Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[dellzeqq]

If we include utility cyclists who don't yet exist, i.e. those who won't be able to get near to city centres by motorised transport and will be looking for reasonable alternatives in the next few years, I assume they'll want to be kept as far away from powered vehicles as possible. I don't see how this is controversial or 'letting the side down'.

There are places where 'no segregated alternative' is going to be built, and there are plenty of others where continuous bike lanes and tracks can be accommodated. Currently street hardened riders are dictating the agenda and inventing bogeyman words like 'segregationist' to tarnish the debate before it begins. What is a facility anyway? Is it widening a pinch point so riders can get through the inside? Is it surfacing the road in a different, more adhesive colour where riders tend to use it? A lot of resistance is purely political and has no bearing on the usefulness of the facility.

IMO we need to go back to basics and ask who in their right mind and especially beginners, the young and the elderly, would voluntarily want to mix with motor vehicles where they don't have to? If you're saying 'well they have to' then Franklin, Cyclecraft and the rest of campaign fashion makes sense. So long as you don't expect growth outside the usual constituencies.
The picture nationally is a mixed bag. There are areas that can provide uninterrupted separate provision because of their topography, there are historic towns that can't but they can restrict car access and so on. Cycle campaigning is one size fits all with a high degree of paranoia and resistance whatever the terrain, politics or transport infrastructure background. That makes no sense.

I don't think you quite see where this is starting from. Take a look at page 1. One organisation has decided that a specific (for want of a better word 'Dutch') solution is best. The LCC and the CTC, not to mention some laudable local campaigns have been campaigning for street quietening, home zones, bus lanes and heaven knows what for decades, but the CEGB is a different animal. And, lest we forget, the specific allegation, which is both offensive and ridiculous, is that John Franklin is somehow killing UK cycling.

So, in a sense, nobody's disagreeing with you. There are all kinds of things that can be done, and some of them will cost very little, and some of them will make better neighbourhoods. Treatments of surfaces, levelling of streets, it can all be good, and the point has been made time and time again that the people closest to the street in question probably know more about it.

By contrast the CEGB is attempting to set up 'best practice'. That, my friend, is one size fits all.

I know that reading through this is tedious, but you're making statements about people's motives, and even about their standpoints that are simply wrong.

 

[blockend]

I know that reading through this is tedious, but you're making statements about people's motives, and even about their standpoints that are simply wrong.

That cuts both ways. I came in on the point that throwing statistics around has signally failed where bombers succeeded - and was roundly upbraided. Nobody has picked up the irony in that 'statistic'. My motives are being questioned despite a cycling history going back to the 1960s and more all-night rides than you can shake a stick at.
I assume the 'Franklin killing cycling' one was deliberately provocative to nudge campaign thinking from its self-satisfaction and torpor at just how perfect its conclusions were. Perfection is everyone's bum on a saddle who can reasonably sit on one, not the freedom for the nought point whatever percent to carry on business as usual.

Too much pragmatism, not nearly enough idealism for my taste.

 

[WilliamNB]

which is why instead of faffing about wasting money on cycling infrastructure I propose park'n'rides, 20mph speed limits, quiet lanes and access only roads, HGV restriction, driver training and education, light rail, trams, public transport, etc., etc., and enforcement thereof or vehicle related restrictions by the same authorities currently doing the faffing, to improve the urban environment for all its users.

That sounds workable.

 

[Dan B]

I came in on the point that throwing statistics around has signally failed where bombers succeeded - and was roundly upbraided.

Er, no: you came in on the point that statistics are meaningless - I believe the expression you used was "puff pastry". It has since transpired that what you actually meant to say was that cycle promotion through statistics doesn't work (a much less contentious point that many here would be partly or wholly in agreement with) but please don't pretend that you got flamed for speaking uncomfortable truths: you got flamed for talking rubbish.

 

[Dan B]

P.S If we're talking about pragmatism vs idealism, my ideal would be to get the cars off the road, not the cyclists. We were here first.

(I might make allowances for cars driven at appropriate speeds and with the requisite level of care for a shared public space. The Locomotive Act 1865 includes some provisions and sensible safeguards that I think we could usefully revisit)

 

[davefb]

I think one reason for the resistance of many cyclists to "segregation" is the fear that they may eventually be forced to use a load of inadequate and possibly damgerous cycling "facilities" and forbidden from using the road because these inadequate segregated infrastuctures exist. The fear of stupid legal compulsion is not irrational as it was already attempted at the last revision of the highway code and the CTC had to fight hard to get the proposals changed.

The assumption that cycle facilities here will always be inadequate is also a rational one based on experience. The majority of my 12.5 mile commute has cycle lanes along it but, apart from the short sections of bus lane, not a single metre conforms to the DfT's own cycle lane design guidelines. There are whole sections that are positively dangerous, some of which I have documented in my blog. Proposed schemes do stupid things like expecting cyclists to give way to the traffic that approaches along every single side road, which makes cycling as a mode of transport completely impactical.

It is quite likely (though I do not have scientific evidence) that a big part of the problem is that most people who think about it at all believe cycling, and particularly expansion of cycling, is about families with 2.4 children going out on a Sunday afternoon for a leisurely ride, and can hardly even conceive of the idea of using a bicycle to get from one olace to another. It would seem that planners particularly share this view, which is based on their assumptions and prejudices rather than evidence..

I did that commute ( not that often, i mainly drove halfway and used partly ncn6)... afaik its a classic case of where a designated route would be welcome , perhaps segregated at some points, perhaps not at others .. Theres more than enough paths/backroads short stretches of where new route could be put in that they could make a bolton<>manchester 'fast track' for cycling , one that could be shorter than the road route and no traffic to hold you up, but instead we have either a bit of paint on the main road( though some stupid changes in road width which cause issues during commute) and no real help at bad junctions...
theres enough money to be thrown at other commuting solutions, but seemingly no will to plan actual solutions rather than expensive stupid messing about at junctions which most cyclists ignore because it means more stop-start...
mind you , at one point before TIF funding via road-tax was voted down, there was to be a bolton<>manchester designated bus route to be made... I guess that might have included a cycle lane as well ... god knows where that would have run though!
I dont see these things as being 'seperate' from proper cycling on the road, far from it, I just see them like motorways frankly.

 

[Red Light]

(And remind me how many people cycle in Swindon...)

Unadorned roads + UK-style tracks on pavements. I think that caters for both ends of the market with a large gap in between.

And the Magic Roundabout to scare both groups off the road

 

[lukesdad]

People are put off cycling by the (perception of the) danger posed to them by motor vehicles.

The only fair solution to this problem is to remove the danger from the cyclists - not remove cyclists from the danger.

That it is also the least expensive answer is a bonus.

The first question an occaisonal or new cyclist will ask themselves before riding their bike is not, am I going to get killed today. Its how shagged am I going to be for work on Monday morning.

 

[lukesdad]

If you want an anecdote:
5 out of 6 non-cyclists who live a stones throw from Cambridge don't cycle because: The roads are dangerous to ride on.
3 of the 6 could use a cycle path BUT dog walkers don't control their dogs on the cycle path & they're scared of being 'attacked' by a dog.
1 of the 6 said that it's to much effort to cycle (I think we call that one a no-hope case)

I d suggest there are a lot of fibbers in Cambridge. If 5 out of 6 said they were to damned lazy to ride a bike it would be more believable.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I did that commute ( not that often, i mainly drove halfway and used partly ncn6)... afaik its a classic case of where a designated route would be welcome

I used to have a dream of a dedicated cycle route right down the Croal-Irwell valley, and when Sustrans came into being I though perhaps there was hope; so much for that. 20 years ago, I tried to pick out such a route myself, using canal towpaths, footpaths, etc.; it took me 3 hours to get to work!

If there were to be such a route, I would expect it to be properly surfaced, lit, cleaned, maintained, and policed to (at least) the same standards as the roads. Then I would be keen to use it. I would also like to win the lottery and still live in hope that might happen as well.

 

[blockend]

you got flamed for talking rubbish.

And you got dissed for being a smug complacent know-all. So much for the internet.

 

[davefb]

I used to have a dream of a dedicated cycle route right down the Croal-Irwell valley, and when Sustrans came into being I though perhaps there was hope; so much for that. 20 years ago, I tried to pick out such a route myself, using canal towpaths, footpaths, etc.; it took me 3 hours to get to work!

If there were to be such a route, I would expect it to be properly surfaced, lit, cleaned, maintained, and policed to (at least) the same standards as the roads. Then I would be keen to use it. I would also like to win the lottery and still live in hope that might happen as well.

haha , same!!! well , i didnt commute doing it,, i tried it on a weekend and decided 'no chance'... was a fun ride though...


the ncn 6 bit inside the m60 is great though ( apart from the urban manc bit, where its a bit haphazard),, now just connect that to the bottom of stoneclough where theres already a quiet road (I used to park then ride from whats called 'red rock rd' down there), its just the bridleway at the end they need to make 'non-muddy-mess...(its actually okay when its dry)

then either, clean up that canal section and have moses gate country park gravelled or tarmaced , thru to radcliffe road ( which it does go).. OR that steep hill, but dont use kearsley roundabout, use grosvenor street bridge, then I bet theres back roads that could be made into 'priority bike' and marked to avoid the narrow farnworth bits...

in bolton, instead of blackburn road, should connect to the valley and maybe even put that bypass in to join to crompton way, but just for a cycle path

make the ride to work more fun than watching a load of cars,,, shame I dont work in manc any more

 

[dellzeqq]

That cuts both ways. I came in on the point that throwing statistics around has signally failed where bombers succeeded - and was roundly upbraided. Nobody has picked up the irony in that 'statistic'. My motives are being questioned despite a cycling history going back to the 1960s and more all-night rides than you can shake a stick at.

I'm not questioning your motives, and, to be honest, the statistics thing matters little to me......

I assume the 'Franklin killing cycling' one was deliberately provocative to nudge campaign thinking from its self-satisfaction and torpor at just how perfect its conclusions were.

I don't think it was. I think it was a bitter and sectarian piece of nastiness

Perfection is everyone's bum on a saddle who can reasonably sit on one, not the freedom for the nought point whatever percent to carry on business as usual.

why? Why is cycling so important that everybody should do it? That's what bedazzles me about almost all sides of the argument. Cycling isn't so important that the taxpayer should spend a fortune on it. It offers little to sustainability. It might (note the might) make our streets more convivial, and a little safer in the broader sense. I suspect that the 90% of people who don't cycle would simply shrug their shoulders about it all. Cycling is one of my great loves, and it's one I'm keen to share, but I don't kid myself that I'm on some kind of important mission.

When I see 45 cyclists at one red light, where, thirty years ago I'd have been on my own, my heart soars like a dove. When I see a line of commuter's cars belching fumes in to the air, I'm not happy, but I don't kid myself, though, that those commuters are going to see the light and get on a bike. I do think that their habit should be taxed in to the ground, that car parking should be taxed, that their right to roam should be severely curtailed, but if they just travelled less, or took the bus that would be just dandy - and probably more sustainable than taking to a bike.

The current kerfuffle over Blackfriars Bridge shows us all in a bad light. The LCC and many others have, quite rightly, objected to a reversion to something like the layout that did for two of us. We've lobbied, and changes have been made, and those changes are, it must be said, beneficial to cyclists, which is absolutely a good thing. On the other hand they do nothing for bus passengers and reduce the space granted to pedestrians. I've got to go up there this afternoon before going in to detail, but, while I accept that these changes, forced upon TfL by a well-founded and well-run cycling campaign are a good thing for us, I'm not so sure if that they're good for anybody else. (I also think we could have had our cake and eaten it, but that's another thing)

 

[GrasB]

I d suggest there are a lot of fibbers in Cambridge. If 5 out of 6 said they were to damned lazy to ride a bike it would be more believable.

I could have phrased that better, 5 of the 6 people I asked...

4 were young & fit, one was old & fit the remaining person is slim but not active.

 

[blockend]

I don't think it was. I think it was a bitter and sectarian piece of nastiness

I'm not surprised you see it as sectarian. The entire debate has evolved along with us or against us lines.

why? Why is cycling so important that everybody should do it? That's what bedazzles me about almost all sides of the argument. Cycling isn't so important that the taxpayer should spend a fortune on it. I

I disagree, and invite you to define 'fortunes' compared to other transport infrastructure costs. The debate so far as it's illuminated on this thread is fairly simple. Statistics are of no use in making quantum changes in attitude, the CTC used stats as their weapon of choice for years and are a busted flush. Nothing changed on the CTC's watch that wasn't swept into insignificance by factors like the London bombing - years of statistical analysis come to naught in the face of a little targeted emotion.


Internationally the picture is as it's always been. Countries with the topography or history to accommodate mass cycling easily, do so. Those with evolved and endemic car cultures have bike use as a fashion accessory, with periodic blooming depending on petrol prices, keep fit fads or whatever. The national picture in the UK is a microcosm of the western one. Towns that have always cycled, cycle, as does London with pressing local factors like high transport costs, poor parking facilities, driving tariffs and so on.

In the face of that regionalised picture, cycle campaigning states unconditional road use is the only way forward, whether it be Cambridge or Kelso. It takes no heed of whether there's an efficient or cheap tram network, cycle toxic arterial roads or any other local factor. That inevitably leads to the marginalisation of cycling as a form of transport, which is what's happening. If you think the national picture can be deduced from standing in Oxford or Oxford Street you're misguided. Riding a bike requires none of the skills highlighted by Franklin, Cyclecraft is all about mixing with potentially lethal vehicles. That to me is the biggest scare story of them all.