"In the end you (personally Simon) have to work with some people, either us, or LCC, or CTC, or some organisation, to get anything done, so I don't really see why you seem to see the need to spend so much time arguing. It just turns people off, and I don't see any point going over the same things with you time and again. It is a waste of time which could be spent on something better."
Herefollows details of one of my more recent attempts to work with the people at the London Cycling Campaign ...
From: Simon Parker
To: Ashok Sinha
Sent: Tuesday, 9 January 2012, 20:09
Subject: bikemapper
_______________________________
Dear Ashok,
I’ve been getting right into a book by Professor James Gordon of late, as you can see from a couple of my most recent blogs [Accidents will happen and Minimum Functioning - a case history]. He opens the book with a passage from the New English Bible:
Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves [...].” But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world.
I am convinced that, if we expect to be heard, and we do, then we advocates of mass cycling have to think objectively or systematically, and arrive at a proposal which is impartial and which stands up well to scrutiny. Because if we can’t present the mayoral candidates with something like a shared vision, if we can’t agree amongst ourselves on the most appropriate way forward—and this might happen by the way, particularly if people approach this subjectively, and base their arguments on prejudice, or wishful thinking, or half-truths—then why should they take seriously anything that we have to say?
The cycling community is right to be critical of the way in which TfL conducts itself, but in pointing the finger, and regarding the mote in their eye, are we sure that their sense of righteousness could not exceed ours? The case is, nobody should be expected to accept any way of thinking without proof, and that is true whether TfL talks about smoothing the traffic flow as a priority, or whether LCC talks about creating clear space for cyclists as a priority. We can’t have it both ways.
I don’t know how closely you keep your ear to the ground, or your eye to the blogosphere, but you may have picked up on something of a spat between David Arditti and me following a recent posting of his, Raising Awareness. The debate between us can be summed up like this:
David: “Give cyclists safe routes on main roads, and then we can think about the rat runs.”
Me: “Give cyclists a functioning, comprehensive, city-wide cycle network, and then we can think about making the main road routes safe for cyclists.”
David: “If we had a mayor who was fully committed to ‘Going Dutch’ we could see dramatic results within 4 years.”
Me: “Regardless of whichever candidate wins the next mayoral election, we could see some results within a relatively short time (and for relatively not much money).”
The debate between us is not where to end up, or even how quickly we could get there, but where to begin. Since both of the main candidates have given not the least indication that they have any commitment to Going Dutch, I had a number of questions for David (which he wouldn’t answer):
(i) Why are you opposed to doing as much as possible at least bureaucracy first?
(ii) Why are you opposed to making the best use of the currently available resources?
(iii) Why aren’t you thinking in terms of a (comprehensive, city-wide cycle) network?
(iv) What is substantially different, in terms of the words used to describe them, between the LCN+ and the Go Dutch model?
(v) Are you able to point to any example of the LCN+ working well?
Significantly, the boroughs would not need planning permission to develop a revitalised cycle network to a minimum level of functioning, so in following this line you’re cutting through a lot of red tape. It’s a first step, that’s all. It’s a prudent place to start. Think in terms of a network, get it up and running, and take things from there. Technically speaking, what is ‘wrong’ with this approach, Ashok?
Ken has said: “In a perfect world, we would have hundreds of miles of segregated cycle routes, but we have to face the reality that this is very difficult on many of London’s roads. But we can also be more ingenious, with well-signposted cycle routes through quieter back streets. I am very interested to hear suggestions from Londoners about how we can make roads safer for cyclists.”
Boris has said: “I am particularly interested in LCC’s ideas for a tube-style cycle map of London .”
Of the two main candidates, one of them is very interested, and the other one is particularly interested. As professionals, it is our business—our responsibility even—to pick up on signals like this, and to react to them appropriately.
More recently, Steve Norris has said: “Isn’t it true that the one thing that puts people off cycling is that they say it’s not safe enough? We’ve got to make sure that we eliminate that so that more people can get on their bikes and lower our carbon emissions, humanise themselves, make themselves fitter, and so on. I’m a huge supporter of more cycling in London .
“I do think that we’ve got to look at the Cycle Superhighways and make sure they really are safe. I rather agree that we might as well do that before we build any more of them.”
TfL have committed themselves to developing a further eight CS routes during the next mayoralty. Obviously there’s a very good chance they will make a better job of them this time around.
But what does everyone else do in the meantime? It's a problem, David concedes, because with the old campaigning strategy this 'meantime' would last forever. Be that as it may, I understand that LCC are looking to draw up a list, borough by borough, of those routes that they think should be given the Go Dutch treatment. As I have said on the blog, it doesn't make any difference to me at all which routes LCC think ought to be upgraded, or even how long this work might take. By all means, have your big plans ready. Push for them with all your might. But in thinking in terms of a network, these high-engineered solutions are not the first step—certainly not the most prudent first step—and I would be interested to hear you try to refute it.
I maintain that we need a shared vision. United, and armed with a progressive, purposeful plan, which has been properly peer-reviewed, and with all the difficult questions answered, we have a very real chance of budging TfL from their car-centric position. I am concerned, then, that my proposed design be thoroughly scrutinised, and I would like to see whichever mole-hills stand in the way of this being kicked to one side. I know how good my work is, and I believe that other people looking at this should be able to arrive at the same conclusions about the best way forward that I have.
However, I recognise that LCC should in no way be expected to lend its public support to a proposal concerning the development of cycling in London in which it does not have has a stake. My thought, therefore, is to give LCC control of the day-to-day running of bikemapper, and to remove myself entirely from the moderator role. Whether it is one of the LCC office staff who would take this on, or one of its members, is obviously for you to decide.
I would be interested to discuss the details of this proposal with you further—all options are still open—and would be delighted to hear back from you with your thoughts.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Parker
From: Ashok Sinha
To: Simon Parker
Sent: Friday, 13 January 2012, 12:54
Subject: RE: bikemapper
_______________________________
Thank you for your email [above] Simon. You can be assured that LCC maintains close links with the main political parties in London and we do what we can to be alive to the opportunities presented. We also work closely with a range of other advocacy groups to maximise the commonality of our messages.
You challenge me to respond to your criticism of LCC’s approach and the case you make for your own. The simple answer is that our Go Dutch campaign was arrived at through a democratic process culminating in a full membership vote. Our task is now to give Go Dutch as much heft as we can muster.
If you have a full business proposal around bikemapper please do send it over and we will consider it with interest.
Regards,
a
Dr Ashok Sinha
From: Simon Parker
To: Ashok Sinha
Sent: Tuesday, 16 January 2012, 18:55
Subject: bikemapper
_______________________________
Thank you very much for your reply, Ashok, which I would like to respond to one paragraph at a time.
The first paragraph was most encouraging. You might wish to know that when I finally made up my mind to contact you, and ask that LCC assume day-to-day control of the website, I felt a great weight lifted off my shoulders. It took me a while to reach this decision actually—you weren’t the first people I asked—but as soon as I thought of it, it felt right to me, and I knew that if you accepted it, I would be able to leave it in safe hands.
As for the second paragraph, I wasn't being critical of LCC's approach. You have laid out some general principles, which I think are perfectly fine, and there has been some debate on the forum pages, most of which I agree with.
Dave said that Going Dutch (note the verb tense) is principally about segregated cycling, and please don’t shy away from using this word. emrobs pointed out that in many cases we don’t need to give every road a segregated space of course, but we do need to apply some common sense to obvious routes. For Austen, the infrastructure improvements of Go Dutch, if done properly, could also lay the foundations for Start Right, Love Thy Neighbourhood and Unwind. anoopshah remarked that cycle route planning needs to be given higher priority in order to ensure that the routes are continuous and direct. Group51uk thought that treating one main road in each borough, the full useful length, is a great idea. clneely observed that there is ‘cultural stuff’ to bear in mind, and Jon Fray reminded us that London is a big place. I think mike@lcc is also bang on the button (in his comment on Love Thy Neighbourhood): “I believe traffic-calming measures on small streets are just as crucial as segregated routes on the busiest routes.” Probably the only comment with which I disagreed was jondclarke’s , who suggested that a 20mph limit is the single most useful thing we can push for (but then, of course, I’m biased).
Go Dutch is about a journey, ultimately, a direction of travel, with a clearly defined destination. Even though we might never actually get there—certainly if the people of Groeningen are to be believed—we need to start somewhere. Pretty much all I know about this is found in Chapter 8 of Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities, and whilst I am delighted to read that the Corporation of London are to take steps towards the Go Dutch model, we know that some of the other boroughs hear the beat of a different drummer, to say nothing of TfL, and it is therefore very unlikely that the whole of London would have Gone Dutch within the next next four years. As I understand it, the whole point of the LCC approach was to identify those changes which could be delivered during the next mayoralty.
In order to give the Go Dutch campaign maximum heft, as you put it, building upwards from a solid base would undoubtedly be a good place to start. Given that the compass colour concept is demonstrably able to provide for that solid base, I ask that my work be peer-reviewed. Because I don’t think I have ever drawn the same map twice, and I have imposed certain limitations on my design, which others might think inappropriate or unnecessary, so please don’t accept my proposed layout as a fait accompli.
This brings me on to your final paragraph. This has really got me scratching my head, I have to admit. I recognise that LCC should not be expected to lend their public support to a proposal concerning the development of cycling in London in which you do not have a stake; and I can only assume you have understood this to mean a financial stake, and this is why you are asking me to provide you with a business plan.
I am sorry if you have formed this impression. My hope is that my proposed design would help LCC achieve its ambition to see London Go Dutch, and that your association with this product would reflect well on you.
Regards,
Simon
From: Ashok Sinha
To: Simon Parker
Sent: Tuesday, January 17 2012, 13:43
Subject: RE: bikemapper
_______________________________
Thanks for the [above] Simon. My mistake for not being clear. By business plan I meant something more general: even if it is only to repeat to me what you have said to others (for which I apologise). I mean a document detailing what you propose to do with this project going forward, how LCC could help, what you suggest LCC’s participation would be in specific terms, what would be the benefits accruing, in specific terms etc.
A formal ‘proposal’, or ‘project plan’ would perhaps be better descriptions.
Best,
a
Dr Ashok Sinha
From: Simon Parker
To: Ashok Sinha
Sent: Wednesday, January 18 2012, 09:03
Subject: Re: bikemapper
__________________________________
Thanks for clearing this up for me, Ashok. What would I like to see happen to compass colours? to the London Cycle Map? to bikemapper.org.uk
Compass Colours. I would like to see this concept applied on cycle networks throughout the UK. For this reason I have made it freely available to all UK-based cycle advocacy groups, upon request.
The London Cycle Map. This is the map, not the network it describes. Obviously it needs to be made freely available to the public, and I would therefore like to explore the possibility of sponsorship, as Ikea does with the Tube map.
Bikemapper.org.uk. I would like to remove myself from the moderator role, and am looking to pass this on. I would like for my proposed layout to be scrutinised, and I would like for LCC to oversee that scrutinty.
All options are open with regard to the website, but I will just list those areas which I am looking to relinquish control of:
Photomap
What's Missing? map
Forum
Opinion poll
Challenge
Quotes and Did you knows?
Blogroll
Two of the four pop-ups along the bottom (the LCMC video would stay, so would the Offer (at least until the middle of March), so two-and-a-half of the pop-ups then).
This leaves the badges, the map tour and the banner on the home page, the About section and the Contact details. If you decide to take this on, these can be changed as necessary upon agreement.
What benefits will accrue to LCC? Let me begin by assuring you that this is a quality product. It should be able to provide for pretty much any strategic journey.
When LCC was first established, they had in mind the development of a Strategic Cycle Network (SCN). My proposal ensures that all the work that people have put in over the years will not have been in vain.
I have maintained my LCC membership for quite a few years now, despite some difficulties with your predecessors, because I share your vision for a more cyclised London , and I would like to see you succeed in your endeavours.
I don't know if I have answered all your questions to your satisfaction, but I hope at least to have got a step closer.
Regards,
Simon
[No response from Ashok, so I tried again a couple of weeks later.]
From: Simon Parker
To: Ashok Sinha
Sent: Wednesday, 1 February 2012, 08:52
Subject: Re: bikemapper
__________________________________
Hello again,
I am returning to the UK within the next week, and intend to be in London from the 8th onwards. I am very keen that we should work as hard as possible to present the Mayoral candidates with a shared vision, and am therefore looking to cooperate fully.
Implicitly, it seems to me, you do not disagree with Professor John Parkin of LSBU who described my proposal as "technically flawless", but now we need to start getting down to the detail, and this is why I am keen that my work be peer-reviewed. If you amenable to discuss this matter further, I would be delighted to meet up with you at your convenience.
With regards,
Simon
From: Ashok Sinha
To: Simon Parker
Sent: Wednesday, 1 February 2012, 16:13
Subject: RE: bikemapper
__________________________________
Hello Simon,
I consulted with colleagues regarding the previous discussions you have had with LCC regarding your initiative, i.e. before my arrival. It seems that we had a number of misgivings at the time, which I think would continue to persist.
It may be that my reading of the situation has missed developments since the last time you contacted LCC and that we may be able to productively return to this issue at some point. However practicalities at our end dictate that we will have to concentrate on implementing our existing and demanding workplan on Go Dutch before being able to consider any significant other projects.
Best wishes,
Ashok
From: Simon Parker
To: Ashok Sinha
Sent: Wednesday, 1 February 2012, 20:04
Subject: Re: bikemapper
__________________________________
Hello Ashok,
You have got to be kidding, right? If LCC ever had any misgivings in the past, they were never made known to me. Perhaps you would be kind enough to indicate what those misgivings were, and explain why they are still relevant.
On 6th July 2006, David Rowe wrote: "If a wider network of routes was to be pursued it would not only require support from the boroughs, but also from key stakeholder groups like LCC. I forwarded the information you sent to LCC who shared it with members of their Planning & Engineering Group. I met with LCC officials yesterday (5 July 2006) and they advised their priority is for TfL and the boroughs to complete LCN+ by 2009/10.
"In light of the views expressed by the London Cycling Campaign [...] TfL cannot proceed further at the current time with evaluating the case for your proposal."
And now it is exactly the same argument. Except not LCN+ of course, that was a complete waste of time and money, but Go Dutch.
But why not start at the beginning, Ashok? Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities is very clear about the most prudent way to proceed, so why not pursue their advice?
In my first email I suggested that we think in terms of a comprehensive, city-wide cycle network, get the thing up and running, and take it from there. Technically speaking, I asked you, what is wrong with this approach?
You ignored the question, answering one of your own instead.
Ashok, approximately eighty cyclists have been killed in London since 2006. Please explain what misgivings LCC have regarding my proposal.
Regards,
Simon
From: Ashok Sinha
To: Simon Parker
Sent: Wednesday, 1 February 2012, 22:49
Subject: RE: bikemapper
__________________________________
You have my answer Simon.
Best wishes,
Ashok
FOOTNOTE 20/08/13
In my second email to Ashok, I referred to a debate which had taken place on the LCC forum. I began by quoting Dave: "Going Dutch [note the verb tense] is principally about segregated cycling, and please don’t shy away from using this word." Thinking about it now, I would say that a network of segregated cycle routes is Gone Dutch.
No comments:
Post a Comment