There's a war going on on London's streets right now. Two tribes: Two wheels versus four wheels. Bicyclists versus car-ists. Speaking personally as both a cyclist and a driver, I hate myself. But should I? Is it true that to provide infrastructure for one tribe you have to screw things up for the other? or can we learn to live side by side? or one behind the other? Or weaving in and out of each other? ( ♫ ♫ ♫ ) As discussed in the previous episode, we've now got lovely Cycle Superhighways. But unfortunately, progress for cycling infrastructure has been somewhat grinding somewhat to a halt. The current mayor, Sadiq Khan, and I'm sorry to say this cos I really like him has been pretty rubbish for cycling. He's cancelled cycling projects left, right and straight down the middle. His only achievement so far has been the "Quietways". The Quietways are a benign and barely noticeable network of signposts and tippex guiding cyclists onto less busy roads. But it's hard to imagine who will benefit from them. Not timid new cyclists, cos they still have to share with cars, and not experienced cyclists because they won't want to go the wiggly squiggly long way round. So, why is cycling being watered down in the capital? There are several different groups whose fault it is. In order to build cycle superhighways, TfL needs the cooperation of London's 32 local boroughs. The streets belong to them, and not all of them are enthusiastic about bikes. Kensington and Chelsea, the Slytherin of the London boroughs, has been the most obstructive of them all. CS9, which in the original proposal, was meant to go all the way to central London was cut back in 2016 to stop here at Kensington Olympia. And CS3, which was originally planned to go all the way to Acton, now stops here at Lancaster Gate. Coincidence? And it's not just the boroughs halting progress. Delays and cuts are also being caused by the curious Royal Parks Commission The Royal Parks of London are technically private land belonging to the Queen, not the local boroughs. So change here has always been slow and reluctant. Elec...tricity? When the East-West Cycle Superhighway was announced, the Royal Parks dithered for so long over which way it should go through St James's Park, TfL were forced to publish this embarrassing map with the route still not decided, long after construction had started. in a further poke in the tyres to cyclists, the Royal Parks installed speed bumps in Hyde Park on what used to be a really popular cycle route, hitting cyclists where it hurts the most... their balls. AND!!! The Church of Our Lady of Grace and St. Edward in Chiswick has been calling on their parishioners to literally pray for CS9 not to be built outside their church. So why do all these groups of people hate cyclists so much? What's their beef? Why don't they like cycle lanes? What's wrong with bicycle infrastructure according to them? Why do they have a problem with bicyclists? What, for them, is the reason that cycle infrastructure is such a bad thing? They give several different reasons. This man said that a cycle path would spoil the village-like atmosphere of Chiswick. but it was hard to hear him over the roar of traffic. Shopkeepers complained that the Mini-Holland scheme, which removed car parking spaces closed off rat runs and made the streets far more cycle friendly would cause all the shops to close down. But in fact, the opposite has happened and brought the area to life. So, aaaaaaah!! - Mrs. Panhandle from West Ruislip says...
(female voice) - Dear Unfinished London Why should the Government spend millions of pounds on cyclists, when it's us drivers who pay our road tax and cyclists pay nothing? - F**k you, Mrs. Panhandle! First of all, if that were true that would be a good thing. Cars produce way more wear and tear on roads than bikes do, and second of all, it's not true. Road tax is not there to fund roads; it's an income stream for the Treasury like any other. And they can spend it on whatever they like. You wouldn't say freeloading pedestrians don't deserve street lamps. Mrs. Panhandle's anti-cyclist attitude is sadly quite a common one. And this is not helped by the media. According to nearly every bike-related article you read about in the newspapers cyclists are dangerous and irresponsible tearaways whose fault it usually is when an accident happens. And if they choose not to wear a helmet, well they only had it coming. This really annoys me actually. The sort of people who say "Why don't you wear a helmet?" are usually the sort of people who've never ridden a bike in their lives, and they're only saying it because they want to absolve themselves of all responsibility for cyclists' safety on the road. If you really want to make cycling safer, instead of giving everyone a helmet, give them a piece of paper saying "For god's sake, never ever go on the left of a lorry because that's where almost every cycle death happens." By all means, wear a helmet if you want to; it could save your life if you're unlucky enough to land head-first into anything, but as for making helmets compulsory it doesn't make cycling safer and if you don't believe me, look at Australia, a country where the wearing of helmets is mandatory and hardly anyone cycles, and then compare that to the Netherlands or Denmark where everyone rides a bike and no-one wears a helmet. You don't make an activity safer by discouraging people from doing it, you.... Whilst it's easy to dismiss these complaints as bunkum, there is one genuine, impossible to deny disadvantage that does come with the building of cycle superhighways. *nonsense cockney vowels and glottal stops* Yes it's true, some cycle lanes, especially the good ones, do indeed take away space that used to be available for cars. But unfortunately there's nowhere else practical for these cycle lanes to go. Some audacious architects have come up with some innovative suggestions for where else to put cycle paths other than the surface streets. TfL proposed building CS3 high up on the Westway, conveniently crossing Kensington and Chelsea without having to ask their permisson. But this was cancelled in 2017 because it was impractical and terrifying and no one was ever going to use it. Norman Foster, the architect responsible for Boris Island, proposed a network of elevated cyclepaths called SkyCycle, floating above London's railway lines. But this was even more unnecessarily elaborate. Not to mention phenomenally expensive. And finally, in my opinion, the underwhelming-est of them all A series of lifts around the Strand going down to disused Tube tunnels converted into cycle paths with the deeply uninspiring name "The Underline", which I can think of at least twelve better names than. It's not rocket science. In cities like London where the streets aren't getting any wider, cycle paths do have to go on the road. If only we could redesign London from scratch. Imagine if our streets were wide enough for cars, buses and bikes. That'd be just perfect, wouldn't it...? ouldn't it... ouldn't it... ouldn't it...? Steeeeeeevenage. 32 miles north of London A new town built from scratch in the 60s where planners weren't limited by space. There are beautiful segregated cycle paths everywhere. But look.... empty. The good people of Stevenage have no incentive to use their cycle paths. Their roads are just too acceptable. They don't get massive traffic jams even in rush hour and all the shops have got free car parking So why would they bother with the bike? What we learn from Stevenage is, you don't just have to encourage people onto their bikes - you have to encourage them out of their cars. But what's wrong with cars? I'll tell you what's wrong with cars: Cars are incredibly space inefficient. That's what's wrong with cars. Look how many people are moving through the road when they're all in their cars. Not a lot. But watch what happens if you put them on bikes. Oooh! And it's not just bikers who benefit. Every single one of those new cyclists is someone no longer taking up space on the Tube, on the bus, or in a car. Yes, even drivers benefit from cycle lanes in the long-term. There will always be people that have to drive, like delivery vans and construction traffic, and ambulances and giraffes in transit. And they'll all get where they're going much faster when the road is being used only by people that have a f***ing good excuse for being there. By the way, I haven't even been talking about pollution! It almost goes without saying that cars pollute and bikes don't. But you know what? Even if all cars were electric they'd still be just as horribly space inefficient. This isn't about air quality - it's about sustainability. But it's also about air quality. So, hurting drivers is not merely a by-product of improving cycling; it's a desired effect. Saying that a cycle scheme doesn't work because drivers are unhappy, is a bit like saying that a diet doesn't work because it's making you hungry. London is not Stevenage. Its population is expected to hit 10 million by 2030. So if we're gonna make room for everybody cycling has to become more normal than driving. That's why I'm worried that cycle progress isn't progressing - there's still loads more to do. Uh? Ahh! Wh... whassat? What the f....? *spluttering So, to sum up, things are getting better for cycling, but not better enough. Perhaps the most troubling thing about the cycle superhighways is that name - "Super Highways". It makes them sound like they're the best they could possibly be, like they're rare and exceptional. Whereas if you showed them to a Dutch person, they'd just think they're normal. - In fact, they're the bare minimum.
(laughing and speaking in Dutch) London's cycling revolution is unfinished. These cycle lanes won't realise their incredible potential until they're everywhere. The Superhighways won't be super until there's nothing super about them. *SMASH!*
- OWWWWWW!!!! OWWW!! OWWW!!! I can't feel my legs!!! OWWW....! ♫ I've always wanted a monthly subscription to Skillshare ♫ A monthly Skillshare subscription's what I want. ♫ The thing I want is a monthly subscription to Skillshare ♫ And the thing I do to a Skillshare subscription is want. What Skillshare is, is an online learning community with more than 17,000 classes for creators. It's got videos to teach you how to do stuff like make podcasts sound really good, make animations look really good, or make music sound really good, or make your skills with operating cameras really good. Personally, I personally recommend the Skillshare video about learning video editing with Premiere Pro which I've genuinely used and it's been genuinely really useful. - Can I use Skillshare?
- No. You haven't subscribed yet. - Oh.
- But don't worry, subscribing only costs less than $10 per month I'm not sposed to tell you this, but if you click on the link in the description below, the first 500 of you will get Skillshare for free for the first two months. ♫ Skillshare's good good good good good good good ♫ good good good good good good good good good good good.
Promptly subscribed. When a Youtuber can get you to watch his entire 'Skillshare patronage' part, he's worth it.. :-)
Meanwhile, here I am in Texas, sad as shit
Kensington and Chelsea ==Slytherin 🤣
The most important thing I learnt from this: Stevenage.
This guy's channel is highly entertaining and informative.
His series about London's airports and motorways sounds massively boring but as also hilarious.
He should have a tv show.
Been subscribed to this guy for a while. I'm super happy with this!
Man, laughed so hard. Thanks for sharing.
Phenominal