Britons unmoved by pro-cycling campaigns

[Deb13b]

An article in the guardian. Interesting, but depressing.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyl...cling-campaigns?cat=lifeandstyle&type=article

 

[snorri]

"Years of government effort to promote cycling......" :?:

 

[jonesy]

"Years of government effort to promote cycling......" :?:

Quite...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.htm

 

[dellzeqq]

well, to be fair, the money was pushed out as fast as anybody could spend it, and sometimes faster than they could spend it. One former minister told me that he's signed orders for tens of millions of pounds worth of cycle paths and he hadn't the faintest idea whether they'd done any good. The chances are they didn't. Jonesy's illustration tells us that some of the money (perhaps a lot of it) was spent unwisely, but the intention was good.

Then there were the cycling demonstration towns, used as a test-bed for 'soft' methods. All very clearly thought through, and, sadly, not a great success. Bikeability is fantastically worthy, and the practice standards are very good, but once people leave their teens, they give it up.

If it were not for the dramatic increase in cycling in London I'd think that we were on to a complete loser. But.....when you see 45 cyclists at the head of a traffic light queue there's got to be hope. People will choose cycling when it's convenient and quick, and they can do it without getting wet or smelly. More than ever I believe in tipping points - the numbers grow slowly, and then all of a sudden - bingo!

 

[jonesy]

An article in the guardian. Interesting, but depressing.

http://m.guardian.co...le&type=article

Tbh, nothing particularly surprising in it: we know that cycling is regarded as abnormal in places where there isn't a culture of cycling, and we also know that non cyclists always tick the "segregated cycle paths" box on surveys asking them what would encourage them to cycle... The thing that I find depressing about this is that people will fasten onto the bold bits in the quote I've extracted below:

"Perhaps above all, and probably most controversially, our research has made it very clear to us that in order to create a mass cycling culture in English cities we need to segregate cycling from motorised traffic along main roads. Combined with a range of other measures, very high quality segregated cycle routes could push English city cycling from its currently marginal status towards a mass phenomenon."

while overlooking the the bits I've underlined...

And as the research, so far as I can see, doesn't provide either the drawings or the money, then I fear it will be used to justify yet more crappy cycle paths on pavements, without any of the supporting measures, which isn't what the authors want, at all.

Meanwhile, those pesky cyclists in Oxford, Cambridge, and increasingly in London, just keep on cycling without the segregated paths. ..

 

[MacB]

I read the article and found it poor but nothing compared to the comments section below...had to give up reading that, so many were so wrong on so many levels it was scary.

I also get the impression that some of the 'popularity' of segregated cycle facilities is in their appeal to drivers who think they'll suddenly have clearer roads.

 

[jonesy]

well, to be fair, the money was pushed out as fast as anybody could spend it, and sometimes faster than they could spend it. One former minister told me that he's signed orders for tens of millions of pounds worth of cycle paths and he hadn't the faintest idea whether they'd done any good. The chances are they didn't. Jonesy's illustration tells us that some of the money (perhaps a lot of it) was spent unwisely, but the intention was good.

....

Up to a point- if the government had been genuinely supportive of encouraging cycling, as opposed to spending some money on it to earn some Brownie points, then it could have used a far more evidence-based approach to its cycling policy in the first place, which would have ensured both that money was spent where it would make a difference and that the necessary supporting measures were also in place. It isn't as if good evidence weren't available to help them make better decisions, it was simply that, for political reasons, they didn't want to make use of it, not least because the evidence would have told them things they didn't want to hear, such as the importance of having the right planning policies, and the need for traffic and speed restraint. So the wasted money on poor schemes is actually evidence that intentions weren't, at the heart, good; they weren't looking for fundamental changes in transport policy but wanted some relatively cheap (in transport terms) feel-good schemes that didn't present a major challenge to car based policy.

 

[dellzeqq]

Do you really think that their intentions were poor? Keith Hill (for it was he) is a man with a crystal heart. When he said that his intentions were to encourage people to cycle I believed him completely.

And, lest we forget, a lot of the money got spent through Sustrans and the LCC, while Borough cycling officers did their enthusiastic best.

 

[Red Light]

People will choose cycling when it's convenient and quick, and they can do it without getting wet or smelly.

Cue the Dutch Cycle Balance audit metrics:

Directness
Comfort (obstruction)
Comfort (road surface)
Attractiveness
Competitiveness compared to the car
Bicycle use
Road safety of cyclists
Urban density
Cyclists satisfaction
Cycling policy on paper

 

[jonesy]

Do you really think that their intentions were poor? Keith Hill (for it was he) is a man with a crystal heart. When he said that his intentions were to encourage people to cycle I believed him completely.

And, lest we forget, a lot of the money got spent through Sustrans and the LCC, while Borough cycling officers did their enthusiastic best.

And I don't doubt it either. But the support of one minister was not reflected in wider support across government, and within DfT in particular. If it had been, then far more effort would have gone into the wider measures needed to create an environment supportive of cycling, the planning measures, urban design, speed management and traffic restraint, and there would have been a proper evaluation of where and how it is effective to target spend on cycling specific measures. It wouldn't have been left to NGOs etc. It isn't as if the information needed for an evidence based cycling policy doesn't exist- look at the research cited by Red Light and others, that objectively assesses the Dutch and Dainish experience, yet you rarely see any of this sort of analysis in the policy papers produced by Cycling England or the NCS Board that came before it.

 

[Hilldodger]

We took part in the research mentioned and the results are being talked about at a conference in Leicester this weekend. Cyclemagic isn't taking part in that conference.

Our problem is the arrogance and bandwagon jumping of some councils (including I'm sad to say, Leicester) British Cycling etc. We, and lots of other people, have been quitely promoting cycling for years and have been held back by lack of funding. As soon as funding becomes availaabe, who gets it? Grassroots projects of national bodies? I think you know the answer to that.

 

[dellzeqq]

We took part in the research mentioned and the results are being talked about at a conference in Leicester this weekend. Cyclemagic isn't taking part in that conference.

Our problem is the arrogance and bandwagon jumping of some councils (including I'm sad to say, Leicester) British Cycling etc. We, and lots of other people, have been quitely promoting cycling for years and have been held back by lack of funding. As soon as funding becomes availaabe, who gets it? Grassroots projects of national bodies? I think you know the answer to that.

surely, though, the national bodies ran local projects. Or is this wishful thinking?

Did you catch what was going on in Derby and the other demonstration towns? What''s your thoughts on those?

 

[dellzeqq]

And I don't doubt it either. But the support of one minister was not reflected in wider support across government, and within DfT in particular. If it had been, then far more effort would have gone into the wider measures needed to create an environment supportive of cycling, the planning measures, urban design, speed management and traffic restraint, and there would have been a proper evaluation of where and how it is effective to target spend on cycling specific measures. It wouldn't have been left to NGOs etc. It isn't as if the information needed for an evidence based cycling policy doesn't exist- look at the research cited by Red Light and others, that objectively assesses the Dutch and Dainish experience, yet you rarely see any of this sort of analysis in the policy papers produced by Cycling England or the NCS Board that came before it.

I take your point entirely. The divide between the DfT and whatever the Communities department is called this week was only bridged, to my knowledge, by the Transport Planning Network, and, even then, the discussion was about 'facilities' rather than urban form.

 

[Hilldodger]

surely, though, the national bodies ran local projects. Or is this wishful thinking?

Did you catch what was going on in Derby and the other demonstration towns? What''s your thoughts on those?

The national bodies appoint there own people to work with the local groups. In Leicester the CTC and Sustrans/Bike It have been very good but the city council and British Cycling are currently re-inventing the wheel and sticking their noses in to local projects that have been running successfully for years. Result, local organisations and volunteers get p***ed off by highly paid managers.

That is why Cyclemagic is not at the conference in Leicester this weekend and is not supporting Sky Ride Leicester. We've got plenty of other work including several other Sky Rides, so it's not us missing out.

We worked a lot with several of the Cycle Demo Towns, Cycle Derby were by far the best and achieved a lot. The same can't be said for some of the others, though.

 

[dellzeqq]

The national bodies appoint there own people to work with the local groups. In Leicester the CTC and Sustrans/Bike It have been very good but the city council and British Cycling are currently re-inventing the wheel and sticking their noses in to local projects that have been running successfully for years. Result, local organisations and volunteers get p***ed off by highly paid managers.

That is why Cyclemagic is not at the conference in Leicester this weekend and is not supporting Sky Ride Leicester. We've got plenty of other work including several other Sky Rides, so it's not us missing out.

We worked a lot with several of the Cycle Demo Towns, Cycle Derby were by far the best and achieved a lot. The same can't be said for some of the others, though.

sorry to badger you, but what was it that made Derby stand out from the rest?

I've only seen the results in Brighton and Aylesbury, and, despite much thought and great intentions you wouldn't describe either as making a breakthrough.