Keen cycle nuts in Sydenham ?

[Tim Lund]

My speedy response, from Perry Vale's (Labour) Cllr Paschoud, was to say that the suggested improvement in our ward - closing Sutherland Road to through traffic - was being modified following consultations with several local Lewisham Cyclists members - and that it wasn't a good idea to promise to close a road to traffic without consulting residents.

Which sounds like the normal stuff of local politics - the councillor, aware of a wider range of concerns, working to help develop something more workable. Not that exciting, TBH, and not likely to make any difference to these elections, but it's still a modest example of democracy working, not just because Lewisham Cyclists got into consultations with the councillor, but also because this campaign got the publicity - even if it got some details wrong.

More interesting, IMHO, are the strengths and directions of the longer terms signals, which in this case is that there are people out there who are sufficiently interested to argue for cycling in general, and so probably interested enough to vote. How many, and is their number increasing? To maintain its grip on power, should Labour in Lewisham take them seriously?

Obviously, if there are rather more messages coming in about the need to make Sydenham safe for the drivers of the larger vehicle, or provide free car parking for Bombastic of Bishopsthorpe, and his preponderantly car owning social class and age cohort, then it's not unreasonable for them to do nothing more than suggest modest improvements to initial suggestions.

ATM, I can't post the chart I'd like to, but it's the first you see on opening this pdf from the 201 National Travel Survey, which shows the percentage of driving licence holders among under 40s has having declined between 1995/97 and 2010. And that's national - in London, where residential densities have increased in the same period, reducing the need to have a licence - I would guess the trend will be all the stronger, but I can't find the data. So Labour Councillors equipped with any foresight will probably be getting ready to break it to car drivers, ever so gently, that their age will pass, and that tribal yowls about an alien dress-code will no longer resonate.

At which point, we should be able to get on to a dispassionate, principled discussion about what we want to do to reduce the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on our roads.

[hairybuddha]

Hear hear - The times they are a changing. A nice little graphic that has been doing the rounds recently:

[JohnPaschoud]

Interesting in 2 ways:

1) All my children (now all over 21) have resisted my occasional, old-fashioned, C20 suggestions that they should learn to drive (even / especially when offered an oversized Land Rover Defender to have a practice in, somewhere well away from public roads). I do think that if (as Town Planners) we're going to further encourage 'car-free living' in residential developments, we have to influence public transport more about not behaving as merely a service for weekday commuters, and concentrating all their maintenance closures into weekends and holidays; but that's a different battle.

2) Despite the fact that the motion I last brought to a Lewisham Full Council meeting on 20mph speed limits failed to result in massive popular acclaim, me being carried out on the shoulders of the cheering throng, etc, etc, I don't think that Labour in Lewisham has 'rejected' a borough-wide 20mph speed limit. It's complicated by the fact that TfL (i.e. Mayor Boris) and not Lewisham (i.e. Mayor Steve) controls some of the roads in our borough; and that funding for a lot of highway improvements depends largely on the political will/priorities of those in power nationally, or in London.

I understand that people should be receiving a leaflet from Steve Bullock (as Labour Mayoral candidate for Lewisham) shortly which will make clear that he promises to adopt a 20mph speed limit borough-wide. You can also find this on Steve's website, http://www.mayorsteve.co.uk/ - but it seems to be buried on page 18 of his full manifesto document. I'll urge him to make that pledge a bit more prominent if possible.

[stuart]

I understand that people should be receiving a leaflet from Steve Bullock (as Labour Mayoral candidate for Lewisham) shortly which will make clear that he promises to adopt a 20mph speed limit borough-wide. You can also find this on Steve's website, http://www.mayorsteve.co.uk/ - but it seems to be buried on page 18 of his full manifesto document. I'll urge him to make that pledge a bit more prominent if possible.

Thank you for pointing that out. While those of us who have a particular interest and understanding of road safety and the environment will presumably welcome it - page 18 might be the right place. Its not a vote winner and the misconceptions generated by the more disreputable media organs makes sensible discussion difficult. This is a bit of stealth I approve of ...

Stuart

[Tim Lund]

Thank you for pointing that out. While those of us who have a particular interest and understanding of road safety and the environment will presumably welcome it - page 18 might be the right place. Its not a vote winner and the misconceptions generated by the more disreputable media organs makes sensible discussion difficult. This is a bit of stealth I approve of ...

Stuart

And I'd guess you'd also advise gays to stay discreetly in the closet for fear of provking the Daily Mail vote?

[stuart]

Its a bit difficult answering non sequiturs Tim. I'll put it another way; pink lycra clad cyclists are not flavour of the month in some parts of STF as you are well aware. Well you have the right to wear pink and I'll fight your corner to do so. But banging on for 20 mph limits for the comfort of us is not going to help make it happen. Practical politics is about making things happen.

Getting 20 mph limits is about getting motorists to accept it as a worthwhile sacrifice to stop their kids getting killed and seriously injured. Its in their self interest. That's an easier sell than saving cyclists. Its something, hopefully, that Steve wants to do that is good but still likely to lose him votes rather than gain if exploited by the competition. So that's why it goes down the list.

Just as Dave Cameron didn't make gay marriage the major theme of the last election. Just put it quietly in the manifesto and use other vote winning ideas to enable you to do it. That's practical politics again.

Stuart

[hairybuddha]

Sheesh - A little bit over the line there Tim.

There's a wider question about the effectiveness of 20 mph zones. The most uncomfortable bit of my regular commute is Railton Rd in Lambeth which is a 20mph zone that is terribly designed and never respected or enforced, so utterly pointless in my view.

As a measure to encourage active travel 20mph is a very small part of a much wider agenda. But, following Stuart's lead, it might be the acceptable face of more radical interventions in the longer term.

[Robin Orton]

Just as Dave Cameron didn't make gay marriage the major theme of the last election. Just put it quietly in the manifesto [...]

He didn't though.

[Tim Lund]

Its a bit difficult answering non sequiturs Tim.

Since you understood the point, it couldn't have been that much of a non-sequitur.

I'll put it another way; pink lycra clad cyclists are not flavour of the month in some parts of STF as you are well aware. Well you have the right to wear pink and I'll fight your corner to do so. But banging on for 20 mph limits for the comfort of us is not going to help make it happen. Practical politics is about making things happen.

Getting 20 mph limits is about getting motorists to accept it as a worthwhile sacrifice to stop their kids getting killed and seriously injured. Its in their self interest. That's an easier sell than saving cyclists. Its something, hopefully, that Steve wants to do that is good but still likely to lose him votes rather than gain if exploited by the competition. So that's why it goes down the list.

Just as Dave Cameron didn't make gay marriage the major theme of the last election. Just put it quietly in the manifesto and use other vote winning ideas to enable you to do it. That's practical politics again.

Stuart

I wonder whether you think David Cameron or Ken Livngstone the more effective politician. I'm no great admirer of either, but I've always been impressed by the way Ken changed politics by embracing groups which were seen as deviant - such as gays, environmentalists, etc (I'd have preferred if the etc. hadn't included dictators and terrorists, but that's another matter ...). It was conventionally thought to be electoral suicide, but it wasn't; it won him groups of voters who had previously been sigmatised and ignored by other mainstream politicians. Fairly soon, being homophobic became a vote loser, at least in metropolitan London. Some decades later, David Cameron tried to repair the damage to the Conservatives, but still he fails.

I think we could have a similar situation - in London at least - with supporting 20 mph zones and other environmentally friendly transport policies such as cycling. It's probably still a minority of under 40s - that group with declining numbers driving cars - who actually cycle in London, but they are rather more likely to see cycling as cool, as opposed to "some parts of STF", of a certain age. They are also less likely to vote in the next election - but what about elections in ten or twenty years? Win them now, and the chances are they are yours for life. In the same way that banks focus their marketing on young people, because people rarely change bank, so should political parties, unless they have to be short term in the face of an uncertain upcoming election, because people tend to stick with the same party. And if ever there were elections where a party can afford to play the long game, it's Labour in Lewisham. Actually, it goes equally for the other parties, which obviously aren't going to win - if they could distinguish themselves in the same way, it would secure long term political gains, not least, helping bring in a new generation of activists.

[Tim Lund]

Sheesh - A little bit over the line there Tim.

You may think so, and I have given one response to Stuart above. But there's a more anthropological response; if society identifies some behaviour as alien, and for the sake of practical politics, you go along with this by being discreet, then you passively confirm this view, and if at the same time you try to advance your agenda by stealth, you will further reinforce the idea that you are deviant.

And it's quite easy, and actually quite fun to make these conventional, unthinking attitudes look somewhat out of touch

As an outstanding, but sometimes pedestrian, DNULAMC, I suggest Michael take a lead from cyclists, and wear a helmet fitted with a camcorder when venturing onto London Road, so that something better than anecdotal evidence could be brought before this august local tribunal.

What's happened to the cycle parking in the High St?

[hairybuddha]

Well of course you're right on the point of political science Tim. But to make even a passing comparison between gay rights and active travel policy is absurdly hyperbolic. I reckon you might have been focussing so hard on the man you missed the ball completely

I do like the idea of compulsory pedestrian helmets though. I mean, if it saves just one life...

[hairybuddha]

http://invisiblevisibleman.blogspot.co. ... d-why.html

Nice little article that touches on some of the issues discussed here (no, not gay rights).