Earl Aelfheah

That's not decline, it's a slowing in growth over 2 years (there have been similar spikey patterns in other areas over the last few years linked to changing commuting habits post-Covid). Of course, any single year will not tell you the whole picture, but the trend has been consistent; Cycling has been growing year on year for over a decade, as investments have been made in cycle infrastructure. And the recent boom in hire bikes has also been enabled by the existence of that infrastructure. I'm so bored of your completely predictable responses to anything to do with transport. It's great that we've seen consistent growth in cycling over many years now. The investment to get here has been tiny as a proportion of the overall TfL budget. It's a great success story. And it proves those that said "a low single digit percentage gain in cycling numbers is all any set of measures will ever deliver" wrong.

The sustained long term trend is clearly linked to infrastructure. Shorter term, the massive popularity of hire schemes (e.g. Lime etc) in the context of that infrastructure having been put in place, no doubt a big factor. Why do you think infrastructure isn’t relevant?

You've asked what people think is the catalyst, and immediately added that you're not buying the infrastructure message. 🤷‍♀️ I think it's fairly clear that the consistent, upward trend in cycling in London over a couple of decades now, demonstrates the impact of continued investment in infrastructure.

Eh? If you're not arguing that cycling might be replaced with another 'fad' that is not transport related (like hula hooping), why make the point? What does this mean? So you're not actually interested what people think is the catalyst then?

As soon as I started this thread, I knew Rockets would be here to downplay the data, or imply that it somehow shows bad value.. blah, blah. His responses across this section are effectively algorithmic - 'car v's bike - car good, bike bad'. I could write them before he does.

No, I'm simply answering the question you posed. You asked whether anyone had actually said that cycle lanes are some extravagant waste of time, and that cycling hasn't increased as a result. The answer is yes. You have said that. As DulvilleRes said, these stats really do put to bed some of that nonsense

Oh, OK. Well annually it's less than £150m , out of a total spend of around £11 billion. It's a tiny proportion of that total spend. Ok. I will. In response to @DulvilleRes rightly pointing out that: You asked: So I'm just answering your question. The answer is yes, you have said it. You said it here: ...and here: ...and here: ...and here: Hope that helps.

Did anyone actually say that? Yes they did: I don't know where the £800m figure comes from. TfL's business plan shows a recurring budget for "Healthy Streets" of £150 million a year (pre-inflation). That fund supports walking, cycling, bus priority and other sustainable transport initiatives (so not just 'cycling infrastructure'). For context, TfL's total annual spend is around £11 billion. As already stated, cycling in London is now equivalent to nearly half of all tube journeys, so a 1% ish investment doesn't seem excessive. According to the IPPR for every pound spent on 'active travel' there is an average return on investment of £5.62.

So even the most brightly dressed may be ‘invisible’. Ffs 🤦‍♂️ If you can’t see, you don’t proceed. You don’t just drive ‘blind’.

If someone is travelling by bicycle on a well lit city street - just going about their lawful business (i.e. they have lights and reflectors when it’s dark), then they are visible. If they’re injured by someone driving into them because they ‘haven’t been seen’, then it’s because someone hasn’t been driving with due care and attention. …and when you say that because they haven’t followed advice that they “choose the risks they run and I see no reason for sympathy when their luck runs out”, you are victim blaming. You haven’t actually paid attention to what’s been said then. Looking without seeing heh? Perhaps the words aren’t bright enough.

Literally no one is doing that

I think all two legged contraptions are the same and so would treat that scenario as if it were a kangaroo. Seriously? One might reasonably suggest they carry lights and possibly some sort of reflector. But of course the appropriate comparison is if they were walking in a brightly lit city street.

It wasn't. The pavements generally were super slippery.

Yes, of course. Although most of the collisions, and nearly all of the most serious collisions, involve cars. And no one is suggesting it's anyone else's business what others wear when walking or driving.

The bottom line for me, is that people should be able to go about their lawful business without someone driving a car into them. Whether that's on foot, or bicycle, or in another car! So you should obviously abide by the law, but beyond that, anything you might choose to do, is a personal choice. The clothing you wear is not for others to police or judge you for.

There are Christmas lights?! Or a, I missing something?

Yep, there are lot's of other examples. His ex campaign chief described him as a 'snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive' man.

I fear it's not a case of whether they tolerate it - many actively embrace it. He is really bad under pressure. All the fake bonhomie falls away and you see the thin skinned, aggressive bully, just under the surface. The one that many who have worked (and inevitably fallen out) with him describe. People ultimately will make up their own mind about the kind of man he is; But the fact that as a teenager teachers described him as openly racist, leaves me little doubt that the accounts from numerous ex-schoolmate are true. He has spent much of his adult life espousing divisive and xenophobic policies and rhetoric, and in Europe, aligned himself with far-right parties. He has already done huge, lasting damage to this country in my opinion. I sincerely hope people aren't stupid enough to be taken in by him again.

What facts? You suggest all "two wheeled contraptions" should be treated the same, then imply the "need for more stringent [sic] laws about what you can and can't do on a bicycle", and talk endlessly about illegally modified, electric bikes. The corollary of those arguments is that bicycles should be regulated in same way as mopeds. That's clearly ridiculous, and so I've asked you to clarify what your actual point is, rather than just relying on the usual innuendo and evasive 'just asking questions' rhetorical device. Apparently you don't need to have a point though according to first mate 🤣. As for distraction - this thread wasn't about e-bikes, or Amsterdam. You've taken it off topic, in pursuit of your weird, anti-bicycle obsession.

Both things are true. There is a problem with Alleyn's coaches, but it's a problem more generally too. It amazes me how many people just sit, parked in their cars with the engine running, especially outside schools.

Particularly notable is the growth in inner London, which actually outstrips Central - cycling is up 12.8 percent in central, 14.8 percent in inner London and 9.9 percent in outer London. Cycling now accounts for nearly half of all tube journeys in London – up from a third in just a couple of years.

What point do you think you're making here? If we accept your (ridiculous) assertion, that all "two wheeled contraptions" are the same and should be regulated accordingly; That there is a "need for more stringent laws about what you can and can't do on a bicycle" - then what? It implies that you think bicycles should all be regulated as though they're illegally modified electric powered bikes ('mopeds' as they're designated in UK law). This is just a load of pedantic nonsense. Again, what exactly is it you're calling for?

More big increases in cycling in London... "Cycling journeys in the capital have increased by 43% over the past six years to 1.5 million a day": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly02lljdero?app-referrer=deep-link

Because the suggestion we should regulate all 'two wheeled contraptions' as though they are powerful electric mopeds, regardless of whether or not they are, is obviously silly.

They're not the very same bike though, if one has been illegally modified. Any vehicle can be illegally modified - by definition putting it into another category. This is just a nonsense argument.