Earl Aelfheah

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.

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.