Hembrow has deleted his blog

[mickle]

David Hembrow has deleted his blog. Bike Biz story here:

Whether one agrees with him or not (and I don't agree with him on a lot of things) and I understand his reasons for doing so think he was wrong to.

I hope it's only hidden and not actually deleted, but it would be hard for him to replace it after this.

 

[Red Light]

Stopping adding to it because you don't have time is one thing but removing it all so no-one can access what was already there seems a bit curmudgeonly.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

This is still up...or my computer's working about a day behind schedule....

http://hembrow.eu/blog/

 

[dellzeqq]

Ha! This from a man who quoted me out of context and without permission.......

"However, it increasingly became apparent that commercial organisations including magazines and newspapers, other websites and transport related organisations including the London Cycling Campaign, European Cycling Federation and Environmental Transport Association were taking an interest in my work. In some cases my text and photos were copied without asking me and without giving any credit...Photos have been taken from our website and edited to remove our watermark image. I find this all quite abusive.

 

[theclaud]

Ah, we do enjoy a good enflouncement! I think Smeggers should send compliments...

 

[Red Light]

His blog has been updated to explain the crimes of those who wouldn't pay for his services. http://www.hembrow.eu/blog/

 

[Red Light]

And now he's back in full force with "there are two ways - Hembrow's Way and The Wrong Way"

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Sulky moo.

 

[mumbo jumbo]

Not being as avid a cycle campaigner as perhaps I should be, I've not come across this Hembrow's blog before, ergo I have no axe to grind. The BikeBiz piece has this quote "It's sometimes a fine line between being a 'campaigner' and actually being enough of an expert that people attempt to put into practice some of your ideas without understanding enough about 'what works in the Netherlands' - and that it might not work if directly copied into the UK." (my emphasis)
If he's an expert (and it seems to be accepted that he is), I don't see what the problem is with him asking to have his work, photos, videos etc properly attributed, albeit him describing failures to do so as "abusive" seems a bit paranoid. From what I've read it seems that the blog has only been taken down temporarily. Let him have his moan, I say, then make up, make peace and get on with things in a sensible orderly fashion.

 

[Red Light]

Having his way is fine but his way is to install Dutch style segregated infrastructure in the UK where there is not the width available to install Dutch style segregated infrastructure. So we get people here like CEGB nailing their colours to his mast and when the planners respond with the inevitable logic of what will actually fit in the width available they accept it rather than have to accept they were wrong to ask for it in the first place. Which is how we end up with http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/

 

[dellzeqq]

And now he's back in full force with "there are two ways - Hembrow's Way and The Wrong Way"

oh, ffs. The man is an arse the David Starkey of cycle campaigning. I love the bit about copyright. And my reply is 'Oi, Hembrow, pay me £500 for the quote you lifted and I'll get off your sorry case'.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

FFS! He flounces off from the interwebs deletes his blog and then reinstates it as if it was all part of some grand plan.

 

[Red Light]

FFS! He flounces off from the interwebs deletes his blog and then reinstates it as if it was all part of some grand plan publicity stunt.

FTFY

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The fact that he writes a lot about cycling and a few people like what he writes doesn't make him an expert.

But he advocates for Dutch infrastructure and is a fan of the CEGB. Surely only cranks, oafs, buffoons and scoundrels would take another view?

 

[stowie]

Having his way is fine but his way is to install Dutch style segregated infrastructure in the UK where there is not the width available to install Dutch style segregated infrastructure. So we get people here like CEGB nailing their colours to his mast and when the planners respond with the inevitable logic of what will actually fit in the width available they accept it rather than have to accept they were wrong to ask for it in the first place. Which is how we end up with http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/

I know this might sound like pedantry, but I think it important. There is plenty of room on nearly every UK road to have full cycle facilities. After all most roads accommodate at least 2 lanes of traffic, often with parking and chevron dividers in the centre for right turns etc. Many major trunk roads, even in cities, are multiple lane affairs with large junctions.

What we (we as in society) have decided is how to divide this road-space up. And the collective decisions over years has arrived at the current situation.

Don't get me wrong. I don't particularly want every road to have segregated paths for bicycles - not least because it is unnecessary on many roads which could be treated to simply reduce speed / through traffic, and it is politically unacceptable anyway. When we have pathetic cycle facilities such as the one in your link it isn't because there isn't space for something dutch like (just look at the number of car lanes!); it is instead because we would prefer to use the space for cars, traffic engineers don't understand how people ride cycles, and don't prioritise cycling facilities. The reason that we have so many of these white line "facilities" is that it is easy to measure and cheap to install and they can then pretend that they are cycle friendly. My own council boasts of x miles of cycle lanes in the borough - neglecting to mention the quality of said cycle lanes.