LCC have always been a pretty dull and useless organisation, as well as being a dead weight dragging down the chance of any real cycle activism in London. They seem to exist mainly as a feel-good measure to make middle class people feel like they're doing something, when in reality they're just preserving the status quo by giving a benign illusion of opposition.

If LCC didn't already exist then TFL would surely have to invent them, if only to try to block the chances of any genuine cycle protests taking place.

Thank god Bikes Alive have come along. They're like a breath of fresh air in a stagnant pool of complicity and inertia.

Cyclists face so much violence on the roads that peaceful protest is a perfectly legitimate response. LCC are completely out of touch have actually been briefing against these protests behind the scenes.

Let's not pretend that we're all united just for the sake of appearances, when the reality is that LCC are acting out of pure self interest to ensure that they remain in their cosy position at the top of the cycling hierarchy. It's seems it's ok for them to organise flashrides, but they disapprove of anyone else doing so.

LCC are weak, complacent and have now shown themselves to be a divisive, reactionary force that are actually holding back efforts to improve conditions for cyclists in London. Forget them and let's get on with the job ourselves.

I arrived to attend the first of these events, but when I was handed a "bust card" with the comment "for when you are arrested" (not "if") I lost my nerve - I work in a regulated profession and don't relish having to disclose convictions in my annual fit&proper declaration.

I can quite see LCC's perspective. They are, as they say, a charity. As such they are not permitted to participate in overtly political activity (and while I am a sympathiser, I don't see how this can be percieved as anything else). They also generate a fair proportion of their revenues, used forthe benefit of all London cyclists, from sources which would dry up instantaneously if they got mixed up in anything controversial.

An entirely separate question is whether these protests will be successful, and LCC might, for all I know, be silently wishing them well from the sidelines. However, on the first occasion there was a good deal more than 80 cyclists presennt - nearer 200 I would have said, and decliming numbers on the second event doesn't sound very successful to me.

That is not to say that direct action is a bad idea - I am not sure I know what other language TfL and Boris understand.

There's no division here, and suggesting that there is misses the point and just distracts from a very important issue. The key point is that large groups of people who use Londons roads are not happy with the level of safety, and priority, afforded to people who are not travelling in motor vehicles.

Are there different groups involved? Yes. Do they perhaps represent slightly different sectors of the population? Perhaps (I believe there were groups representing pedestrians at this protest also?). Do they have exactly the same view on how best to campaign on this issue? No, and why should they? Is this a 'division amongst cyclists?'. No, its just a range of people trying to raise awareness of the same issue in a variety of different ways. Does this make the campaigning less effective? No, in fact it should mean that the varies campaigns led by different groups are visible to a wider range of the rest of the population.

What you should be reporting is how cycle and pedestrian safety, and TfLs lack of any hard action to improve it on the roads that they control, is clearly becoming supported by an increasing number of different groups of people. This surely suggests that an ever increasing sector of Londons residents are coming together on this issue, and to suggest that this means there is division in the opinions is just cheap soap opera reporting.