Tuesday, October 12, 2010

CSH/Cycle Hire Survey

Let TfL know what you think here .

David Beckham cycling

David Beckham out cycling with his lads, which means cycling's cool.

Where was Victoria? "Working on upcoming projects for Range Rover." Oh well.

Road and Aircraft Noise Bad for the Heart

A Swiss study reported by Reuters establishes a link between high levels of noise and increased risk of a heart attack. Whilst previous studies had linked proximity to a major road with heath risks, it was not clear whether noise or air pollution or a combination of the two were responsible.

It's interesting that the Daily Mail report the story but only mention aircraft noise. Their report keeps very quiet about road noise, because roads are A Good Thing.

The authorities will also want to keep this quiet. The report points the finger of responsibility for further large numbers of premature deaths caused by road and aircraft noise to the annual 50,000 caused by air pollution and the annual 30,000 deaths and serious injuries caused by road crashes. It reveals huge hidden costs to the NHS, disability benefits and lost taxes - not to mention the human costs.



But in fact all this is just propaganda in the War on the Motorist. The real danger is cyclists. There must be a crack down on dangerous pavement cycling and red-light jumping. Cycling is the real menace to society.

Hal Lewis Resignation

The climate change deniosphere is abuzz with the news that Hal Lewis, who is an American professor of physics, has resigned from the American Physical Society in protest at the APS's stance on climate change, and his resignation letter has been hailed by self-appointed denier-in-chief Anthony Watts as "...an important moment in science history...a letter on the scale of Martin Luther."

This is pure hyperbole. The fact that Lewis is any kind of scientist makes it newsworthy in the eyes of the deniers, which is a measure of their desperation for evidence to support their case. However, Lewis is not a climate scientist, does not appear to know much about climate science, and the APS is not directly a climate science institution. There is no new science in Lewis's resignation letter, and no new malpractice or conflict of interest has been uncovered or even alleged. There is no new critique of the science, no new falsification of data, no new conspiracy, nothing new. All that has happened is someone who denies anthropogenic climate change has resigned from a body that supports the science behind it. Big deal. But the deniers, like the drowning man, will clutch at any straw no matter how flimsy.

More here.

Monday, October 11, 2010

He doesn't mean me, does he?

*Gulp*. Andrew Marr says bloggers are "inadequate, pimpled and single", and "slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting".

Busted. Well, nearly. I like to think of myself as 'slightly seedy', but I don't have a basement and I have no idea what a 'cauliflower nose' is. By the way, Andrew, you're no oil painting yourself mate. Maybe Marr is getting his impressions of bloggers from the Google ads for hair regrowth formula and plastic surgery that get served up with a lot of blogs?

Marr protests: "But the so-called citizen journalism is the spewings and rantings of very drunk people late at night." Like too much regular so-called journalism, then.

"Most citizen journalism strikes me as nothing to do with journalism at all..." Very true, but a lot of professional journalism has very little to do with journalism. Have you read the Daily Mail or the Sun recently? "Most of the blogging is..too abusive...people say things online that they wouldn't dream of saying in person." Ever heard of Jan Moir, Andrew? Or the series of libels against national treasure Sir Elton John? Marr could also look closer to home. My ideal of journalism is, contraversially, tied up with quality of factual research, balance and accuracy. I've pointed out as has the estimable (and angry) Freewheeler the BBC's tendency uncritically to regurgitate press releases by right-wing and motor-industry lobbyists. Good journalism? I think not. Maybe it's a reflection of the poor quality of 'pro' journalism that blogs have become such a popular alternative.

The mistake Marr makes is one of generalizing all of Web 2.0. There is a huge difference between the sort of garbage you often find on the Daily Mail comment threads and well-researched, well written blogs, of which there are plenty. To lump the two together is simply sloppy journalism and shows a lack of understanding of new media. Nick Robinson has a more intelligent take on it.
Bit of a no-news day, transport-wise, but the Daily Mail have picked up on serial offender Katie Price (otherwise known as Jordan), who may be familiar to viewers of the high-numbered channels, as she

"appeared to throw road safety out of the window by holding her large Gucci bag in front of her face as she sat behind the wheel of her pink horse box near her new Sussex home yesterday."

Clearly the Mail is missing the real issues here. Gucci is such an airport brand. And a PINK horsebox? Purleeease!

Sussex road users will be pleased to know she's up before the beak again tomorrow for speeding, and given she has a collection of 10 points already, should get banned. However, even Mr Loophole cannot help her wriggle out of her crimes against fashion. She should be made to shop at Primark for a year.

Friday, October 8, 2010

Lupus Street - London's Worst Cycling?

Lupus Street, SW1 is a convenient cycle route that enables the cyclist (and the rat-running motorist) to avoid the busy 4-lane Grosvenor Road. It is part of the London Cycle Network, so it is an official cycle route.

It is also an exemplar of how not to do cycle infrstructure. It really is total cr@p. Come with me, dear reader, on a brief tour:

First, the good bit. It's only good because the western end of the street is currently closed to traffic due to roadworks:

After the roadworks, things get steadily worse.

There are three things wrong here. Parking is allowed in the cycle lane. The cycle lane is advisory only, and is narrower than it could be because Westminster Council have chosen to have a hatched area in the middle of the road to keep the two lanes of speeding traffic apart. This street could have a 20MPH limit, but Westminster Council hate speed limits as much as they hate cyclists. Lastly, you've got those railings right by the road, so if a speeding driver cuts you up, you'll be heading straight for them (and St Tommy's A&E).

Next, you see the cycle lane is right next to a junction and then right next to a line of parked cars. There is no door zone: if you are stupid enough to cycle in the cycle lane you're at risk of getting knocked off by someone opening a car door. In fact, the cycle lane marks exactly where you should never cycle. For safety and to be visible, you should be in the main traffic lane in this situation. Of course, what Westminster Council could have done is have a segregated cycle path - look how wide the road is. But that might just encourage cycling, which Westminster don't want.

Next, you see two vans, one half-parked in the cycle lane, one completely blocking it.

Another cycle lane. Parked vehicles are encroaching into it. Even if they weren't, you should under no circumstances cycle in it as it has no door zone. But because it's there, drivers will probably expect you to do so and get quite upset if you get in their bit of the road.

Why is this car in the cycle lane? Because there's a well-placed pedestrian refuge that forces them into it. This is truly lethal. But it gets worse...


The cycle lane here is on the left, but most cyclists will be going right. Yet traffic in the inside lane may turn left across a cyclist. It is absolute lunacy to put the cycle lane where it is: it encourages cyclists to be exactly where they shouldn't be. Either the left turn should be banned, or the left lane should be made left-turn-only and the cycle lane should be between the two traffic lanes.

What annoys me most is they've actually spent money ruining a perfectly good road. It would be safer for cyclists if they'd done nothing at all. Because they've spent money and bought a pot of paint, it looks like cyclists should be grateful for this consideration. Someone who doesn't cycle may think: what have cyclists got to whinge about? Look at all this marvellous infrastructure! Cyclists should really pay the congestion charge and road tax like the rest of us!