# Massive Investment In Cycling Announced...



## HMS_Dave (10 Feb 2020)

Boris Johnson has announced funding for 250 miles of cycling networks outside of London over the next 5 years. Which has been dubbed 'mini holland' schemes. I don't know about you, but Holland isn't a big country and whats worse is that Holland is actually a smaller region of what is the Netherlands... We in the UK have a paved road network expanding 213000 miles. 250 miles of cycling network (painted lines besides a road) is clearly a massive leap forward! I bet all you cycling fans are now celebrating 🧉🍷🍺🍻

The funding is part of a £5bn pledge over 5 years which includes 4000 electric buses and bus networks, so Cycling has gotten 50-60 pence of that at least... Huzzah!


----------



## I like Skol (10 Feb 2020)

He does seem to be promising a lot of initiatives


----------



## mjr (10 Feb 2020)

And for comparison, a Holland level of spending (scaled up to UK size) would be almost £2bn just on cycling. Every year, so £10bn over 5 years. This is the basic reason why we're so far behind and keep getting overtaken now by the likes of France! Boris the cheapskate!


----------



## raleighnut (10 Feb 2020)

I wonder how much the EU would have contributed over the same period if Councils had applied for funding.


----------



## Seevio (11 Feb 2020)

raleighnut said:


> I wonder how much the EU would have contributed over the same period if Councils had applied for funding.


A very very brief and not necessarily accurate google search says that over the last 6 years, the EU funded cycling in the UK to the tune of about £25M. It would appear that even if the EU were willing to spend our money on more cycling, councils prefer to apply for other things when left to their own devices.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Feb 2020)

Seevio said:


> the EU funded cycling in the UK to the tune of about £25M.



We probably paid them about £35m to do it - given that we are net contributors to the EU.

But I'm sure they enjoyed lots of long meetings, and even longer lunches, on the difference.


----------



## mjr (11 Feb 2020)

250 miles of cycleways. There's 48 ceremonial counties in England, so that's just over five miles per county. How much do you think your county needs?


----------



## Phaeton (11 Feb 2020)

mjr said:


> 250 miles of cycleways. There's 48 ceremonial counties in England, so that's just over five miles per county. How much do you think your county needs?


This was my first thoughts apart from I thought about 25 cities each doing 10 miles, you may as well urinate in the ocean


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 Feb 2020)

Is this like his 50,000 extra nurses where 30,000 already existed? Will he really be building 10 miles of new cycle routes and repainting lines on 240 miles of existing routes?


----------



## raleighnut (11 Feb 2020)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Is this like his 50,000 extra nurses where 30,000 already existed? Will he really be building 10 miles of new cycle routes and repainting lines on 240 miles of existing routes?


Probably.


----------



## mjr (11 Feb 2020)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Is this like his 50,000 extra nurses where 30,000 already existed? Will he really be building 10 miles of new cycle routes and repainting lines on 240 miles of existing routes?


The announcement says new but there's no detail on https://www.gov.uk/transport/cycling-and-walking yet.

Further down the main Transport news page, there's a reminder that the A14 Huntingdon bypass bypass bypass alone cost £1.5bn (and they refused to build any cycleways with it). Cycling gets crumbs.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 Feb 2020)

mjr said:


> The announcement says new



Never. Trust. A Tory.


----------



## dodgy (11 Feb 2020)

He needs to give me a reason to believe him, he's going to have to follow up on a lot of promises before I feel confident in believing him. I wouldn't trust him to give me directions to a pub that I can see in plain sight.


----------



## kingrollo (11 Feb 2020)

I used to despair at these announcements - currently my mindset is torn:-

A)Driving the car is such a pain the arse - traffic, loonies in white vans , parking - that we must be approaching 'Peak Car' - and people will realise that cycling provides a lot answers

B) The car advertising campaign will continue to blind people to the obvious and cyclists will be forced off the road - not helped by ever decreasing enforcement of traffic laws.


----------



## kingrollo (11 Feb 2020)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Never. Trust. A Tory.



I agree with your sentiment - But Blair set national targets for cycling, when he looked like not hitting these - he handed the targets over to local councils and as far as I know they then disappeared.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (11 Feb 2020)

Well, just the first random 3 thoughts to hit me: 
(a) It's clearly not enough, in fact let's be more frank, it's not even a good start with noble but unrealistic intentions. 
(b) If it's more painted lines on a road, I'd rather we didn't bother. Nothing saddens me more than seeing "cycle lanes" with cars parked in them leaving them unusable... what was the point. I'd rather just ride on the same bit of road without the complication of councils claiming they did their bit, or the angry van driver shouting "there's a f*ckin' cycle lane!" at me without even seeing the irony of his rant. 
(c) Boris has a proven track record of lying, not just a bit, but rather a lot, so even this poor start is extremely unlikely to happen.


----------



## icowden (11 Feb 2020)

My least favourite is the London "draw some lines and send the cyclist the wrong way up a one way street. Can't see that going wrong anywhere..."


----------



## dodgy (11 Feb 2020)

Spend the money on a massive public service announcement on all channels and run it for about 6 months with a simple message on how roads are funded, end the Road Tax thing forever. That would be of great benefit to a lot of cyclists.


----------



## Phaeton (11 Feb 2020)

dodgy said:


> end the Road Tax thing forever.


They did in 1934


----------



## fossyant (11 Feb 2020)

I like Skol said:


> He does seem to be telling porkies about a lot of initiatives



Fixed it.


----------



## dodgy (11 Feb 2020)

Phaeton said:


> They did in 1934


Which is why we need a PSA. Did you read my post?


----------



## lane (11 Feb 2020)

Pale Rider said:


> We probably paid them about £35m to do it - given that we are net contributors to the EU.
> 
> But I'm sure they enjoyed lots of long meetings, and even longer lunches, on the difference.



Don't expect too much to change. Where I live a cycle bridge over the Trent was demolished due to being unsafe. They then had a big consultation and design project which spent the whole budget. The actual bridge got built ten or more years later. Substantially over specified (size wise) given the use it gets.


----------



## Phaeton (11 Feb 2020)

dodgy said:


> Which is why we need a PSA. Did you read my post?


Yes, not my fault if you didn't type what you thought you meant


----------



## Joey Shabadoo (11 Feb 2020)

Tories spending tens of billions on trains, buses, cycling, public transport infrastructure. The utter, utter bastards.


----------



## Milkfloat (11 Feb 2020)

Joey Shabadoo said:


> Tories spending tens of billions on trains, buses, cycling, public transport infrastructure. The utter, utter bastards.


They are when it is hundreds of billions required.


----------



## Joey Shabadoo (11 Feb 2020)

Quadrillions, I heard. How can this scum sleep at night?


----------



## mjr (11 Feb 2020)

icowden said:


> My least favourite is the London "draw some lines and send the cyclist the wrong way up a one way street. Can't see that going wrong anywhere..."


It mostly works. It's very widespread in Cambridge. And of course some people will do it anyway. I think it may even be worth introducing a blanket exception and make councils apply to the DfT to ban contraflow cycling, similar to how STOP signs have to get specific approval. If it's almost everywhere and advertised as such, most drivers will stop being dicks about it in the few places it's used.


----------



## mjr (11 Feb 2020)

Joey Shabadoo said:


> Tories spending tens of billions on trains, buses, cycling, public transport infrastructure. The utter, utter bastards.


Has anyone found the actual amount for cycling?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (11 Feb 2020)

mjr said:


> Has anyone found the actual amount for cycling?



Yes, a few mouldy coins from down the back of the Government sofa


----------



## HMS_Dave (11 Feb 2020)

mjr said:


> Has anyone found the actual amount for cycling?



During the Election campaign the Tories pledged £70m a year for cycling infrastructure projects totalling £350m.

That is £1.18p per person...

Aim high i say...


----------



## newfhouse (11 Feb 2020)

Joey Shabadoo said:


> Tories spending tens of billions on trains, buses, cycling, public transport infrastructure. The utter, utter bastards.


Depends how it is spent, surely?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 Feb 2020)

I'll bet most of the money will be spent on widening roads or building new ones "to improve bus journeys".


----------



## steveindenmark (11 Feb 2020)

So England is going to have less cycle paths than my local commune area 😁🚴 I cant wait to visit 😁🇩🇰


----------



## mjr (11 Feb 2020)

Simon MacMichael commented "In the final question of the debate, he confirmed to Ruth Cadbury that the spend on cycling is £350 million. That's the manifesto pledge. It's about £1,20 per person per year over the lifetime of this parliament."

Pathetic. That's rural-Norfolk-level 2010-2015 spending spreading to the whole country. A long way from even the £20/person/year starting point of the Get Britain Cycling report.


----------



## mjr (11 Feb 2020)

This says Boris got the amount wrong. Don't worry, it's still pathetic, just not quite as miniscule...


View: https://mobile.twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1227276467911843847


Now where can he have remembered a bogus bus £350m from?


----------



## Drago (11 Feb 2020)

I'm quite happy to cycle on the road - if Boris would like to spend the money filling in pot holes and punishing dangerous motorists then I'd be very happy with that.


----------



## mjr (11 Feb 2020)

Drago said:


> I'm quite happy to cycle on the road - if Boris would like to spend the money filling in pot holes and punishing dangerous motorists then I'd be very happy with that.


As discussed previously, money needs spending to make more roads places that a lot more people than just the likes of us will cycle on, plus removing some cars will reduce the rate of pothole creation, maybe to a level where we stand a chance of catching up. Agree on the policing but that won't come from a DfT budget.


----------



## HMS_Dave (11 Feb 2020)

Drago said:


> I'm quite happy to cycle on the road - if Boris would like to spend the money filling in pot holes and punishing dangerous motorists then I'd be very happy with that.



More motorists on the roads every year i can't see potholes ever being gotten on top of. However, if we could replace speed cameras with speed activated lasers to accurately disable speeding and distracted motorists that would be a start...🚗💣🎆


----------



## Drago (11 Feb 2020)

I'm all for speed sensitive dashboard tasers myself.


----------



## lazybloke (11 Feb 2020)

If Boris wants to promote cycling, and build HS2, perhaps the cyclepath could be reinstated in the design?


----------



## Seevio (11 Feb 2020)

lazybloke said:


> If Boris wants to promote cycling, and build HS2, perhaps the cyclepath could be reinstated in the design?


It's not that bad an idea. The route will be flat and if they're buying the land anyway, a bit extra for a cycle path wont hurt too much. 

There is a downside though. Your bike ride could end up in Birmingham. 😕


----------



## Drago (12 Feb 2020)

...or London.

Either way, it won't end well! 

On a serious note, the original proposal for the HS2 cycle route was intriguing and clearly had the potential to be a cost effective cycle route of national significance. It's a shame it was dropped and is now being overlooked in the ironic clamour to introduce more safe cycling routes.


----------



## mjr (12 Feb 2020)

Drago said:


> On a serious note, the original proposal for the HS2 cycle route was intriguing and clearly had the potential to be a cost effective cycle route of national significance. It's a shame it was dropped and is now being overlooked in the ironic clamour to introduce more safe cycling routes.


But of course, HS2 can't afford the £102m the cycleway would have cost because a £0.1bn increase would surely make Boris cancel it(!) 

The cycleway would have returned about £5 benefit for each £ spent. The railway will struggle to return £1 for each £ and is being justified by capacity-building.


----------



## straas (12 Feb 2020)

There's no money in cycling unfortunately, or not to a measurable degree. We don't buy taxed fuel at the pumps, and don't pay yearly for tax, insurance, MOT's and maintenance. 

Keeping cars on the road keeps contributions to the economy up.


----------



## mjr (12 Feb 2020)

straas said:


> There's no money in cycling unfortunately, or not to a measurable degree. We don't buy taxed fuel at the pumps, and don't pay yearly for tax, insurance, MOT's and maintenance.
> 
> Keeping cars on the road keeps contributions to the economy up.


Cyclists buy taxed fuel in food shops (more of which will stay in the local economy than the oil revenue) and I certainly pay my taxes and insurance and for maintenance. I doubt the government cut of a few £30 MOTs is worth the increased costs to the NHS from pollution, inactivity and injuries. More widely in economic terms, each road death is estimated to cost the economy £14m, so motoring has a mountain to climb to break even just on that.

Cycling is measurably good for local economies, with loads of studies like cyclists spend 40% in London shops than motorists. Why does the myth that motoring is economically better than cycling keep zombieing on? Its costs are massively more and its benefits are tiny.


----------



## Milkfloat (12 Feb 2020)

I had no idea it was only £102M for the route, that is exceptional value for money, although I guess the devil is in the detail and it could have turned out to be a Sustrans style muddy field. However, as well as being a missed opportunity HS2 actually makes things worse for cyclists. It is cutting access to huge swaths of road network in half and even where bridges and tunnels are being put in place there is little to no provision for cyclists.


----------



## mjr (12 Feb 2020)

Milkfloat said:


> I had no idea it was only £102M for the route, that is exceptional value for money, although I guess the devil is in the detail and it could have turned out to be a Sustrans style muddy field. However, as well as being a missed opportunity HS2 actually makes things worse for cyclists. It is cutting access to huge swaths of road network in half and even where bridges and tunnels are being put in place there is little to no provision for cyclists.


Rather than Sustrans-mistake mud, I suspect the plan would have been simply to tarmac more of the maintenance access tracks than will now be done, rather like how an improved National 51 was made alongside the Cambridge guided busway.

Agreed on the severance problem. The undersized budget for bridging existing links is a disgrace. It feels like we're spending a massive sum on HS2 yet still cutting the wrong corners for the want of a fraction of a percent more.


----------



## HMS_Dave (12 Feb 2020)

straas said:


> There's no money in cycling unfortunately, or not to a measurable degree. We don't buy taxed fuel at the pumps, and don't pay yearly for tax, insurance, MOT's and maintenance.
> 
> Keeping cars on the road keeps contributions to the economy up.


Well not entirely accurate. Cycling is worth £5.4bn to the UK economy. I would call that a measurable degree. That by the way is worth more than the Steel industry in this country and the Gov't and the press give that a great deal of attention... frankly, there is no way cyclists get anywhere near their fair share back from the Gov't in infrastructure projects, in my opinion.


----------



## Drago (12 Feb 2020)

I'd have loved cycling alongside HS2, trains whizzing past periodically. Still, when all the petrol cars are banned we'll soon have the roads to ourselves anyway.


----------



## confusedcyclist (14 Feb 2020)

mjr said:


> Cyclists buy taxed fuel in food shops


Interestingly, most _real _foods are not subject to VAT.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/food-products-and-vat-notice-70114#general-food-products


----------



## mjr (14 Feb 2020)

confusedcyclist said:


> Interestingly, most _real _foods are not subject to VAT.
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/food-products-and-vat-notice-70114#general-food-products


Only if you think prepared food is unreal! Basically, most ingredients are zero-rated, as that says. Food from a typical food stop is standard-rated, as stated in the section immediately above the one you linked to https://www.gov.uk/guidance/food-products-and-vat-notice-70114#general-vat-liability-rules - and I think far more cyclists make café stops than buy things to make picnics or whatever.


----------



## confusedcyclist (15 Feb 2020)

mjr said:


> Only if you think prepared food is unreal! Basically, most ingredients are zero-rated, as that says. Food from a typical food stop is standard-rated, as stated in the section immediately above the one you linked to https://www.gov.uk/guidance/food-products-and-vat-notice-70114#general-vat-liability-rules - and I think far more cyclists make café stops than buy things to make picnics or whatever.


Fair point but the majority of my calories come from home prepared food. I avoid all prepackaged and processed foods, but admit I'm somewhat of an outlier in modern society.


----------



## mjr (15 Feb 2020)

confusedcyclist said:


> Fair point but the majority of my calories come from home prepared food. I avoid all prepackaged and processed foods, but admit I'm somewhat of an outlier in modern society.


The point I was trying to make was that even most additional-for-cycling unpackaged not-factory-processed food has VAT on it if bought in a café but this is getting a bit


----------



## classic33 (15 Feb 2020)

mjr said:


> The point I was trying to make was that even most additional-for-cycling unpackaged not-factory-processed food has VAT on it if bought in a café but this is getting a bit


This investment extends as far as food for cyclists?

If not, then why mention it as we all have to eat. Whatever form of transport is used.


----------



## mjr (15 Feb 2020)

classic33 said:


> This investment extends as far as food for cyclists?


No. We seem to have gotten a bit sidetracked but extra café purchases by cycling is one small element in how cycling repays more than the cost of building decent cycle routes, far more beneficial to local economies than motorists buying dead dino sauce from halfway around the world.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (15 Feb 2020)

HMS_Dave said:


> Well not entirely accurate. Cycling is worth £5.4bn to the UK economy. I would call that a measurable degree. That by the way is worth more than the Steel industry in this country and the Gov't and the press give that a great deal of attention... frankly, there is no way cyclists get anywhere near their fair share back from the Gov't in infrastructure projects, in my opinion.



... it could be worth so much more if they invested a little. I think the return in cycling investment is about 5 times that of nearest other infrastructure projects for transport.


----------



## Salty seadog (15 Feb 2020)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Is this a variation on the “Some of my best friends are...”?





mjr said:


> More widely in economic terms, each road death is estimated to cost the economy £14m, so motoring has a mountain to climb to break even just on that.




Hi Mj, I'm intrigued by this. Could you expand on that or link it. Cheers.


----------



## sheddy (15 Feb 2020)

I think this is from 2012
https://assets.publishing.service.g...a/file/254720/rrcgb-valuation-methodology.pdf


----------



## dutchguylivingintheuk (8 Mar 2020)

HMS_Dave said:


> Which has been dubbed 'mini holland' schemes. I don't know about you, but Holland isn't a big country and whats worse is that Holland is actually a smaller region of what is the Netherlands...


While there are two county/provinces in The Netherlands with ''Holland'' in their name, i'm pretty sure in this case they mean the whole country. but ''the Netherlands'' and ''Holland'' are often mixed up.

Aside from that, aside from the amount of money i think if the uk is really serious about managing cycles like how it is in the Netherlands they need to start with one policy, for example neighboring Harrow has a ''dutch roads scheme'' while my council has something else so if you cycle from one council to a other you get a whole mix of cycle paths, road types etc. They might be all made with the best intentions, but it is very confusing and counter productive for both us as cyclist and cars alike.
But they also need to address where people can leave their £ XXXX bike safely. In the Netherlands in every medium and mostly even small sized cities there is at least one place where you can leave you bike secured, either in a ''bike safe'' secured by cctv and active monitoring or by a manned place where you get a ticket number and they put your bike safely away for you. There is usually also a sign saying to which amount they are insured in case of a theft. Here in the uk so far i have seen none, the closest as a normal cycle parking at the station platform in the catchment area of the stations cctv with a warning sign included saying that they take no responsibility if your bike gets stolen.


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2020)

dutchguylivingintheuk said:


> in every medium and mostly even small sized cities there is at least one place where you can leave you bike secured, either in a ''bike safe'' secured by cctv and active monitoring or by a manned place where you get a ticket number and they put your bike safely away for you. There is usually also a sign saying to which amount they are insured in case of a theft. Here in the uk so far i have seen none, the closest as a normal cycle parking at the station platform in the catchment area of the stations cctv with a warning sign included saying that they take no responsibility if your bike gets stolen.


Cambridge is the only UK city I've seen ticketed manned bike parking, under the Lion Yard shopping centre, behind John Lewis. Charged, whereas I think most Dutch cities provide it free, don't they?

Agree with most of the rest. It's very annoying seeing the join in the cycleways as you cross county and borough boundaries while the adjacent carriageway continues unchanged, built to the same spec throughout.


----------



## rogerzilla (9 Mar 2020)

I'm really not a fan of cyclepaths. Shared with pedestrians and dogs, which is just as dangerous as riding on the pavement. Lost priority at every side road. Thoroughly glassed in the chavvier areas. Not salted in winter.

The worst thing is that they make riding on the road more dangerous, because of "punishment passes" and abuse from irate drivers who think you should be on the path. The first 5 miles of the Dunwich Dynamo are absolutely horrible now.


----------



## derrick (9 Mar 2020)

It took Holland a long time to get where it is. We are a long way behind. But hopefully we will catch up.😁


----------



## confusedcyclist (9 Mar 2020)

derrick said:


> It took Holland a long time to get where it is. We are a long way behind. But hopefully we will catch up.😁


In order to catch up, we would have to at least make a start!


----------



## mjr (9 Mar 2020)

rogerzilla said:


> I'm really not a fan of cyclepaths. Shared with pedestrians and dogs, which is just as dangerous as riding on the pavement. Lost priority at every side road. Thoroughly glassed in the chavvier areas. Not salted in winter.
> 
> The worst thing is that they make riding on the road more dangerous, because of "punishment passes" and abuse from irate drivers who think you should be on the path. The first 5 miles of the Dunwich Dynamo are absolutely horrible now.


Apart from the last sentence because I've not done a Dunwich Dynamo before and after, I know that none of the above are universally true. The trouble in the UK is that you never know which of the problems any given cycleway will have, if any. The national government is still missing in action about cycling, abdicating their responsibility to a postcode lottery of good and crap councils.


----------



## derrick (9 Mar 2020)

confusedcyclist said:


> In order to catch up, we would have to at least make a start!


The problem we have is with the motorist, When the government get round to educating them nothing will change,


----------



## confusedcyclist (9 Mar 2020)

derrick said:


> The problem we have is with the motorist, When the government get round to educating them nothing will change,



EDIT, ok I totally misread your post. But... I never said anything about educating drivers? 

OK I think I worked out what you mean, but can you clarify what you are saying exactly as I don't want to second guess you.


----------



## derrick (9 Mar 2020)

confusedcyclist said:


> Really? Is that why 98% of the population won't cycle on UK roads? Driver education? I was taught to be careful of vulnerable road users, as were most drivers so I doubt education is the issue. It seems that most of the essential skills for driving safely get tossed out the window as soon as a typical driver gets their license. We have to design our infrastructure with idiots in mind. Make it idiot proof. Maybe cyclists that frequent this forum are confident of cycling on the road, and who wouldn't want see motorists held to account and trained how drive around cyclists on quiet roads, but in reality, if we remove the conflict between cyclists and motorists, then the opportunity for fear and tragedy is massively reduced. *We can easily engineer these problems away. Raised kerbs, recessed junctions, the model is proven overseas,* we just need the political will. Infrastructure is paid for once (not counting maintenance of course) and lasts a long time. Education seems to be swiftly forgotten by most drivers, or only recalled when it suits.
> 
> EDIT, ok I totally misread your post. Doh. I never said anything about educating drivers...


I have just come back from Spain, they have none of that in Calpe, the motorist gave us plenty of room, no hooting apart from a british driver in a hire car,


----------



## confusedcyclist (9 Mar 2020)

derrick said:


> I have just come back from Spain, they have none of that in Calpe, the motorist gave us plenty of room, no hooting apart from a british driver in a hire car,


Education is important, no doubt about it. Even in countries with gold standard infra like NL, there can't be cycle paths everywhere, hence the need for people friendly residential streets, and low speed zones, or entire areas where motors are forbidden. However, fear of being crushed by trams, buses, or left turning lorries etc cannot be alleviated with paint or slow speeds. Motorists will always make mistakes. You can't elimate the mistakes, so take people out of harms way as much as you can. We shouldn't have to run the gauntlet to get to work on a bike. I have visited other parts of Spain and the standard of driving I have witnessed falls far below that I see in the UK. NL & DK have demonstrated their models work and ordinary people in ordinary clothes are cycling for a variety of reasons and trips, they have cycling modal share figures Spain can't compete with. That says it all.


----------



## rogerzilla (9 Mar 2020)

It's a cultural thing. In Europe, cyclists are normal people or sportsmen to be admired. Here, they're perverts who don't pay road tax and hold up hard-working white van man. Why can't they drive to the gym if they want to keep fit?


----------



## HMS_Dave (9 Mar 2020)

There is a culture in this country with regards to obtaining a Driving Licence. You are taught how to drive, You are taught theory and hazard perception and you are taught even how to perform basic checks on your car, fluids and what not and are tested on all these. But the moment you have that 'you have passed' moment, it all goes out of the window and it's a free for all. Id say from personal observation about 80% of motorists refuse to indicate, many develop road rage and a raging desire to get past that Cyclist or Bus, whatever the cost maybe... Even as driving tests have become more robust also with the inclusion of theory, it really hasn't helped at all. I think education cannot answer this, it is ingrained in our society. There could be an argument perhaps that year on year up until recent years road safety has improved, but i argue that it is because car technology has improved and not that driving standards have increased because it is my opinion and has gotten worse...


----------



## mjr (9 Mar 2020)

HMS_Dave said:


> There is a culture in this country with regards to obtaining a Driving Licence. You are taught how to drive, You are taught theory and hazard perception and you are taught even how to perform basic checks on your car, fluids and what not and are tested on all these. But the moment you have that 'you have passed' moment, it all goes out of the window and it's a free for all.


I agree. There's very little enforcement, the home sec has said roads policing isn't a priority and you have to be really really crap to be retested. I think that lack of even basic checks that drivers are keeping current is why I've been shouted at by road rage drivers for (among other things), cycling across a zebra crossing (legal since 2016), cycling the opposite way on a "one way except cycles" (legal since 1989, stronger since 2016), using flashing lights (legal since 2004 maybe), cycling across a toucan crossing (legal since 1980s if not before), not using cycleways (always legal) and not cycling on the footpath (illegal since before the bicycle was invented).

There should be at least a theory retest when you renew your photo card every ten years. It's horrible that we've probably drivers out there who have had neither knowledge not eyesight checked in 50 years.


----------



## derrick (9 Mar 2020)

Just need bigger fines for motoring offences.


----------



## confusedcyclist (10 Mar 2020)

Unfortunately you can't fix stupid, even with fines. Stupid people will always be stupid. This is the whole point of removing cyclists from harms way, and its a big part of why encouraging cyclists to adorn themselves in hi-hiz and assorted PPE does magically increase cycling rates. To be frank, I couldn't give a flying fark if the idiot who mows me down gets to face the prospect of a fine, because the damage is already done to me. In your faith of the effectiveness of sanctions, you are assuming that people who are doing you harm are 'bandits'. In fact it's far more likely that they are just plain stupid (law 1). Bandit's harm others are usually motivated by some gain. You system breaks down when your faith is placed in measures that are intended to counter bandits is misdirected at stupid people. If you are not familiar with this concept, refer to the link below. No amount of financial hardship experienced by an idiot undoes life changing injuries to me or my loved ones. We've got to remove the idiots in 2 tonne death machines from the equation. That means segregation.

If you haven't already, familiarise yourself with 'THE BASIC LAWS OF HUMAN STUPIDITY' By Carlo M. Cipolla
http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/

Whilst the above has a humorous slant (the illustrations), it's actually based and thoughtful and objective observations of human nature. It's a critical part of any joined up systems thinking. Forgetting to account for stupid people in any system, well, it's farking stupid.


----------



## dodgy (10 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> cycling across a zebra crossing (legal since 2016)



I had no idea about that one.


----------



## mjr (10 Mar 2020)

dodgy said:


> I had no idea about that one.


Strictly speaking, it's always been legal but you didn't have walker-like precedence over carriageway traffic. Since 2016, if there are cycle symbols alongside the usual zebra markings, you have precedence crossing. These are called parallel crossings in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and section 25 crossings refers to these and zebras.

However, with so many ignorant drivers, it's a brave cyclist who doesn't beware them at crossings. :-(


----------



## dutchguylivingintheuk (19 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> Cambridge is the only UK city I've seen ticketed manned bike parking, under the Lion Yard shopping centre, behind John Lewis. Charged, whereas I think most Dutch cities provide it free, don't they?


Most dutch cities provide some sort of free parking, with more than 4 bicycle capacity(more like at least 50), however the ''bike safes'' i was referring to are usually charged but that usually also means it is insured. I'm buying only really cheap bikes nowadays because otherwise it just gets stolen. 




rogerzilla said:


> I'm really not a fan of cyclepaths. Shared with pedestrians and dogs, which is just as dangerous as riding on the pavement. Lost priority at every side road. Thoroughly glassed in the chavvier areas. Not salted in winter.
> 
> The worst thing is that they make riding on the road more dangerous, because of "punishment passes" and abuse from irate drivers who think you should be on the path. The first 5 miles of the Dunwich Dynamo are absolutely horrible now.


When i say cycle-path i don't mean those shared ones, i mean a dedicated wide cycle path that they also salt in the winter because it's more than wide enough for the a salt truck or fan to ride on. Unfortunately i haven't seen those in my wide area, a small dedicated cycle path that isn't riddle with either potholes, mud because tarmac is to expensive, or bumps from tree roots is a challenge, they few that are ok-ish but they are maybe 1mile long but i'm afraid even that is a stretch.


----------



## Drago (19 Mar 2020)

HMS_Dave said:


> There is a culture in this country with regards to obtaining a Driving Licence. You are taught how to drive, You are taught theory and hazard perception and you are taught even how to perform basic checks on your car, fluids and what not and are tested on all these. But the moment you have that 'you have passed' moment, it all goes out of the window and it's a free for all. Id say from personal observation about 80% of motorists refuse to indicate, many develop road rage and a raging desire to get past that Cyclist or Bus, whatever the cost maybe... Even as driving tests have become more robust also with the inclusion of theory, it really hasn't helped at all. I think education cannot answer this, it is ingrained in our society. There could be an argument perhaps that year on year up until recent years road safety has improved, but i argue that it is because car technology has improved and not that driving standards have increased because it is my opinion and has gotten worse...


Worse than not indicating is those who indicate as a substitute for looking, which is 99% of those who do actually indicate.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (19 Mar 2020)

Drago said:


> Worse than not indicating is those who indicate as a substitute for looking, which is 99% of those who do actually indicate.



Only indicating if they do it in advance otherwise it hindicating


----------



## steveindenmark (24 Mar 2020)

I wonder if he actually sent someone over to Holland to see how it should be done


----------



## Andy in Germany (28 Mar 2020)

steveindenmark said:


> I wonder if he actually sent someone over to Holland to see how it should be done



I recall a story of some Dutch infrastructure designers being invited to the UK; the local authority proudly showed them some shiny new new cycle infrastructure on a busy junction. 
To the delight of the attending cycling campaigners the Dutch response was "This is the sort of thing we use as an example of how not to do it..."


----------



## avecReynolds531 (10 Apr 2020)

Andy in Germany said:


> I recall a story of some Dutch infrastructure designers being invited to the UK; the local authority proudly showed them some shiny new new cycle infrastructure on a busy junction.
> To the delight of the attending cycling campaigners the Dutch response was "This is the sort of thing we use as an example of how not to do it..."


Great quote and sounds a typically witty Dutch response!

We've cycled in the Netherlands and Denmark and it's difficult returning here, knowing what is available and attainable. 

I took my father for a 4 day tour of Flanders and his prominent memory is "I can't get used to them (cars) giving way to us."

UK car driver habits and behaviour may be the more difficult part to change: recently, I was overtaken by a silver BMW car on a sharp blind bend. 
There was a zero % chance that driver could've known another vehicle was approaching, but it was 10 seconds of time too much to wait, behind a bicycle. 

If we were to adopt a presumed liability policy here in Britain, would we start looking out for our more vulnerable citizens, sharing the streets & lanes with us?


----------



## HMS_Dave (10 Apr 2020)

Well, Grant Shapps the Transport Secretary did specifically say this:

“Public transport and active travel will be the natural first choice for our daily activities.
"*We will use our cars less *and be able to rely on a convenient, cost-effective and coherent public transport network.”

Until people do use their cars less then there is going to be no appetite to act upon Mr Shapp's words in my opinion unless they have something up their sleeves. However, there has been no transport policy that i have come across to date that has actively encouraged me out of my car and on to a bike. I suppose those that live in London or in other congestion charge zone areas may have been persuaded somewhat out of their cars but way not enough. Taxation and tax breaks such as a C2W scheme or increasing taxes on motoring has had little effect to the overall picture, particularly outside of the M25. I think it comes down to 2 things. Firstly, a person needs to DECIDE to get off their arses and give it a go and secondly, cycling infrastructure needs a rethink to make it more appealing for those that do fear for their road safety which i'd rather suspect is a leading reason behind many not doing it.

As you rightly point out the Netherlands have done it right, but it's something that they have been at for decades now. How serious is our government in using our cars less? I doubt not very. We'll see...


----------



## Drago (12 Apr 2020)

Despite the wonderful words from Mr Shapps, we're liable to find the cupboard is bare for a generation in order to pay for the damage to the economy wrought by C-19.


----------



## BoldonLad (12 Apr 2020)

derrick said:


> Just need bigger fines for motoring offences.


Have to catch them first


----------



## mjr (13 Apr 2020)

Drago said:


> Despite the wonderful words from Mr Shapps, we're liable to find the cupboard is bare for a generation in order to pay for the damage to the economy wrought by C-19.


Which means we can't afford not to spend the millions on cycling infrastructure instead of the billions on motorways.


----------



## classic33 (13 Apr 2020)

mjr said:


> Which means we can't afford not to spend the millions on cycling infrastructure instead of the billions on motorways.


Only if you'd be willing to share it with cargo cycles, travelling slower than you, and not expect them to get out of your way.


----------



## derrick (13 Apr 2020)

BoldonLad said:


> Have to catch them first


Not a lot of chance of that happening.🤨


----------

