A new kind of protest for politicians to understand

The third Blackfriars flashride gets going from Upper Ground on the south bank 

The Blackfriars Bridge protest ride on Wednesday has already been excellently covered by ibikelondon, Cyclists in the City, and the London Cycling Campaign blog, so I need not repeat too much of what has been written and pictured there. Zefrog produced an excellent set of photos of the event despite the technically-challenging low light conditions.

Suffice it to say that the organisation by LCC was exemplary, as was the facilitation of the event by the Metropolitan Police. Between 2,000 and 2,500 people took part, making it the largest cycle demonstration ever held in the UK. I have no doubt that, were LCC to call a repeat, even more people would take part next time. The word is spreading more and more; more and more cyclists, pedestrians and public transport users are understanding how regressive are Transport for London's policies for its roads, at Blackfriars as well as all over London, prioritising motor vehicle throughput at virtually all costs, and those people are willing to stand up for an alternative vision of "safe streets for people": a demand merely that our main streets be designed in a way that would be regarded as standard and uncontroversial in virtually any other Western European capital.

On a gloomy London autumn evening, colourful flashriders fill the bridge. Photo by Joe Dunckley.

Politically, the most important aspect of Wednesday's demonstration was the presence of senior representatives from all four main political parties. These included two mayoral candidates: Brian Paddick for the Liberal Democrats and Jenny Jones for the Greens. Ms Jones' commitment to cycling is well-known. Ex-police chief Paddick did not have a particularly striking policy emphasis on sustainable transport last time he stood for Mayor, but, as the Bible says, "There is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner that repenteth..." Also present were Assembly Members Caroline Pidgeon (Lib Dem), Val Shawcross (Labour, vice-chair of the Assembly Transport Committee), and Andrew Boff (Conservative).

Boff's position is perhaps the strangest of all of those involved in this. He is supposedly the Mayor's (Boris Johnson's) awkwardly-titled "Ambassador for Championing Cycling in London" (though he does not call himself this on his current profile page on the GLA site). Boff has already expressed his opinions on the Blackfriars situation at length, and I have criticised them at length. Now here he is, the man who is supposed to be advising Boris Johnson on promoting cycling, publicly protesting against the cycling infrastructure decisions of TfL, which is run by his boss. So what is going on here? Either Boff is giving Johnson advice which is being ignored, in which case, I think he should resign from this strange non-position as "Ambassador etc." (has he already done so, without telling anybody?), or, TfL are ignoring Johnson, in which case Johnson is a failed Mayor and TfL is out of control, which is very serious for everbody. Perhaps Boff just trying to be everything to everybody. He certainly does not endear himself to me when I read this elegant prose on his Twitter feed (11 October, the day before the protest):

The LibDem evisceration of the best part of the localism bill shows that we're in coalition with a bunch of statist shits. Role on 2015.

However, this is off the point. My point here is that this is a kind of protest movement that is new. Here is a phenomenon with which it may take politicians and civil servants some time to catch up: what I might call a technical protest. That is not to say that it is about anything trivial or minor. Far from it, these are lift-and-death issues, and that is why they stir passion. But what I mean is that environmental protest in the past has been very much "Stop that", Down with the other", "Not in my back yard", etc.: rather black and white, crudely and simplistically for or against something, with demands that are easily captured in a sound-bite. But here were 2,500 people protesting on the very technical subject of road design. They don't like the design that Transport for London want to implement, and they want something else, and they know what they want. They are not arguing simply for lower speeds, not simply for segregated cycle lanes, but for a whole design package: one that includes these things, but also better streetscape, more pedestrian space, fewer lanes of motor vehicles, better design of junctions and cleverer signal systems to get cyclists, pedestrians and motorists safely through them. This is complicated stuff. This is not like the roads protests of the past, which were either attempts to block the construction of bypasses, or generalised demos against everything to do with car-culture (as in the "Reclaim the Streets" movement).

This is  new phenomenon which can only have come about in the internet age. It depends on a spreading of knowledge of detailed, technical aspects of the design of public space in a way that is comprehended by a large number of non-specialist people, though pictures, descriptions, animations. This may make the professionals in the fields affected very uncomfortable: they may resist being taken to task by amateurs who they feel lack the understanding of the subject that they have trained long and hard to gain. Or, alternatively, they could embrace the far higher level of public dialogue that this promises on the aspects of urban design which are so crucial to our environmental wellbeing.

It is because we now have websites like that of the LCC, like View from the Cycle Path, like the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, and others, that people can be mobilised to support particular detailed visions, future projections of what British public space could look like, when they see that what is being suggested would be so much better than what they are being offered by politicians and professional planners. I think this is really the case: I don't think those at Blackfriars, on Wednesday, in general, were just "anti-car". They were protesting positively for something very particular: a new settlement of space and priority in the city vis-a-vis walking, cycling and driving. Part of my evidence for this is the considerable number of people who have seen LCC's Blackfriars design and said they are joining the campaign because of it. They were not conviced before that the campaign was doing anything particularly effective, but this has convinced them.


As I say, one likely first reaction from transport professionals to the emergence of such a technical protest movement is the negative one: a blank refusal to engage, and a closing of professional ranks. We see this with the response to Cyclists in the City's letter to Network Rail, asking them to look at the LCC design. Simon Kirby, the Director of Investment Projects at Network Rail, a state organisation, and one of the chief drivers for the Blackfriars changes, replies first by talking down, telling our correspondent a series of suck-eggs things of which he is obviously already aware:

As you’re aware we’re currently rebuilding Blackfriars railway station to provide for growing passenger numbers, longer trains and more frequent services. 

The coming years will see substantial growth in the number of people using Blackfriars station, and changes need to be made to the road network around the station so that it can cope with an increased volume of pedestrian traffic. 

The road junction north of Blackfriars bridge is owned and maintained by TfL. As such they have taken the lead in designing and delivering a new road layout to accommodate all road users over the coming decades.

And then by simply shutting the door on discussion:

We’ve worked closely with TfL to ensure their road layout is compatible with our station designs and we fully support their plans.

And that, insultingly, is it. Simon Kirby and Network Rail obviously have not looked at the LCC plans, or in any way considered such alternatives. He makes no attempt to justify the current TfL and Network Rail plans for the streets on any grounds whatsoever. He makes no attempt to explain how these plans are better for rail passengers than LCC's alternatives. He would have a tall order trying to do so, because they are obviously far worse. So Network Rail is here opposing the interests of rail passengers and refusing to enter into any discussion of the street design around their station. This is simply a professional closing of ranks, insulting the intelligence of the public, and hoping that these annoying people will shut up and go away.

Successful politicians of the future will have to wise-up to the new reality of technical protest in regard to the streets and other aspects of the environment. They will have to realise that large numbers of people can now understand the need for sophisticated solutions to complex problems. It's now no longer a case of the technocrat, or politician, telling the people who are baying for some crude solution that "It's not that simple". It's the other way round: the well-informed populace explaining the details to the politicians: a clear new phenomenon of the Information Age. The successful politician of the future will not necessarily understand all the details themselves; Boris is clearly no grasper of technical detail. But they will be able to sense when their "experts" need to be told that they must listen to others who know a thing or two about their subject as well.

The cyclists of London have thrown down a gauntlet with the Blackfriars protests. And whatever happens at Blackfriars over the next months and years, this is not going to go away. For of course Blackfriars is only a symbol, and only at beginning. As LCC sys:

Throughout the summer, we've been keen to emphasise that the campaign over Blackfriars is part of a bigger, more widespread push for a people-friendly London.

And in the New Year, the London Cycling Campaign will be officially launching our Go Dutch campaign, voted for by our members, which will be pressing all the mayoral candidates to take London along the pathway towards safe and convenient cycling, and a truly people-friendly urban environment.

This means addressing every bad junction and every busy road, so they're safe and convenient for Londoners of all ages and experiences who want to cycle.

In the coming days and weeks, we’ll be fleshing out the principles for what this means for London’s main roads, and in the New Year we’ll be publishing more exciting graphics and designs, showing what fantastic public spaces so many major locations in London could be.

So TfL will know that whenever it plans to revamp a road or a junction in its old style (and the next example is likely to be the King's Cross junction, where cyclist Min Joo Lee was killed on 3 October): they can expect lots more of the same trouble. They can expect their designs to be challenged in a high-profile way. They can expect bigger and bigger protests, more people questioning the competence of their designers, more politicians coming over to our side. It may not happen with Blackfriars, and it may not happen with Kings Cross, but at some point they will be forced into the 21st century. Cyclists and pedestrians of London, now that you have a clear strategy, you will win, as the cyclists and pedestrians in the Netherlands did in the 1970s. Keep it up.

Boff on Blackfriars

I mentioned in a previous post, in passing, the lengthy interview that the Mayor of London's "Champion for Promoting Cycling", Andrew Boff, Conservative London Assembly Member, gave to The Bike Show on Resonance Radio, on the vexed issue of the redesign of Blackfriars Bridge.

What caused the debate: 1000 cyclists on Blackfriars Bridge (ITV coverage)

That interview has now been treated by another blogger, cyclerdelic, who has transcribed parts of it. He makes some good points: principally, if Boff claims, as he seems to, that it would be bad for the economy of London to do too much to facilitate cycling and de-facilitate motor traffic, like, say, giving the whole of one Thames bridge over to cycling (a "ridiculous" idea according to cyclist Boff) then really he needs to produce some evidence for it. It may seem to him to be "common sense", but "common sense" is in the mind of the beholder, and, at least half the time, it is dead wrong. According to Jan Gehl, the famous Copenhagen "Cities for people" architect and guru, as reported on ibikelondon:

The benefits [of prioritising the bike in a city] are clear on many levels, not least in terms of economy. Danish research has found that for every KM cycled, society saves 30 cents. For every KM driven, society looses 20 cents. Biking is not just about having fun and being ‘green’; it pays, too.

No wonder Copenhagen is doing so well economically. It has a 37% modal share by bike, compared to London's 1.5%.

What Boff says in his interview strikes me as very contradictory in a number of ways. He freely admits that he feels Blackfriars Bridge is dangerous to cycle on, and he wouldn't use it. It is not on his commute, but, if it was, he says he would go another way round. (Boris does commute across Blackfriars Bridge.) But then he doesn't seem to be certain that Transport for London are actually taking the wrong decisions on Blackfriars. He spends quite a lot of time proposing that the main issue is the secrecy with which TfL arrives at its decisions, and how it hides its evidence and decision-making process from the public, and from the Assembly Members. He says he thinks there is a possibility that TfL is taking exactly the right decisions, for good reasons, but the problem is secerecy and TfL not explaining itself properly.

Now, this may just be a way in which Boff is trying to be diplomatic and avoiding attacking the managers of TfL too explicitly. But it sounds very odd to me. For though having a process of secret and unaccountable decision making is very bad, what is far worse is the bad decisions themselves, when those decisions have killed people, specifically, the two cyclists killed on the bridge in 2006, and seriously injured others. After those deaths, a report by TfL itself recommended that the speeds on all the London crossings shared with cyclists should be reduced to 20 mph as a cycle safety measure. Boris Johnson has stated he disagrees with this advice and is ignoring it (or, rather, in the latest version, he has been advised by persons unknown that it is bad advice, and he is ignoring it).

What Boff is saying sounds very like what all politicians say just before they massively loose elections: "Our policies are right, we just haven't done enough to explain them". In other words, the problem is not what we're doing, its just the way we are presenting it, and the public doesn't understand our reasons. Politicians in power often adopt this arrogant attitude, and it always leads to the public giving them a bloody nose shortly after.

It doesn't seem to occur to Boff here that if he feels Blackfriars Bridge is dangerous to cycle across, then that proves conclusively that TfL have failed cyclists here, irrespective of any shortcomings of their explanations to the public or politicians. It seems that, though a commuting cyclist himself,  Boff doesn't actually believe that main roads in our cities should necessarily be cycleable, if that conflicts with the requirement, in his world-view, of allowing sufficient motorised traffic to "keep the economy healthy".

He also states that there are many people who will never cycle, however safe you make the roads for them. This is undoubtedly true, and the same argument was put to Mark of ibikelondon by Eric Pickles in his famous "rubber knickers" interview. But this argument is always over-sold in this country, and it is always pushed by those who are resisting making cycling safer and more attractive. If 37% of journeys in Copenhagen are made by bike, that shows that most people in Copenhagen are prepared to cycle for at least a few of their journeys, and many others use cycling as their main mode of transport, or for a good proportion of their journeys. If you make cycling attractive enough, most people will use it some of the time. Those who will never use it, or can never use it, under any circumstances, are a small minority. But London, at its modal share of 1.5%, is currently at the opposite pole, and the argument that "some people will never cycle whatever you do" is actually totally irrelevant to policy, and an excuse for not addressing the issues. The issue in London is allowing the majority who want to be able to cycle the opportunity to do so in safety and comfort. Nobody is talking about preventing those who need to use motor vehicles from doing so. Nobody ever says that you shouldn't invest in railways because "some people never take the train", or not invest in roads for cars because "some people will never drive". This line is transparently foolish.

Where I agree with Boff 100% is in the final section of the interview, where he strongly criticises the current political system in London (set up by the Blair government), with an executive Mayor who has an almost impossible job in being expected to manage so many separate and different technical areas (transport, policing, culture, planning), who is forced therefore to rely too heavily on unelected, unaccountable apparatchiks that he alone appoints, and who is effectively democratically unaccountable himself after he has been elected for 4 years, with a largely pointless and toothless elected Assembly that has one opportunity a year to reject or accept a budget, and then spends the rest of its time lamely scutinising decisions after the fact. This is a bad system, and it tends to bad decision-making and corruption. London deserves better.

But I come back to this point about the economics of providing for cycling as against providing for cars, as the logic is so bizarre. Why should giving over a large part of Blackfriars Bridge to cyclists (and pedestrians) impact the economy of London adversely? This is implying that somehow we just happen to have a distribution of priorities on London's bridges at the moment that is economically optimal for the city. Is this likely? Perhaps not, perhaps the economy would do even better if we gave cars more space. If this is the case, is it not wrong that we have a whole bridge across the Thames (the Milennium Bridge) devoted to walkers? Surely TfL is being irresponsible with the economy of London if it does not immediately evict pedestrians from the Millennium Bridge and hand it over to cars (those little electric cars that the government is doing so much to push as the "future of transport" might not be too heavy for it, and, if they are, then why not strengthen it?). Where does this "logic" end?

In Boff's long interview, I keep wanting to ask, "Well, OK, but what is your solution?" He doesn't seem to have one. As a just a politician, just someone who happened to get elected, he tells us, he can't be expected to be an expert on anything in particular, that's why we need the "experts" at TfL to explain their decisions better. The reasonable man, of course, believes in the authority of experts – a concatenation of famous sayings by famous people that I just invented. But no-one in this programme approached in any way proposing a solution to the "Blackfriars Problem". People seem to be too afraid of having an opinion that could be contested by "experts".

London Cycling Campaign has just voted that its future policy should be "Going Dutch". If that is the case, why didn't LCC's Charlie Lloyd, interviewed before Boff, launch this new policy in this programme by proposing a Dutch solution to Blackfriars? We know what the Dutch solution would be, as David Hembrow has helpfully told us, providing numerous examples to prove his point. And it's not rocket science, it's not something you need a great expert on transport to explain to you. The Dutch would give cyclists their own ample, dedicated, safe and separated space on the bridge, and signalise the junctions at the ends so that cyclists could go in the directions they needed to go with a minimum of delay and with no interaction or negotiation with motor vehicles or pedestrians at all. Golly, how come they can think of that when all the great experts at TfL can't? Perhaps it's living below sea-level that concentrates the mind. Now, what's the purpose of that big shiny metal thing that spans the Thames near Woolwich? Perhaps there's hope for London yet.

Blackfriars: have we run out of democratic options?

I have been following on this blog what I have called the Battle for Blackfriars, though not so extensively as has the wonderfully-industrious Danny on his Cyclists in the City blog. As I wrote before:

The "Battle for Blackfriars" has become totemic of the struggle to establish decent treatment for pedestrians and cyclists in the way that major roads in London are engineered. If the campaign on Blackfriars fails, TfL will probably try to impose the same engineering style on all the Thames bridges, and, by extension, all other major road junctions in London under their control.

The state of play now is that the London Assembly has finally managed to take a vote on the Blackfriars plans. The first attempt to debate the issue, on 8 June, using a motion proposed by the doughty Green Assembly Member Jenny Jones, which called for retention of the existing 20 mph limit, was scuppered by a Conservative walk-out in protest over an unrelated issue. The fury this aroused from transport campaigners seemed to take the Assembly Conservatives by surprise, with their spokesman, Andrew Boff, forced on to the defensive. The result was, last week, an even better outcome than could have been predicted in June. Jones re-tabled her motion for 20 July, but Boff negotiated a re-wording as follows:

This Assembly notes the decision to revert to a 30 mph speed limit on Blackfriars Bridge. We also note the recent decision of the Corporation of London to consider plans for the whole of the City of London to become a 20mph zone, and understand that if they take this decision they would be likely to ask Transport for London to agree to make TfL roads 20mph. This Assembly asks that the Mayor instructs TfL to implement a full review investigating the practicalities, advantages and disadvantages of a 20mph limit on Blackfriars Bridge . The review should include previous TfL reports, such as that on 20mph speed limit on London's Thames bridges and also the effect of such a change on all road users (including pedestrians) north, south or on the bridge itself. Meanwhile, TfL should keep under review the decision to revert to a 30 mph speed limit on Blackfriars Bridge. We also urge the Mayor to revisit the plans for the bridge with particular attention to cyclists making right turns when exiting the bridge at either end.

Amazingly, in a tremendous victory for people-power, a vindication of a determined campaign by the London Cycling Campaign and others, the assembly voted unanimously to support this motion. Andrew Boff came up trumps by bringing all the Conservative AMs with him in supporting the motion. Though the motion only mentions cyclists at the end, the press release issued by the Assembly, in quotes from Liberal Democrat spokeswoman Caroline Pidgeon, and Boff, lays heavy emphasis on the desire of the Assembly to see a new Blackfriars that caters properly for cyclists. Pidgeon:

A third of the peak time traffic across Blackfriars Bridge are cyclists and we already know that they are at significantly more risk when travelling across bridges than they are on similar city roads. That’s why we want Transport for London (TfL) to take a robust look at the safety of all users on Blackfriars Bridge and for the Mayor to use the facts to put safety first.

And Boff:

I am staggered that so many cyclists use Blackfriars Bridge, if it was on my commuting route I wouldn’t because it is too dangerous. I hope a full review of the new layout and speed limits on the bridge and the publication of all the relevant data will result in a sensible solution that will address the needs and safety of all users.

Boff is a cyclist who clearly understands how the danger issue is at the base of the problem we have in promoting cycling to Londoners. His reworded motion, that was passed, is perceptive in its recognition that there is not only an issue with speed, but with the fundamentals of the engineering of major roads like this, and their junctions. Dr Clare Gerada, Chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners and an experienced cyclist, was badly injured attempting the right turn at the northern junction even with the current 20 mph limit in force. So clearly 20 mph, though perhaps a convenient campaigning rallying-cry, cannot be the main solution for making our main roads and junctions cycle-friendly. As I have argued before, cyclists need to be campaigning clearly for a total physical re-design of the road space and junction arrangements in places like Blackfriars, preferably on Dutch models, not asking for painted scraps of space.

While the Assembly has no power to make the Mayor do anything on this issue, it would seem to be hard for him to ignore the wishes of all his party in the Assembly. Only a couple of weeks ago, Johnson was arguing, incredibly, that since average peak hour motor vehicle speeds were already below 20, a 20 limit is not needed – totally missing the point that it is out of peak hours when the traffic speeds up that cyclists and pedestrians need the most protection. But in the same speech, Johnson also hinted, delphically, that he did not think everything was fine with TfL's current plans, stating that his observation as a cyclist using Blackfriars was that:

more work needs to be done on cycling over Blackfriars Bridge and the accessibility of cycling over Blackfriars Bridge.

So that would seem to be opening a space for a rethink, and the vote by the entire assembly, including his party members, for just such a rethink would appear to give him exactly the opportunity he needs for calling the plans in again, while in no way losing face.

So that was the relatively rosy way things looked up until Monday, 25 July. At least rosier than they had looked for some time. Until a press release appeared on TfL's website. This talks about the large increase in pedestrian traffic expected from the opening of the rebuilt Blackfriars Station, and the goes on:

The new design accommodates the huge increase in demand from pedestrians whilst improving facilities for the estimated six per cent of people who travel through the junction by bicycle.

That has been achieved without severely affecting other modes of travel, such as the bus and taxi passengers who will account for around a fifth of those using the junction (11 per cent and eight per cent respectively).

Analysis by TfL shows that usage by cyclists through this junction is predominantly for travelling to and from work and is therefore concentrated during traditional 'rush hour' periods, particularly in the morning heading northbound and in the afternoon heading southbound.

Vehicular speeds are predicted to be at their lowest through the junction during peak time, at an estimated speed of just 12mph, creating a much improved and safer environment for cyclists to pass through.

From the evening of 29 July to the early morning of 1 August one lane northbound and one lane southbound will be restricted, with work continuing throughout the night to complete the works as quickly as possible.

So TfL really are not listening. Really. They are not listening to anyone but themselves on this. They are not listening to the Mayor, who is their boss, they are not listening to the London Assembly, they have not listened to the 600 people who have written in to complain about their plans, mostly from a cycling perspective, they have not listened to a peaceful physical protest by cyclists on the bridge itself, and they have not listened to the LCC's petition presenting photos of 2000 cyclists.

Despite the fact that Conservative Assembly Member James Cleverly, a particularly close colleague of Johnson, having been his Ambassador for Youth, has said that it will now be “very difficult” for the Assembly motion “to be ignored or thrown out by TfL or the chair of TfL (the Mayor)”, that is exactly what Johnson seems to be doing. He is doing nothing, despite his statement of 13 July that "more work needs to be done on cycling over Blackfriars Bridge". What the hell is going on here? Does Johson think that that "more work" should be done after TfL have changed the bridge according to their current plans? If so, he is being utterly neglectful of his duty to ensure public money is spent responsibly and efficiently. 


What appears to be going on is that while Johnson vaguely, and in the briefest manner, hints on this issue in directions to please all parties, while, as Cycle of Futility points out, he is probably much more taken up with the extent to which he could be mired in the police–News of the World affair, as effective chief of the Met as well as a peripheral member of the Chipping Norton Set and

once a dodgy News International journo himself, being fired by The Times for manufacturing a quote

as well as more vexed by the increasing competing pressures of satisfying the International Olympic Committee and keeping London moving in 2012 – while all this goes on, TfL's bureaucrats are just getting on with what they wanted to do all along at Blackfriars, as fast as they can, working all night over this coming weekend, in order to make the whole job a fait a complet before anything else can happen.

I have a part-remembered quote in my head, from Shakespeare, I suspect, about bad things happening under cover of darkness, but I cannot authenticate this now. Anyway, this is the point: on Blackfriars we seem to have run out of time, and run out of democratic options. What are we going to have to do? Lie in front of the bulldozers? Have one last protest ride on Friday? Lay some wreathes on the bridge in memory of dead cyclists?

I really don't know.  I hope that whatever happens, there will be two things in the future: firstly, a new-found unity in political campaigning in the cycling community, and secondly, a realisation that getting lower speeds is not necessarily the politically easiest nor the most effective thing to do for cycling. I think many cycling campaigners are a bit fixated on 20 mph because they see it as an "easy win". Just stick up some signs saying "20", OK – what could be easier? But perhaps it is not that easy. As Cycle of Futility says:

Unlike Tower Bridge, the road layout at Blackfriars lends itself to driving much faster than 20mph, which people will do. Enforcement of the limit will be rare, and as I saw today, consequences in those cases where it is enforced minimal. We need to stop devoting our energy to tinkering around the edges like this and start campaigning for proper infrastructure – yes segregated cycle lanes, but this as part of a package of properly designed streets, not huge urban motorways.

I note from both the comments of Boff and Johnson that, interestingly, some cyclists on the right of the political spectrum seem to have an inkling that this is correct. They are not convinced that campaigns on speed in itself, in isolation, will take the wider public along. They can see that the real issue is road design. Redesigning roads to re-humanise them should be a campaign that can win the favour of pro-cycling politicians of all parties.

Impossible journey in the Bikeless Borough of Barnet

This long blogpost starts by not being about its actual subject, which is a real journey, but by connecting it to recent events. But, be patient, and all will be revealed.

According to BBC news, Andrew Boff, Conservative London Assembly Member, who was mentioned here in the previous post as one of those who walked out of the chamber thus preventing the debate on 20mph on Blackfriars Bridge, has claimed:

The walkout had nothing to do with the issue of Blackfriars Bridge or air pollution.

This is part of ongoing action that the group is taking in response to the Labour, Lib Dem and Green party groups voting en-block to prevent Conservatives from taking up the proportional number of committee chairmanships, thus depriving the 40% of Londoners who voted for us a voice.

He also told the Evening Standard:

The walk-out was in protest at the refusal of the Greens, Labour and Lib-Dems to share committee chairmanships. It's not that we don't care about the 20mph limit- we spend a lot of time talking about it. My instinct is that it should be 20mph.

If Boff thinks we should have a 20mph limit, it would be nice if he hadn't prevented the Assembly from taking a vote to send that message to the Mayor. The Conservatives on the Assembly seem to consider their little strategic war on the committee chairmanship issue (and note that these committees are purely advisory and have no power over the Mayor) to have a higher priority than discussing the vital life-and-death issue of danger faced by vulnerable road-users on London's streets. Readers can decide themselves how reasonable they think this position is.

It is certainly not the case, however, that the other Conservative AMs agree with Boff. Gareth Bacon and Victoria Borthwick have sat on the fence in their replies to constituents asking about 20mph:

Clearly the key is to ensure a balance for all road users. Just as it was important to protect the bridge for cyclists, it is also important to ensure that all traffic flows at a reasonable rate.

(Note that that this reply shows they understand nothing about the relationship between traffic flow rates and speed limits in a congested environment: slower top speeds normally lead to better flow.) On the other hand, Brian Coleman (aka Mr Toad) is characteristically clear in his view:

The speed limit is a matter for tfl not me but I do not support 20mph zones they are unenforceable but anyway traffic cannot get anywhere near that speed at this junction

Now Coleman, as is well-known, sees London from the passenger seat of a black cab, paid for by Council Tax payers (he has given back his free Oyster Card as he never uses it), from which the speedometer would not be visible. So clearly he has no idea what speeds actually are anywhere. But we know that Coleman has no concerns bout the safety or convenience of non-motorised road-users. He never has had. As well as being the AM for Camden and Barnet, he is on Barnet Council (representing one of the wealthiest and most car-centric areas in London, Totteridge, in the far north of the borough), and is now its Cabinet Member for Transport & Environment. Putting Coleman in charge of that portfolio may be fairly likened to putting Ratko Mladic in charge of race relations.

Coleman's career is objectively documented on Wikipedia. As it says there, without distortion, he has "built up a reputation as an outspoken supporter of car driving". One of his actions as head of Transport in Barnet was reported in the Hendon & Finchley Times earlier this year as being the axing of school crossing patrols. More generally, the themes of his tenure of this office have been the removal of traffic-calming measures, the removal of on-road cycle lanes and banning of cyclists from off-road paths, removal of bus lanes, the widening of roads and junctions, increasing of parking and narrowing of pavements in Barnet. Despite all this excellent work, there are signs now, however, that he may now be falling out of favour with the car-loving voters of Barnet, as he is finding the need to support the extravagant recent hikes in allowances to Barnet councillors, in the context of the cuts in general council funding, by raising money from increased parking charges.

Be this as it may, long before all this, cyclists in his GLA constituency of Camden & Barnet knew all about him. In response to an e-mail from Paul Gasson, then co-ordinator of Camden LCC, in 2001, Coleman wrote:

Thank you for your e-mail of 8th November regarding London Cycle networks.

It is true that the Transport for London budget for the year 2002/3 does not include a budget for the London Cycle Network.

I am not, however, prepared to make any representation to the Mayor over this for the simple reason that I consider cycle lanes to be an unnecessary obstruction to cars, for which of course, roads were built.

I do not intend to be facetious over this matter, however  many motorists are thoroughly tired firstly of the delays caused by the building of cycle lanes, followed by the further delays when the completed lanes encroach on road space, coupled with the fact that they are so drastically underused that they regularly provoke outrage at the pointless wastage of public money.

I hope that this is an adequate expression of my views.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Coleman

On another occasion, in response to a similar lobbying letter from an LCC member, he wrote something like (I cannot now find the actual text) "Hell will freeze over before I support spending money on cyclists".

So that's our Brian. Who is, let it be said, is very good to his mother, making her Lady Mayoress during his spell as Mayor of Barnet. I hope she stays safe on the roads, so well managed by her son. Her chances are not good, however, as Barnet now has the worst road safety record of any London borough.

There are, as readers may know, so-called "Biking Boroughs" in London. I have criticised this empty, woolly, underfunded Johnson concept here before. But Barnet was clearly never going to be one of those. Barnet, as a consequence of Coleman's policies and those of his Conservative colleagues and predecessors, is now a a Bikeless Borough.


OK, there are cyclists in Barnet. Some of them are in the local LCC group, Barnet Cyclists. As may be judged for their website, however, they are mainly a leisure-riding group, not a campaigning one (uniquely within the groups making up LCC), and most of their riding is, sensibly, in the countryside and not in the Borough of Barnet. There is also an annual "Bicycle Rally" in Barnet, called the Greenacre Bicycle Rally (why "bicycle", not "bike" or "cycle", the more normal UK terms?) Brent Cyclists is taking part in this event this year, and in consequence of this, I happened yesterday to be cycling from Kingsbury to Finchley, trying to chart a west-east course through Barnet that would be suitable for inexperienced riders, families and children, cycling from Brent to the Greenacre Bicycle Rally. I have to say I failed, because what I was trying to do is impossible. There are no safe, attractive routes suitable for inexpert cyclists through Barnet. That is why this is "The Impossible Journey". Everywhere one attempts to find a route in Barnet, with the the aid of the TfL London Cycling Guides, one is stymied by major infrastructural problems: lack of suitable crossing points of linear barriers (motorways, railways and trunk roads), fast and dangerous roads with cycle-unfriendly junctions, and petty and pointless bans on cycling in non-motorised spaces (note that I was trying to make my route completely legal, so as not to bring LCC into any possible disrepute).

If you cycle from Kingsbury to Finchley the major linear barriers in the urban fabric that you have to traverse are the A5, the Midland Main Line, the M1, the A41, the Northern Line (Edgware Branch), the A1, the Northern Line (Mill Hill Branch) and the Northern Line (High Barnet Branch). That's eight linear barriers. O these, six these have no satisfactory crossing points, "satisfactory" meaning without heavy, fast traffic, and legal to cycle on or across. (The Northern Line (Edgware Branch) and Northern Line (mill Hill Branch) do have reasonable crossing points).

I decided to approach the first of these barriers, the A5, from Kingsbury on Cool Oak Lane, which is a London Cycle Network route. It is slightly scenic, with a narrow, signal-controlled bridge across the Welsh Harp Reservoir. Unfortunately, it is also a narrow race-track rat-run with blind corners: a quite intimidating environment for inexperience cyclists, but the best I could find. It would be nice to be able to turn right into Park Road off the A5, meeting it from Cool Oak Lane, but that potentially quiet route for cycling eastwards and crossing the railway and motorway is rendered impossible by a barrier in the middle of the A5. A gap in the barrier for cyclists to turn right would be quite possible, but it is one of those trivial oversights that make cycling in these suburbs a headache that such has not been provided, despite being suggested many times to uninterested Barnet traffic officers.

Barrier in the A5 at the Park Road junction, from Google Streetview

Since Park Road is actually two-way, it is possible to cross the A5 on foot (taking your life in your hands) and continue to cycle east on Park Road. But if you stick to cycling in a totally legal fashion, you have to go north up the A5 to the A504 Station Road, do a right there, then a dangerous right off this fast road and a back-street left-right-left to Park Road – a circuitous route, and a nasty rat-run, as lots of cars and vans do this, particularly kamikaze minicabs, zooming round the tight corners. When I have attempted this legal route I have been harassed by them. This is supposed to be another LCN route: another LCN failure.

Back to Park Road: if you continue eastwards the route is satisfactory and you can cross the railway and motorway, but then you come to the next barrier, the A41 dual carriageway with its big barriers.

The A41 at Park Road/Beaufort Gardens

There is a dingy and menacing pedestrian underpass here, as you might expect – standard UK pedestrian environment – as a minimum. But no cycling allowed.

A41 underpass, no cycling, but the red ring on the sign has faded out. Sympathetic background of storm clouds.  

The TfL London Cycle Guides mark places like this, labelling them as "no cycling allowed". On earlier editions, in Ken Livingstone's time, they were marked as "please walk your bike on this section of the route". So, a politically-motivated change, but same difference. Funny how the road network for motor vehicles doesn't have crucial gaps where you're not allowed to drive. That would be just stupid, wouldn't it?

There is a failure here to understand the disbenefits of forcing mixed mode journeys. Walking is a different mode to cycling, and walking a bike is different again. When Dr Beeching, scourge of the British railway network, closed all the branch lines, he thought people would still use the railways in the same numbers as before; he thought they would just use a different method, bus or car or taxi, to get to the nearest mainline station. He didn't realise that if you force mixed mode journeys, they become far less convenient, and people won't do them anymore. They will go by car so they can go all the way by the same mode, because one mode is always much more convenient than two. So it is with telling people they have to dismount from their bike. They loose most of the benefits of going out with a bike in the first place. Trying to use the bike becomes a pain, and they choose another mode, usually the car. In passing, that's why TfL's attempts to get people to use the hire bikes to go to the Olympics will fail, because the nearest docking station to the Olympic site at Stratford will be at Victoria Park, 20 minutes walk away. It won't be worth mucking about with the bikes.

So, back to our Impossible Journey in Barnet. After walking through the underpass under the A41, it is possilbe to cycle via Cheyne Walk and Shirehall Lane, and under the Northern Line (Edgware Branch), to Hendon Park. Here there is a cycle route marked on the TfL guides, through the park. It isn't marked on the park at all, so it's legality is unclear to me. This can be followed northwards on to the West View path – a very narrow shared-use space. The main thing that is wrong with the West View route, however, is that whenever it meets a minor residential road, it gives way to it, and there is no concern in the design off the junctions to limit the speed of cars crossing this quite important pedestrian route (not so important for bikes as there are few cyclists in Barnet) or to allow pedestrians easily to cross. in fact, the junctions are not designed at all, they are just blocked, as we see here at Sydney Grove, where the route is blocked by railings that force pedestrians and cyclists to do a detour round and where they have to cross a fairly dangerous road with poor sight-lines due to parking.

West View path junction with Sydney Grove

At least cycling is allowed here, which is exceptional for a path in Barnet. Perhaps Coleman hasn't noticed this one yet. Since this path insn't taking me in quite the right direction to get to Finchley, however, I must divert off eastwards via Someset Road and Chapel Walk. Yes, walk again. Here  perfectly feasible W–E route is again prevented by "no cycling" roundels.

Chapel Walk. Walk!

Chapel Walk leads to Brent Street, where you can, as a pedestrian, just about negotiate a crossing into Victoria Road, an attractive little lane, on the other side. This is a "suggested route" on TfL Cycle Guide 3, but problems come where this intersects with the LCN route marked in blue, as both the N–S options, Alexandra Grove and Hillview Gardens, are marked as one-way southbound. I think this may be a mistake in the guide, and one of them should be one-way northbound. I followed First Avenue northwards, where a met an incredibly dangerous blind corner with the A504, here called Finchley Lane, and still as full of 30 limit-exceeding motorists as it was when it was Station Road. However, use it one must, as there is no other method of crossing the A1 going in the direction of Finchley. One can speed down into the A1 junction as it is in a valley. At this point on my journey, a passenger in an overtaking car thought it was amusing to shout something incomprehensible at me as he passed at high speed. No big deal, this happens all the time to cyclists in the UK: insults, spit, water from pistols, beer cans, or other material objects, hurled at cyclistsin frightening moments from the passenger seats of cars travelling at high speed. But the fact that it happens all the time must be a reason why many less hardy souls give up cycling quickly. And it happens more in places like Barnet, which are Bikeless Boroughs, than it does elsewhere.

We are nearing Finchley now, and there is a traffic-free cycle route, marked in green on TfL Guide no. 3, that goes in roughly the right direction, along the course of the Dollis Brook, through Windsor Open Space. Except that it has now been closed to cyclists. This is obviously a very recent development, as the  roundel signs look new.

Welcome to Windsor Open Space says the sign at left. But not you, you with the bike. Remember, Barnet is officially a BIKELESS BOROUGH.

So it seems Barnet has now removed the one slightly helpful off-road cycle route that existed in the borough. However, they have not removed the blue LCN signs, which still in places point mournfully to such suburban shangri-lahs as Hendon and Whetstone, now inaccessible to the cyclist who does not want to tangle with the ratrunning hooray Henry and Henrietta drivers of Barnet. So, stymied, I go back to the A504, now called Hendon Lane, and turn off at Cypress Avenue and cycle through the surprisingly pleasant "village" at Claremont Park. In this area a lady ferrying children in her little blue car tailgates me on the narrow parked-on-both-sides street, on which I occupy the centre ground as overtaking is not safe, and I am going quite fast anyway for this residential road. She hoots her horn, and eventually forces an overtake, pushing me into the dooring zone. Standard motorist behaviour in a Bikeless Borough, and she is showing the children early how cyclists should be treated. I wonder if any of them want to cycle.

On this occasion I found a better road under the Northern Line (Mill Hill Branch) than I had used before. Dollis Road, under the viaduct, is deeply unpleasant: narrow, with speeding overtaking traffic, centre islands just where you (and overtaking cars) don't expect them, and a terrible road surface (Barnet has given up maintaining it's roads in the current climate (financial as well as meteorological). Crescent Road is much nicer, but then, where it meets Nether Street, the junction layout prevents you cycling northwards into Nether Street. I got off again to do this manoeuvre. So, as so often, a piece of engineering designed to prevent residential rat-running by motorists catches cyclists, through mere thoughtlessness on the part of council officers not interested in cycling, and prevents them from finding a decent route. The Dollis Brook walk continues further north, and I lookied ito this, but again, cyclists are not welcomed.

Lovely Barnet: graffiti-covered welcome to Riverside Walk, but no cycling again. Becoming something of a theme, isn't it? If you're on a horse you're out of luck as well. "Roads for motorists, paths for pedestrians" could be the Coleman Barnet motto.

Never daunted, I then investigated a different option again for getting to North Finchley, the marked blue LCN route on the TfL Guide that runs on minor roads parallel to the Dollis Brook just east of it. But I found that has a very dangerous junction where it gives way to a particularly bad E–W rat run in Barnet, at Sussex Ring/Argyle Road. I eventually concluded the best way to North Finchley, and best way to cross the Northern Line (High Barnet Branch) was via Nether Street, which crosses the line at West Finchley Station. This road is a horrible, twisty, constricted rat-run with terrible surfaces as well, but it seems slower and therefore less risky than the straight rat-run of Argyle Road. Where it meets the A598 and the A1000 at Tally Ho Corner, there is nowhere to go except north, without tackling the giratory system, which takes the skills of a full-fledged fast vehicular cyclist used to crossing multiple lanes of fast traffic, but that is my destination, as, apparently, the Bicycle Rally will be there – at the Arts Depot, the elegantly-named Barnet Council-funded arts centre, which lurks inaccessibly (to pedestrian and cyclists) in the middle of the giratory.

So that was my Impossible Journey in Barnet, which, on Sunday, I will do, hopefully, with a group of keen Brent cyclists. Congratulations if you have stuck with this.

Brent Cyclists, through Brent and Harrow Assembly Member Navin Shah, asked the following question of Boris Johnson in April:

TfL have said that the main potential for cycle growth in London lies in the Outer London Boroughs. Some of these, for example Brent, have been designated as “Biking Boroughs”, and are eligible for small funds from TfL, while neighbouring boroughs are not eligible for these funds. Given the target for cycling mode share of 4.3% by 2026, how does the Biking Boroughs scheme in its current form aid integrated cycle provision in London?

The answer came back:

All Outer London Boroughs were given the opportunity to become Biking Boroughs at the end of 2009. Following a competitive process which evaluated the level of commitment and political support for cycling in boroughs, 13 boroughs were awarded Biking Borough status in early 2010. Each borough has since developed a Biking Borough Strategy to inform their Local Implementation Plans (LIPs).  The Biking Borough grants will supplement this.

All boroughs are encouraged to work together through their sub-regional partnerships to ensure their delivery plans are integrated with those of their neighbouring boroughs.  In addition, all boroughs are able to use their LIPs transport funding to promote cycling and deliver cycling infrastructure where this is seen to be a local priority.

So, an extraordinarily hands-off approach there from Boris Johnson, this supposed champion of cycling, in saying that boroughs will only deliver cycling infrastructure "where this is seen to be a local priority". And if it is not? No cycling infrastructure, as in Barnet. Authorities like Barnet are completely free to opt out of Boris's "Cycling Revolution". Not much of a revolution, is it, if you happen to live in one of these boroughs?

Barnet Council has created a Bikeless Borough. There is virtually nothing for cyclists in Barnet except cycling on the traffic-choked, boy-racer filled main roads and residential rat-runs. No cycle lanes, paths, parks, home-zones, nothing like that. In Brian Coleman's Barnet, there is no room for the bike. Bikes, as he said so clearly in his email to Camden Cycling Campaign, just get in the way. It will get even worse when the TfL/Barnet Council changes to the North Circularl/A41 junction at Henlys corner get built.

Well, as a final thought, I must retreat from that statement slightly. The Bikeless Borough is 95% the fault of Barnet Council, but I put the other 5% of the responsibility at the door of local cycle campaigners. Granted, they have had a particularly difficult political situation to deal with in Barnet, but, also unfortunately, Barnet Cyclists, the LCC group in Barnet, have been led for some years by a gentleman named Jeremy Parker, who though a very personable chap, I have to say has completely wrong ideas about cycle infrastructure. He seems to have got these ideas from John Forrester, leader of the vehicular cycling sect in the United States, and vehement opponent of cycle lanes. Parker did, indeed, live and cycle for some time in the States. Parker's ideas are written down here and here. As these documents date from about 14 years ago, my apologies to him if he has significantly altered his opinions in the meantime, but I don't think he has.

Jeremy Parker's most characteristic idea, that he often articulates, is that:

The entire street London street network is already the London cycle network

That is, cyclists don't need any other network, anything special. He is therefore in general opposed to "cycle facilities".

I am afraid to say that in the state of Barnet's cycling environment today, you see what happens when the councillor who believes that "cycle lanes are an unnecessary obstruction to cars, for which of course, roads were built" meets the cycling campaigner who believes that "The entire street London street network is already the London cycle network". You get the Bikeless Borough of Barnet.

Update on the Battle for Blackfriars

Today Conservative London Assembly Members walked out of the chamber, thus making it impossible for the Assembly to debate Jenny Jones's (Green Party) motion calling on TfL to retain the 20mph limit on Blackfriars Bridge. Well, no surprise on this from Brian Coleman aka Mr Toad, who I was well aware cared nothing for my safety on a bike, but it puts all the others into the same boat, including Andrew Boff, who had some record of being relatively pro-cycling. Now we know what all the Conservative Assembly members think about pedestrian and cyclist safety.

Incidentally, on BBC Radio London this morning there was a discussion of the need for 20mph not only at Blackfriars, but London-wide. How out-of-touch these Assembly Members are.


But, see CycleofFutility's view of where the campaign should go now. He has it bang-on. As I have said before, I don't believe 20mph is the real transformative demand we need to make to bring about a genuine cycling revolution in London and the UK. It is a pragmatic demand designed to sound consensual and mainstream. But it wouldn't make that much difference to cycling conditions in the crowded centre of London and similar places, particularly as there is no politically-likely prospect ever of thorough enforcement. Dr Clare Gerada, an experienced, competent cyclist still got badly injured on the Blackfriars north junction racetrack with 20mph currently the limit on the bridge. No. The real transformative demand is for uninterruptible, high-capacity space for cycling as pioneered in The Netherlands. This removes driver/cyclist conflict by design, not by wishful faith in considerate or law-abiding behaviour. It is time for cyclists to start demanding what cycling really needs.