Talk:Cycling in London

Cycling Commisioner and Mayor's Vision for Cycling in London

Andrew Gilligan's appointment as Cycling Commissioner for London and the Mayor's new Vision document which outlines numerous extremely ambitious plans should be integrated into this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkFSmith (talk • contribs) 19:35, 14 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Expansion of the Cycle Hire

The continued expansion of the London Cycle Hire Scheme in 2013 and 2014 should be documented also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkFSmith (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Cycling in London has enjoyed a renaissance since the millennium.

This is a triumphant opening, and I don't deny their are more cyclists on Londons roads now than when I started cycling on them in the 1970's but it's pretty woeful for a lead section. WP:LS Has anyone got any statistics on the percentage of journeys by bicycle in London now in comparison to the 1930s, 1940s or 1950s? Mighty Antar (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Both triumphant and woeful ?

woeful (adj)

1.Characterized by, expressive of, or causing sorrow or misery.

2.Very bad; deplorable: "woeful ignorance".

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Triumphant tone and woeful quality. That text is long gone, anyway. — Scott • talk 14:02, 12 March 2013‎ (UTC)

On Road Conditions.

Cyclists "Need to stay out of the left side of the road". Whilst I take the point about accidents where cyclists are crushed against railings, this appears to be suggesting that we should all be riding in the middle of lanes at all times, which as anyone who rides a bike in London will know, is impractical most of the time and likely to result in a volley of abuse from car drivers at best. Not sure the article should include what is after all, one persons opinion on safety. (Dead celeb (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

Material on lane positioning from 195.137.93.171 (talk), part 1

CycleCraft - John Franklin - Published by The Stationery Office, but not legally sanctioned. "The primary riding position (mid-lane) should be your normal riding position when you can keep up with the (other) traffic, when you neeed to emphasise your presence to traffic ahead, or when you need to prevent drivers behind you passing unsafely." Obviously, when turning right or changing lanes to the right, it may be better to 'take the lane' rather than Lane splitting. Transport for London - Get cycling - Cycle safety "On narrow roads, it may be safer riding in the middle of the lane to prevent dangerous overtaking" National Cycle Training Standard Level 2 - 'Bikeability' - Department for Transport “The primary riding position is in the centre of the leftmost moving traffic lane for the direction in which you wish to travel” (Franklin, Cyclecraft). Can also be referred to as “taking the lane”: riding in the primary position in the lane chosen, commonly where there is lane discipline. A rider may also take the lane at a junction to prevent following vehicles from overtaking. Secondary Position - Between a half and one metre from the edge of the leftmost moving traffic lane for the direction in which you wish to travel. Not in the gutter. Understand where to ride on roads being used Cyclists should not cycle in the gutter. Where there is little other traffic and/or there is plenty of room to be overtaken they may ride in the secondary position. Where the road is narrow and two-way traffic would make it dangerous for the cyclist to be overtaken by a following vehicle they may choose to ride in the primary position. If the cyclist is riding at the speed of other traffic then they should do so in the primary position. Reasoning Cyclists may be wary of cycling in the primary position as this will put them in the path of motor traffic when their natural instinct might be to keep away from it. However, where appropriate, it will actually offer them more protection as they will be able to see more, be seen more easily by other road users and most importantly it will prevent drivers from attempting to overtake them where the road is too narrow. If unsure, the default position is the primary position." Even on tiny country lanes, primary position can be used to prevent them overtaking on blind corners. National Cycle Training Standard Level 3 - 'Bikeability' - Department for Transport "When using a junction with traffic lights cyclists should always take the lane that is appropriate for the manoeuvre they wish to carry out" 'take the lane' as defined above - the whole lane. ... "where speed limits are 40 mph or more they will be unlikely to feel safe in doing so. They may therefore take up a position slightly left of the secondary position." Hmmm ... that's contradictory. Might link to the 'dismount' suggestion ? Can we presume there will be very wide lanes or a 'hard shoulder' in 40mph zones ? ... "an alternate, quieter route might be chosen."

So, not just "one person's opinion" !

Material on lane positioning from 195.137.93.171 (talk), part 2

I'm not sure whether Franklin or Vehicular cycling in the US came first - probably parallel development. ... and the citation in the article is 'City Cycling' by Richard Ballantyne ! The Highway Code - Rules for cyclists (59-82) The Highway Code is not law in itself, but can be used in court as evidence. It generally uses 'You MUST' for Law and 'You SHOULD' for guidance. Not sure where we are in the re-drafting and re-issuing cycle. Expect changes. NB The illustration for 59 shows a stationary cyclist with his foot on the kerb, ready to start from rest. No doubt he will extend his right arm to signal his intention to do so, having ascertained there is no traffic approaching by looking over his right shoulder. Not to ride in the gutter 2" from the edge of the road ! He may also dismount to tuck his right jeans leg into his sock to prevent it catching in the chain, and put his 'Sam Browne' yellow belt+sash on the right way round. 66 You should ... "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" (used to say "narrow busy roads" ... hmmm ... IIRC ) 67 You should "look all around before moving away from the kerb, turning or manoeuvring, to make sure it is safe to do so. Give a clear signal to show other road users what you intend to do" "look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path" ... "moving away from the kerb" ie when starting from rest. "obstructions in the road" usually prevent approaching closer than ~18" to the kerb If you touch the kerb with your front wheel, you will probably fall off. Needs about 12" wobble-room for safety. 3 cyclists killed in London in 2 years by parked motorists opening their doors without looking, allegedly. Even if there is a long gap between parked cars, moving left into it will make it dangerous to move right again if you are still being overtaken at the end of the gap. Hence we try to maintain the primary position. The Highway Code - Overtaking (162-169) 163 "Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should ... give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car 167 ... stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left The photo shows a car passing almost on the other side of the road, but many motorists seem to think "I give cars 3 inches clearance, so I'll give bikes 3 inches". The point is that mid-lane is primary - only give way to 2 feet (60cm) from the edge if you are sure it is safe. Up to a point, cyclists should resist intimidation - we don't want to train motorists to 'drive at the cyclists: they'll get out of the way'. A mirror can be useful, but eye contact is needed as well.

Unfortunately no-one seems to have educated, or even consulted, the majority of the motorists! Seems we have to do it one-by-one ourselves.

The Institute of Advanced Motorists have taken it on board, though!

Or the police !

NB also 'Mandatory Cycle Lanes' (solid outline) mean motorists must not use them, not that cyclists must use them !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your time spent on this issue. As the material you quote is rather long I've taken the liberty of putting it in a couple of expanding boxes above in order to make reading this page more manageable.

While there are undoubtedly many sources that address the issue of the safest position to ride, this is not the correct place for it to be discussed - that is a topic for the article bicycle safety. None of the sources you quote relate specifically to London, so using them as if they did would be synthesis. If there are sources presenting selected safety recommendations for London riding, those could perhaps be discussed as a whole, but as it is a contentious topic I suspect there will be little other than opinion pieces on the matter.

As a result I have modified the section of the article in question to keep it specific to the topic. — Scott • talk 11:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bias in the article

This article reads like an advert for Transport for London. It gives the picture that cycling conditions in London are great and that any accidents which occur are the fault of the cyclist. To quote: "Cycling in London is sometimes perceived as unsafe. However, as London Cycling Campaign and Transport for London write, the risks are negligible if certain rules are followed." There has been much criticism of TfL's attitude to cyclists from various quarters, including bloggers, cycling organisations, newspapers and medical professionals. The article doesn't even touch upon these criticisms, never mind going into any meaningful detail.

Furthermore, the statistics in the "Safety" section lack any context, for example, there is no comparison of the figures with other cities across the country and throughout the world. They also seem to focus on fatalities and don't mention non-fatal injuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas42 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The city and the City and the other city too

User:Hex quite understandably replaced "around town" with "around the city" as less chatty, but perhaps was unaware of London usage. "The City" refers to the City of London, an area of a little over a square mile centred on the old Roman town. It's a small but significant part of Greater London along with 32 boroughs which (did I say this would be simple?) include another city, the City of Westminster where the UK legislature meets and monarchs are crowned. "The City" has its own mayor, not to be confused with the Mayor of London who is the executive head of the Greater London Assembly based in City Hall in the London Borough of Southwark, across the river from the cities.
"Around town" isn't great either, as it's generally used to refer to Central London but that is where the greatest concentration of jobs is and hence the greatest density of cycling. It'll do. 19:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, I'm quite aware of what the City is. Thanks for the completely unwarranted and patronising lecture that I didn't bother to read, what with having spent my entire life living in London, where I was born.

The phrase "the city" refers to London in its entirety. Which is the topic of this article, despite your curious assertion regarding cycling density. The phrase "The City" refers to the City of London. Colloquialisms such as "around town" are not encyclopedia writing style; and, even if we did, "around town" can and would be used to describe the act of cycling around any town or city. It won't do at all. So I'm putting it back. — Scott • talk 19:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologise. I hoped to amuse you but instead produced something you didn't even want to read. I didn't want to patronise you and am aware that you've been creating and improving Wikipedia so long that it would be ludicrously inappropriate.

You find my assertion regarding cycling density "curious". That density shows up in Transport for London reports repeatedly. The 2007 report http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/London-Travel-Report-2007-final.pdf shows data from the 2001 census in Chart 4.5.6 (page 53) and 2009 figures are mapped in Fig 13.14 on page 336 of http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Travel_in_London_Report_2.pdf .

As for town/city, well, I still don't think someone cycling in Croydon or Golders Green would say they were cycling in the city, or that "around town" would refer to anywhere but London in this article. But could I prove it to you? Not easily, especially after getting off on the wrong foot, and it would still be a waste of your time. Enough. NebY (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Safety section needs complete rewrite

There are several problem with this section.

TfL have given warnings in their annual road casualty reports that a focus upon fatalities, especially cycling fatalities, can be misleading as the numbers are relatively small. Common practice amongst road safety professionals is to use either Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI), or total casualties. The Government, Mayor and TfL all use KSI as a basis for their targets. To illustrate the problem with this wikipedia report, it mentions that 40% of incidents are lorry related, which gives a wildly inaccurate impression. This is actually a figure derived from fatalties. Action on lorries is undoubtedly important and there is a strong emotional case for ending the tipper truck menace, but TfL state that in 2011, there were 571 cycling KSIs, but only 20 of these involved an HGV. This is way off being 40%.

There is no historical context to this safety section, despite the real sense that things have started to go wrong in recent years. Casualty trends are an essential tool in understanding what is working and what is not working. When clear trends have been identified, we can start to examine what has changed in behaviour or policy to account for these changes. The up turn in cycling casualties (post 2006/7) are a key problem. This recent trend is related to the longer term shift which has seen vulnerable road users account for a higher proportion of a shrinking number of total road casualties. In 2011, according to TfL's Travel in London report, the casualty rate increased four times faster than the increase in cycle trips. We saw vehicles become safer, whilst roads became more dangerous.

Full fact have done an excellent analysis of all this, although it does need to be update with the 2011 figures. http://fullfact.org/factchecks/London_2012_cycling_safer_Boris_Johnson-15096

213.86.122.5 (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Iwin1961

Cycling Commissioner

Does this really need its own section, or even a mention in the lede? Boris appointing someone as a two-day-a-week commissioner seems rather less significant than the introduction of hire bikes, or the superhighway plans. --McGeddon (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. As part of the overhaul of the article I'm doing, I've moved it from the lede to the safety section. — Scott • talk 23:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead image

@Andrew Davidson: I see you undid a change while I was working on this. I can't disagree more that containing a landmark is more important for the lead image of an article called "cycling in London" than actually containing people cycling in London. It's also a terrible photograph, showing as it does two random middle-aged men in suits posing for no obvious reason. It's not representative of the core content of this article. — Scott • talk 21:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently it's a couple of MPs preparing for the annual MPs' bike race, and racing isn't covered anywhere in the article. The Hyde Park Corner image isn't perfect, but seems significantly more representative of the article content. --McGeddon (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Per TFL], "frequent cyclists are typically white, male, between 25 to 44, and on a higher than average income". The MPs are therefore reasonably representative. And it seems good that we should have a conspicuous London landmark in the picture. As for racing, we should have some coverage of that too. It's not so long since we had the Olympics and I took lots of photos of the cycling at that. And the Tour de France will be arriving soon... Andrew (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find that 99% of cyclists are not also typically Members of Parliament, and that typical cycling activities don't include participating in races, so no, this photograph is not at all representative. If you want to find a photograph of some people actually utility cycling in London that also includes a landmark, I'm sure there's at least one on Flickr. Or you could take one yourself on Westminster Bridge at 8:30 on a weekday morning. (I would be more than happy if you did. I might try, if I'm around there - as I agree with McGeddon that the Hyde Park Corner photo isn't great - but I'm not a very good photographer either.) Until then, I'm changing the image back to one that shows normal people engaging in utility cycling, sorry. — Scott • talk 23:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll be happy to learn that there's now a photo prominently featuring Big Ben in the article again courtesy of a license grant from Zefrog. :) — Scott • talk 13:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• The photos are better, thanks. I have plenty of other fish to fry but if you're taking a break, I'll perhaps make a pass through the page myself. Andrew (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure; I have a busy week coming up that probably won't allow me a period to exert the sustained focus to restructure the core of the article. As I see it, the safety issues are inextricably bound up with the developmental history; being separated in the fashion they have been until now has lead to a lot of duplication or should-it-go-here-or-there problems. So my plan is to rework them both into a coherent narrative. Also, I know nothing about sport cycling, and the article is lacking in coverage of that area; it seems like that's something you could bring in from your knowledge? — Scott • talk 15:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cycling in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5yo1Hlskj?url=http://www.lcc.org.uk/ to http://www.lcc.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)