I am an optimist. I have to be. And I so desperately want to be wrong but it is very clear to me that tomorrow’s @RBKC meeting tomorrow to decide on reinstating the Ken High St cycle lane is just public theatre on an already decided outcome. Short THREAD 👇
Like @betterstreetskc eloquently state, the report prepared for Councillors is riddled with errors, has important omissions and is framed through a lens of “man in the street” punditry, not hard available data, expert assessment or good policy.
The options provided to Cllrs to pursue are narrow and pointed towards Option 3 (which I believe they will take) to “develop plans to commission research” on future cycle schemes. This is a two-pronged and drawn out process of kicking any hope of safe cycling into the long grass.
They will do this while simultaneously claim they’re working hard on active travel through a handful of School Streets, a 20mph zone and useless quiet routes, which aren’t direct - nor actually that quiet. They will undoubtedly misrepresent the feedback from 999 services too.
The LAS, for example, are happy to go on record as supportive of the cycle schemes but that they would like a say in the design for access. That seems fair. Prepare for it to be weaponised as “if it costs just one life we can’t”, ignoring the fact schemes can be designed to...
...cater for the needs of emergency services. And to my knowledge, LAS haven’t objected previously to on-street car parking and schemes that will encourage more driving, creating more congestion. Their nuanced view will be presented as binary and, unfairly, as opposition.
As I say, I really, really want to be wrong. And whatever happens, we should be grateful to the volunteers at @betterstreetskc who have fought hard to ensure people can cycle safely. You can read their excellent letter to the Leader here: betterstreets4kc.org.uk/2021/03/16/bet…
Whichever way it goes, we can be sure that this won’t be the last of it. Even with Kensington High St reinstated, there’s the matter of the continual blocking of a safe cycle route between Notting Hill Gate and Holland Park. Their reluctance is wide ranging and multi faceted.
🤞
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is the BBC's Environment Correspondent describing a video, widely shared by troll accounts, of a man shouting and swearing near families in a residential street as "brilliant".
This led to a one-sided piece on LTNs which was devoid of any fact-checking.
THREAD (1/18) 👇
I won't share the BBC video. I don't want to give it any more oxygen and reward the clickbait nature. If you really want to see it, you'll find it.
If you must watch the shouting man video, to see why this is inappropriate to be describing as "brilliant", it's here.
(2/18)
The report didn't mention the widely available data of LTNs, instead focusing on anecdotes and uncorroborated video clips - including one which seemed to use the Sarah Everard case to inflame the LTN debate; when in fact, the evidence shows crime reduction in LTNs.
THREAD: The need to enable active travel is not going away. It will only become more urgent as we fail to meet climate + pollution targets.
Every major political party’s manifesto wanted more cycling infrastructure; now is the time to stop using it for hyperlocal point scoring.
What’s more, the majority of people support it. Polls show 77% think more cycling would decrease congestion. Two thirds support road space reallocation for active travel.
Regardless of politic persuasion, people are more and more concerned about the environment.
A narrative of a “war on cars” or that cycle lanes somehow cause pollution is so incredibly niche that politicians on all sides risk alienating the lion’s share of normal voters with such vitriolic language. While forgetting that most people would enjoy cycling safely.
THREAD: A thread on research and sampling, and how the media use data and polling.
I can safely say from a decade of working with media, it is *highly* unusual for a newspaper to so heavily reference a self-selecting and homemade survey and present it as the views of all people.
Surveys with self-selecting samples, in this case, both from FairFuelUK + cycling advocates, should not be represented as the views of all of those groups; same goes for claiming data represents "Tory voters".
And that's without even mentioning the survey's leading questions.
Polls can make for really interesting stories and are commonplace in media. YouGov, a key player, vets the questions and ensures they don't lead, and gets answers from a statistically representative sample to reflect the views of all GB adults.
Today you might read that cycle lanes will have an impact on ambulance response times, which naturally sounds concerning. But the more you look into it, the more baseless it becomes; quotes from just one individual used by media with an agenda. (Thread)
A new phenomenon caused by hastily rushed through COVID measures, another thing to be concerned about in 2020?
Well, no, the same spokesperson @Richardwebber99 said the same thing in 2017, also to the Mail, about separated cycle lanes then. Concerns that never materialised.
When pushed, articles had to admit that there is no data that specific cycle lanes cause delays to ambulances.
None of the articles referenced that new cycle lanes were actually being used on 999 calls to cut past congestion caused by motor vehicles.