling increases with such a fee. So if you’re a young person of modest income living in Hackney and commuting to London, cycling is natural solution.

I spent some time on the links provided with the London Cycling Campaign. Looks like this was a grass-roots effort, started by a few and it slowly grew to the point of hitting a critical mass, then has really taken off recently. I notice a large part of their effort is education-based (both with young kinds as well as “mums”) getting people to cycle.

Interesting ….