Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
That's actually quite a well-written and interesting piece, without the unecessary personal name-calling of the one which started this thread.
Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling
- Thread starter downfader
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
This really does take the biscuit. Having abandoned the safety myth Mr. Colostomy is now telling us that it's not about safety (as some of us have been saying all along) but about making people feel more at ease.
As in Milton Keynes. Whoops!
1. Show us the drawing (hope springs eternal)
2. Tell us how much it's going to cost (fat chance)
3. Tell us how people are going to be persuaded that spending the money is worthwhile, given that most serious cycling campaigners and organisations think it's not worthwhile.
As in Milton Keynes. Whoops!
1. Show us the drawing (hope springs eternal)
2. Tell us how much it's going to cost (fat chance)
3. Tell us how people are going to be persuaded that spending the money is worthwhile, given that most serious cycling campaigners and organisations think it's not worthwhile.
mark barker
New Member
- Location
- Swindon, Wilts
Thats the big issue (and has also been mentioned previously). "serious cycling campaigners" seem to have forgotten what it was like to start cycling and that not everyone wants to get from A to B as quickly as possible.
Why is it so hard for those that don't want dedicated cycle routes to leave them alone and let everyone else enjoy them? If its because the nasty motorists will shout at them then surely the effort should be made to re-educate them and leave the cycle path users alone?
there's two basic misunderstanding in this post.
The first is the failure to recognise that serious cycling campaigners do what they do out of devotion to cycling. Sometimes they succeed and sometimes they don't, but they, each of them, must do what they think is right. You seem to be arguing that they should be doing what they think is wrong. That's not going to happen. I'm not going to write to my local council and campaign for cycle paths I don't want.......
It's up to people who believe in segregation, like Sustrans, to make the case, which they do - but not so convincingly that the populace want it. If you want to make things different then you could always join Sustrans or the CEGB and do your bit for them.
The second misunderstanding is that cycling campaigners are somehow about speed from A to B and nothing but. That's not the case, but all the evidence to hand suggests that people are more likely to cycle if they can get from A to B in a decent time. So, again, expecting people to campaign for routes that take twice the time is a bit of a stretch
The answer, Mark, is in your hands. Don't accuse others of letting you down. Do what you want to do. I owe you absolutely nothing. I do what I do because I think it's worthwhile. I've seen millions wasted on cycle paths in London and I'm not interested in them. If you want to badger the burgers of Swindon for more paths just get on with it.
mark barker
New Member
- Location
- Swindon, Wilts
And I wouldn't expect you to. I don't get why there has to be just two camps in this though, what happened to compromise?
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Compromise? That's what the highway departments do under the banner of "something is better than nothing" in order to foist rubbish schemes on us. Except it isn't.
As the popular perception that cycling in the road is dangerous is one of the biggest, if not the largest inhibitor to take up, it's surprising campaigners don't take the fear more seriously.
As things currently stand their defence of road cycling consists of statistics or if you're really committed to the idea, someone to act as guide through traffic. The first will only provide encouragement to those who already cycle, the second is served piecemeal to exotically rare. Campaigning is on a permanent defence footing with the debunking and scepticism that goes with it. I can only repeat, there isn't any single position to take on utility cycling because there aren't enough indulging in it to prove the point either way.
As things currently stand their defence of road cycling consists of statistics or if you're really committed to the idea, someone to act as guide through traffic. The first will only provide encouragement to those who already cycle, the second is served piecemeal to exotically rare. Campaigning is on a permanent defence footing with the debunking and scepticism that goes with it. I can only repeat, there isn't any single position to take on utility cycling because there aren't enough indulging in it to prove the point either way.
there's not too camps. There's a whole tented village. It's like Glastonbury.
If you recall this thread started off because a 'gizzajob' organisation called the CEGB decided that anything anybody else had done was rubbish. And that John Franklin was killing cycling. They make broad statements about safety they couldn't back up, and they coupled that with a complete indifference to public space. Oh - and no drawings, no prices, no persuasion, just a (very small) tablet of stone.
Now, if they can stand the ridicule, that's all fine by me. But if they fetch up in south London suggesting cycle paths here and there I'll jump all over their bones (metaphorically speaking, of course)
stowie
Legendary Member
I am not involved in CEGB, but the post above appears to be wildly unfair.
The comments on Cyclecraft were on a private blog and apart from the owner supporting CEGB, I cannot see much of a link between the two. I am a member of the LCC, yet please don't assume that all my posts are LCC policy...
From what I see everyone broadly wants the same thing - roadspace to be re-thought as something other than acres of tarmac to push through as much traffic as possible. We can all argue as much as we like about what the roadspace could be used for, but as Blackfriars and other schemes prove, those who actually organise our roads are not even thinking that this type of reallocation is a good idea.
OldGreyBeard
Active Member
I had a look at the first few pages of messages but I can't say I've read all 44!
However good old Milton Keynes came up quite a lot which is place I live near and have cycled in - on the Reways.
The big problems with the Redways are:
1. The signage is appaling
2. The distances are large because MK is built first and foremost for the car
3. Some parts are relatively lonely and people may not feel safe
4. They are not segregated in the Dutch sense in that they are usually shared with pedestrians
The actual paths are in pretty good condition, of a good width and graidents are shallow.
The MK dual carriageway network is a 70mph racetrack with often three lane entry roundabouts.
I think that if the signage were improved more would use the Redways but without the map I would get hopelessly lost.
As for Cyclecraft, it simply doesn't seem to me to be realistic as the methods it encourages are really only suitable for a small group of cyclists - basically adults with good roadsense who can cycle fast.
How does it help my daughter (9 years old) cycle to school? It doesn't.
As far as I can see the whole Cyclecraft approach has had about 35 years to prove itself and it really hasn't worked to any great degree beyond helping cycling to cling on.
I do remember when the whole vehicular cycling thing came long in the 70's, when I was in my 20's, and it was a revelation but I think it has run its course.
As was said on another blog its not really about safety its about fear and people are frightened of cycling on the roads and will not let their children do it. Children cannot be expected to have the roadsense necessary to implement Cyclecraft.
What happens when they are taught Bikeability? They cycle on the pavements.
The big question is "Can Cyclecraft develop cycling over the next ten years?" I don't think it can. As for safety in numbers, which way does the causality run? Do numbers create safety or does safety create numbers?
As for getting drivers to improve, good luck with that. It just seems to get worse.
However good old Milton Keynes came up quite a lot which is place I live near and have cycled in - on the Reways.
The big problems with the Redways are:
1. The signage is appaling
2. The distances are large because MK is built first and foremost for the car
3. Some parts are relatively lonely and people may not feel safe
4. They are not segregated in the Dutch sense in that they are usually shared with pedestrians
The actual paths are in pretty good condition, of a good width and graidents are shallow.
The MK dual carriageway network is a 70mph racetrack with often three lane entry roundabouts.
I think that if the signage were improved more would use the Redways but without the map I would get hopelessly lost.
As for Cyclecraft, it simply doesn't seem to me to be realistic as the methods it encourages are really only suitable for a small group of cyclists - basically adults with good roadsense who can cycle fast.
How does it help my daughter (9 years old) cycle to school? It doesn't.
As far as I can see the whole Cyclecraft approach has had about 35 years to prove itself and it really hasn't worked to any great degree beyond helping cycling to cling on.
I do remember when the whole vehicular cycling thing came long in the 70's, when I was in my 20's, and it was a revelation but I think it has run its course.
As was said on another blog its not really about safety its about fear and people are frightened of cycling on the roads and will not let their children do it. Children cannot be expected to have the roadsense necessary to implement Cyclecraft.
What happens when they are taught Bikeability? They cycle on the pavements.
The big question is "Can Cyclecraft develop cycling over the next ten years?" I don't think it can. As for safety in numbers, which way does the causality run? Do numbers create safety or does safety create numbers?
As for getting drivers to improve, good luck with that. It just seems to get worse.
Indeed.
Mr Colostomy has again made some very good points - ones I've argued for some time as it happens - but knee jerks and the perennial claim of an entire army of straw men have killed the debate.
Pockets of cycling loveliness are no place from which to model national policy. If you're fortunate enough to ride on our network of country lanes, or in the enlightened centres of cycle aware cities, the possibility that a quality cycle track might be required down the side of some toxic bypass for the good of cyclists might never enter your head.
Until campaigners can decide what a quality cycle facility looks like, let alone if such a beast can actually exist, cycle activists will always be on a war footing with the idea of dedicated provision. And the debate on national cycle take up stuck in stats and fractions.
Children, oldies, fatties, Dolly Daydream on her Shopper and all manner of or'nery folk are notable by their absence in Franklin's big push.
simply not true
snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
My 1997 edition of CYCLECRAFT is subtitled 'Skilled Cycling Techniques for Adults'
- Status