Earl Aelfheah

Yes, I've read your posts. When you talk about 'years of decline in growth', that language is chosen to give a misleading impression. You've repeatedly made a false claim about a promise of a 10 fold increase in cycling, suggested that 'promise' was used to obtain funding, and referenced £800m alongside it. That is entirely misleading and is clearly intended to minimise the success described in the BBC article, by presenting it as some sort of failure against a target that didn't exist. To be clear, there have been significant increases in cycling numbers, a trend sustained over many years. This is the result, at least in significant part, of a relatively modest investment (somewhere around 1% of TfL's annual budget) in better cycling infrastructure.

You’ve repeatedly talked about TfL lobbying for money on the ‘promise’ of a ten fold increase in cycling, alongside an £800m investment. There was no 'promise' - that is false. As is the impression that £800m was somehow linked to such a promise. No, the corrections and clarifications started when you questioned whether anyone had suggested cycle lanes were a waste of time / that cycling hasn't increased as a result, implying no one had - so I pointed out that you have - multiple times. You also made that false claim of a ‘promise of a ten fold increase’ in that first post, and talked about £800m spent since 2019 - giving the impression of huge investments in cycle infrastructure, without placing it in the context of annual TfL spend of circa £11 billion. You later started talking of ‘repeated years of growth decline’ and asked what people think is the catalyst for this - a dishonest rhetorical framing to anchor a misleading narrative of 'decline' in the premise - adding ‘I am not buying the infrastructure message’ (underlying further that it was not an honest question). So not 'attacks', but attempts to correct some of the inaccuracies, and highlight misleading statements.

Did anyone actually make this claim - or are you putting words into people's mouths again? You've repeatedly referenced a 'promise of a tenfold increase' that was nothing of the sort, and suggested it was linked to getting £800m of funding, which it was not. It's neither true, nor relevant to this thread: As for this: Nope. Wrong. Carefully re-read the press release. I have. And I read it in the context of Mayors questions and discussions that took place at the time. Have you read it? You've quoted this from the press release 👇 It is also says in the release: "if demand returns." (which you've omitted). What did I say, it was to "accommodate a possible ten-fold increase in cycling and five-fold increase in walking compared to pre-COVID levels should demand return and social distancing remain in place”. Almost word for word from the press release, but even clearer if you read the broader discussions around this at the time. And again, relevant how? You're trying to minimise what is significant and sustained growth in cycling over many years, by misrepresenting something said in 2020. Why? It's just nonsense tactics to deflect and obfuscate in the face of news that doesn't fit the narrative you've been pushing that bike infrastructure is ineffective.

I'm sorry, but the Mayor did not promise a tenfold increase as a condition to "get" a specific £800 million investment: In December 2016, the Mayor pledged a record £770 million investment in cycling initiatives over five years (equating to about £154 million annually), which was near the spending levels of cycling-friendly nations like Denmark and the Netherlands (I don't believe this actually happened by the way). The idea of a potential "tenfold" increase in cycling emerged later during the pandemic as a potential outcome of the new Streetspace policies, not as a target tied to securing a specific £800 million fund. There was a concern in May 2020 (when we had no vaccination for COVID and were due to come out of lockdown), that should social distancing remain in place and demand returned to pre-lockdown levels, London's public transport capacity would potentially be reduced to a fifth of pre-crisis levels. That would leave millions of journeys a day needing to be made by other means. The mayor said at the time that "If people were to switch even a small fraction of those journeys to cars London risks grinding to a halt". They proposed an extension to the bike network and extended pavements, to accommodate a possible ten-fold increase in cycling and five-fold increase in walking compared to pre-COVID levels should demand return and social distancing remain in place - accommodate a possible increase, not create it. As it turned out, demand didn't immediately return and the development and roll out of vaccines removed the need for social distancing to remain in place when it did (so public transport capacity returned to normal). What you have stated is just wrong, and irrelevant to this discussion. As usual, you're just recycling talking points from Facebook groups and 'bloody cyclists' Twitter rants. The rhetorical framing (using the language of 'declines', when describing increases), the cherry picking of data points (ignoring a clear trend), the quotes taken out of context and misrepresented; It's boring. Instead of the 'just asking questions' nonsense and hackneyed propaganda recycled from social media, have an original thought and say what it is clearly. Why are you quoting the LCC - are you saying that's your view?

Do you read what's said before you respond? Rockets was talking about people being 'dazzled at junctions' If you are in a car at a junction and are dazzled / can't see, you don't proceed. And the point - effectively that it makes no difference what you wear if someone isn't driving with due care and attention, is exactly what I've been saying. Whilst it may be wise to wear bright colours, in a generally well lit city environment where you already have lights and reflectors you will already be perfectly visible to those driving cautiously and attentively - it will make no difference to those who are not.

You might slow down if you're momentarily dazzled and you're not at risk of colliding with anyone. You don't proceed at a junction, if you're blinded and at risk of driving into someone (the example given above). What don't you understand about stopping 'if necessary'? This all kind of illustrates the point - regardless of what you're wearing, there will always be some who will claim that they 'couldn't' see you. If you're operating heavy machinery in a built up area you need to be extremely vigilant / careful.

Commuting into London also dipped massively post lockdown. The same pattern (even a more stark one) can be observed with other forms of transport over the same time period. Lot's of businesses have been asking their staff to 'return to the office', and that's accelerated this year. There is also the massive popularity of bike hire schemes, enabled by cycling infrastructure that makes it 'less scary' to bike. But mostly, you're refusing to see the wood for the trees and cherry picking data points (what a shock). The trend over time has actually been remarkably consistent (see the graph I posted). I always say what I mean and usually point to evidence. Why don't you? What do you think is the 'cause' of this supposed 'significant change in the growth rate'?

It’s been answered. But also it’s not an honest question. It’s just an attempt to minimise what is a success story, as is the out of context reference to past statements made during lockdown, and the language of ‘declines’ . These constant tactics of rhetorical framing, cherry picking and inuendo are so tedious. Why don't you tell us what you think it is. You obviously have a view.

Stopping if necessary, is not proceeding. And this: Just proves the point being made. You can wear whatever you want, there is always someone who will claim they 'couldn't see you' - that's not good enough. If you proceed even when you can't see what's coming / in front of you, then you aren't driving with due care and attention. And if someone is going about their lawful business, they don't 'deserve' to have someone drive into them (including in cases where one may disagree with their clothing choices).

In summary. There have been significant increases in cycling numbers, a trend sustained over many years. This is the result, at least in significant part, of a relatively modest investment (somewhere around 1% of TfL's annual budget) in better cycling infrastructure. And yes, it should put to bed the claims that have been made by a handful of contributors that cycle lanes are some extravagant waste of money, and that cycling hasn't increased as a result.

I think most people would understand it as year on year growth. To pick any individual year out and ignore the very clear upward trend is misleading. It's ridiculous to use language that implies 'declines' against massive, long-term growth. It's not very subtle. If you look at the trend, I don't think anyone would use the word 'decline' in relation to it, unless they were trying to misrepresent the actual pattern. This is what it looked like as of last year, and this year it's trending up even faster: Two statements already provided, that have clearly been proven wrong. You don't see it because you don't want to. Clearly proven wrong...and The was never a 'long-term trend' of growth having stalled...there are lots of other examples, but what's the point?

Yes, that's a press release from May 2020 - Just to remind you, on 10th May 2020 the the PM announced a conditional plan for lifting lockdown, and said that people who cannot work from home should return to the workplace but avoid public transport. We didn't yet have a vaccine for COVID (or know whether we'd have one in future). The plans (and if you followed the discussions at the time you would know this), were intended to start thinking about how we might return people to work, whilst having to maintain social distancing (including on public transport). At that time, the mayor suggested that in such a scenario cycling could increase 10-fold and walking five-fold post-lockdown. What you've done is to say that he promised that would happen and tried to use this cherry picked, context free nugget, to downplay a big increase in cycling in 2025. It's irrelevant to the conversation. I genuinely don't get why you're so determined to paint the sustained, and really quite remarkable increases in the numbers cycling as a failure. Especially when you've previously suggested that no set of measures would ever deliver more than a low single digit percentage gain in cycling numbers (or perhaps that's exactly the reason). Like I said - we know your view - car vs bike, car good, bike bad. We can write your responses before you have. The numbers could double again tomorrow and you'd find some way to downplay them - so what's the point in commenting. Sorry? What decline? The number of cycle journey stages have seen sustained increases - an estimated 1.19 million daily in 2022, 1.26 million in '23, 1.33 million by 2024, and 1.5 million daily in 2025.

Here: Here: etc... Not really about that though. Just would be nice to have any conversation about transport that didn't involve Rocks jumping in with cut and paste responses from his automatic 'cars vs bike' post generator. The increase in cycling (both the most recent spike, but more importantly the sustained long term trend) is really positive and shows that (even relatively modest) investments in cycling infrastructure work.

This trend for driving around in cars will likely be replaced by pogo sticks next week.

The mayor suggested cycling could increase tenfold and pavements could be widened, under a scenario where travel returned to normal levels, but the need for distancing remained in place. This was 5 years ago, during the Covid lockdown, when we didn't have vaccines and things were extremely uncertain. They were planning for the possibility of having to move large numbers of people about the Capital, whist enforcing distancing.

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.