Possibly in Newham's case, lack of bandwidth.
Broadly agree. We've got a movement of councils wanting to scrap or reduce car parking charges while we simultaneously see these folks wringing hands and trying to delay or weaken rollout of dockless etc. ZipCar should be a cautionary tale to councils & City Hall. It apparently hasn't been so far.
Dockless bikes have expanded diversity & popularity of cycling in London. Yes, there are issues with parking, rollout of bays. But London's councils using contracts as revenue streams to create a patchwork of checkpoints & no-go zones threatens uptake. Bad move. www.standard.co.uk/news/transpo...
That's likely what will happen under the Devolution Bill. But it's years away and councils are very cash strapped currently. So...
Going to need some more bike racks at The Strand. Plus people sitting, chatting in 13 degree March. @londoncycling.bsky.social Build a Low Traffic West End. Now.
Your regular reminder that the UK is in fact a high trust society and anyone who implies it isn’t is either selling you a pup or has bought one.
Every time a politician or campaigner tells you that not everyone can cycle or that we need to bring everyone with us or that we need to balance modes and priorities ask yourself what have they done about all the cars...
(Answer: probably hardly anything useful)
Hopefully not uncalm, am somewhat bewildered by the comments by them so far. But happy to hear they're generally an ally.
Given your only response was to suggest correlation between bus ridership and speeds is even higher than London, given that correlation wasn't queried at all in piece, then what point are you trying to make here? Please be clearer? I think you missed point of piece by not engaging with it.
Thread from @londoncycling.bsky.social has more on correlational analysis I did of London boroughs level of rollout of cycle infrastructure & drop in bus speeds. There is no relation between level of cycle tracks & LTNs delivered and drop in bus speeds, basically, in London: bsky.app/profile/lond...
Thread from @londoncycling.bsky.social has more on correlational analysis I did of London boroughs level of rollout of cycle infrastructure & drop in bus speeds. There is no relation between level of cycle tracks & LTNs delivered and drop in bus speeds, basically, in London: bsky.app/profile/lond...
It's shameful way bus user groups, bus industry & Lords routinely blame cycling for their woes while ignoring the rising & ever-present issue of too much traffic. TfL has done entire studies on this. But hey, climate, pollution, road danger, inactivity. Who cares right? Let's kick cycling some more.
Tells very different story. Bus times & walking, wheeling & cycling safety & amenity are *all* impacted by a political failure to collectively reduce unnecessary car use. In London most motor vehicle journeys could be done relatively easily other ways says TfL. That's the issue. Not cycling...
And that has no correlation to bus speed drops (see bsky.app/profile/lond... for additional context). London & indeed much of UK has seen endless attacks on cycling by bus lobbyists/ bus industry - from floating bus stop design to Lords claiming repeatedly cycle schemes delay buses. But data...
That then is causing ridership drops? Not cycle tracks or LTNs in London at the very least. Indeed, nationally, the primary correlation from bus speeds seems to be... can you guess... it's not difficult: private motor vehicle volumes. Build all the cycle tracks as some London boroughs have...
Hi there, you appear not to have read the actual article I wrote. A key quote that rather means you've missed the point of it "These are undisputed facts. What is disputed is why bus speeds keep dropping and what to do about that and falling ridership." In other words, why are bus speeds falling...
"Car traffic is the problem, not... bikes". Our @psimonk.bsky.social in @transportxtra.bsky.social on the fake 'buses v cycling' culture war. www.transportxtra.com/publications...
Many bus industry folks blame cycling, incl cycle tracks & LTNs for falling bus speeds. Piece left out (due to space)...
Remind me: when you bomb an elementary school, lure the survivors into a false sense of safety, and then bomb the survivors, leaving behind dozens and dozens of dead school children... are you the good guys?
Regardless of the rights & wrongs of attacking Iran's horrific leadership, you don't just unilaterally attack another country then out loud tell the world "rules of engagement" are "stupid", let alone your mandate is 'whatever we want to attack we do'. Fascists, basically & terrifying ones at that.
I broadly like these tests for how to hold & debate "legitimate concerns" around immigration. They nail 'how to have a sane discussion on a difficult topic'. But they not unreasonably miss proportionality & a wider debate on alternatives, eg taxing billionaires more instead of cutting immigration...
I'm not a fan of dismissing election observers although I'd like to know a lot more about this lot generally and I'd really like to know why they didn't raise concerns during the election period and indeed what they were recording as 'family voting'. Other than that, this thread is 👌👌👌
If ever you needed a front page to capture the crass yet also dangerous silliness of so much of our media, and the impact of right wing nationalism which has done so much harm through a history from which some seem so unable to learn
All for that question being asked of her!
First response from Starmer seems to view Green 'extremists' as same as Reform ones and 'both sides' both sides, leaving Labour the 'one true ring' on an ideological & fast-shrinking sliver of a platform. Looks a bit more 'moral' than I was expecting but even worse overall bsky.app/profile/psim...
Is it 'not a mistake'? I'd like to see a lot more to show exactly that for sure. Greens are definitely drawing in some less savoury activists, unsurprisingly, from far left but on other hand, Labour proscribed Palestine Action etc. Again, you're missing point I'm trying to make IMO by both sidesing.
Bang on assessment IMO. Comparing far right and far left as being effectively similar makes no sense in general terms, but specifically plays badly for Labour that has traditionally drawn from the left. Starmer risks standing on a vanishingly thin centre & looks weird for it. Play the policies, man.
This makes category error Starmer must most not make. Again, he's suggesting 'only' the one true ring can bind them all under Labour - it looks more than a bit deranged, but also it 'both sides' two very different sides, with very different motivations. He's saying 'hate' is bad, but so is 'hope'!
PS 4. My gosh this is unhinged as a response: bsky.app/profile/saul... Starmer suggesting that the extreme left *and* extreme right are both similarly trying to "tear" the country apart? Argue that far left politics & policy is idiotic all you like, but they're not generally racists & fascists...
Best get on with it then, hadn't they?
And tonally, all they've had is 'attack'. That's a massive and key difference not just for this by-election but for the whole of the UK. The Greens are managing to paint a progressive vision across policy areas currently. Labour look punch-drunk, dithery and mean without a coherent platform IMO.
