Threat to Cycling England

[Riverman]

A user just posted this on the LibDem Act Cycling Policy Group.

There seems to be a serious threat to the Government's input into bicycling promotion. Sustrans is just a provincial charity. Christian Wolmar puts it better that I could.

http://www.christian...-cycling-money/

see also

http://www.savecyclingengland.org/

Add in the DIY badger cull and one wonders if there is any point in Lib Dems involvement with the coalition.

http://act.libdems.o...=msg_group_disc



Save Bikeability and Cycling England
– an open letter to Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP
A letter to Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP (Secretary of State for Transport) and Norman Baker, Minister for cycling, from Cyclenation (the national federation of cycling groups) and Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

We know you, as the Secretary of State, have to make difficult decisions because of the scale of government cutbacks. Transport will be particularly heavily affected.

We are extremely concerned at the rumours emerging that Cycling England and its programmes could be facing the chop. Most worrying would be the loss of the very successful Bikeability child cycle training scheme. We urge you to think twice and look at the facts before considering scrapping these.

As you know, Cycling England is the small but highly effective part of the Department for Transport which deals with getting “more people cycling, more safely, more often”. It has achieved an enormous amount with a tiny budget, and is well-aligned to your government’s localism agenda.

Before the election, the Conservative Party said that: "encouraging cycling will be a major priority for a future Conservative Government as it already is for the administration in London". How will you achieve that without Bikeability or a body to do it?

At the very least, please ensure that Bikeability cycle training is retained, along with as many other of the programmes below as possible.




Thoughts?

 

[dellzeqq]

my thought is that it's money down the pan - along with all the government dough that goes to Sustrans, the CTC and the LCC, together with the money spent on Greenways, LCN+ and almost every other 'hard' cycling scheme. It creates a cyclerati, continuously going to the same meetings, continually coming up with the same stale stuff about targets, without ever inspiring the political will to make it happen.

Convince me otherwise.

(and forget Bikeability - it's an expensive version of Cycling Proficiency that used to be run by volunteers and local government officials)

 

[Riverman]

As I have mentioned before this is where the Liberal Democrats can try and influence public policy. It is possible for Liberal Democrats to push a motion through conference opposing any watering down of cycling policy by the coalition. It's the best tool we have to stop any changes going through IMHO, although I will admit, even getting a motion through conference doesn't guarantee any change in government policy but it would be a start.

 

[Riverman]

my thought is that it's money down the pan - along with all the government dough that goes to Sustrans, the CTC and the LCC, together with the money spent on Greenways, LCN+ and almost every other 'hard' cycling scheme. It creates a cyclerati, continuously going to the same meetings, continually coming up with the same stale stuff about targets, without ever inspiring the political will to make it happen.

Convince me otherwise.

(and forget Bikeability - it's an expensive version of Cycling Proficiency that used to be run by volunteers and local government officials)

Perhaps it would be better to suggest an alternative to conference?

 

[dellzeqq]

perhaps it would be better to save the money.

Only two things count

- how congenial are the routes that people want to use for cycling?
- is the form of the town or city such that people can best meet most of their needs locally?

The rest is fluff

 

[jonesy]

perhaps it would be better to save the money.

Only two things count

- how congenial are the routes that people want to use for cycling?
- is the form of the town or city such that people can best meet most of their needs locally?

The rest is fluff

I'd agree wholeheartedly on the second point. Regarding the first, I'd say that what counts is whether cycling is advantageous over other modes, not the quality of cycle routes in their own right. Modal choice is always going to be in comparison between modes, not on the merits of cycling in isolation, which is why you get places with high levels of cycling, like Oxford and Cambridge, with little or no cycle infrastructure; and places like Milton Keynes and Bracknell, and the bad bits of the NCN, with lots of infrastructure and no cyclists. In the former case, cycling is advantageous, i.e. quicker and more convenient, over driving for a large proportion of journeys across the city because parking and roadspace are very constrained. In Milton Keynes, even where the cycle paths might be considered to be good, driving and parking are easy, trips are lengthened by the spread out development, so cycling is rarely advantageous over driving.


Once that is appreciated, it becomes clear why the argument isn't about segregated infrastructure per se, it is about whether cycling infrastructure helps give cyclists advantage or not. It is clear that segregated provision as in Copenhagen most definitely does help to make cycling advantageous: routes are direct, continuous, you can maintain a good speed, you can go anywhere a car can go, following the same routes, without needing a special map, plus you can go to lots of places cars can't go. On the other hand, most UK segregated provision actually makes cycling less advantageous- it very often increases travel distances, discontinuity, obstructions and loss of priority adds delay, poor legibility add to uncertainty and the risk of getting lost, etc etc, all of which increases travel time and so reduces any advantage over driving. Cycling is predominantly a short distance mode of transport, not least because it is only over relatively short trips that it can compete with driving times, so any infrastructure intended to encourage it must at least maintain time competitiveness for those journeys.

 

[mvl22]

my thought is that it's money down the pan - along with all the government dough that goes to Sustrans, the CTC and the LCC, together with the money spent on Greenways, LCN+ and almost every other 'hard' cycling scheme. It creates a cyclerati, continuously going to the same meetings, continually coming up with the same stale stuff about targets, without ever inspiring the political will to make it happen.

Convince me otherwise.

Well, here in Cambridge the Cycling Demonstration Town is resulting in reallocation of roadspace on a heavily trafficked (and previously extremely hostile) bridge to 2.1m on-road cycle lanes:
http://www.cambridge...s-permanent.htm

and removal of parking on a heavily-used street with thousands of school children in the area but which currently has advisory cycle lanes that motorists park in:
http://www.camcycle....1/article5.html

and new links to villages:
http://www.camcycle..../article11.html

and officially-sanctioned 'No Entry Except Cycles' signs (after a decade of campaigning previously to no avail):
http://www.cyclestre...location/20535/

and new cycle parking appearing, some at the expense of car parking spaces:
http://www.cyclestre...,25047,25036-8/
http://www.cyclingsorted.org/

Nothing's perfect, but the reallocation of roadspace aspect has come about I'd say because of Cycling England's provision of a better-than-average level of funding, and a requirement to meet higher standards if the money is to be provided at all.

(and forget Bikeability - it's an expensive version of Cycling Proficiency that used to be run by volunteers and local government officials)

A scheme which sometimes involved 'trainers' who didn't cycle and which sometimes didn't involve going on roads, surely?

Instead we have a scheme which teaches children how to ride in real traffic conditions and which is designed around best practices such as using the primary position.

Bikeability is a massive step forward. £15m for a national scheme for a (much-increased) uptake of 300,000 children isn't exactly big money in government terms.



Martin

 

[Norm]

and officially-sanctioned 'No Entry Except Cycles' signs (after a decade of campaigning previously to no avail):
http://www.cyclestre...location/20535/

I think that photo is an excellent piece of evidence against the half-hearted implementation of such things, given the van parked in the cycle lane (forcing bikes into direct conflict with cars on a one-way street) and the number of bikes which are blocking the pavement.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I think that photo is an excellent piece of evidence against the half-hearted implementation of such things, given the van parked in the cycle lane (forcing bikes into direct conflict with cars on a one-way street) and the number of bikes which are blocking the pavement.

I can see some bikes parked against walls but none are blocking the pavement.

 

[Norm]

I can see some bikes parked against walls but none are blocking the pavement.

Really? Leaving aside legal definitions, I wouldn't want to walk down there with a pram or wheelchair, let alone mobility scooter.

 

[dellzeqq]

http://www.dft.gov.u...nt-v04-0910.pdf

take a look at this. A list of aspirations, some of which make sense and some of which are constructed of pure wishful thinking, that I could have dashed off (using a third of the word count) in half an hour, and Jonesy could have pulled out of his back pocket in ten seconds. That's where the £140 million is going.

Oh - and, as usual, not a thought about water run-off

Use design guides and S. 38 agreements to require machine laying of off-carriageway measures​

 

[dellzeqq]

I'd agree wholeheartedly on the second point. Regarding the first, I'd say that what counts is whether cycling is advantageous over other modes, not the quality of cycle routes in their own right. Modal choice is always going to be in comparison between modes, not on the merits of cycling in isolation, which is why you get places with high levels of cycling, like Oxford and Cambridge, with little or no cycle infrastructure; and places like Milton Keynes and Bracknell, and the bad bits of the NCN, with lots of infrastructure and no cyclists. In the former case, cycling is advantageous, i.e. quicker and more convenient, over driving for a large proportion of journeys across the city because parking and roadspace are very constrained. In Milton Keynes, even where the cycle paths might be considered to be good, driving and parking are easy, trips are lengthened by the spread out development, so cycling is rarely advantageous over driving.

point taken, Jonesy!

 

[mark barker]

(and forget Bikeability - it's an expensive version of Cycling Proficiency that used to be run by volunteers and local government officials)

perhaps it would be better to save the money.

Only two things count

- how congenial are the routes that people want to use for cycling?
- is the form of the town or city such that people can best meet most of their needs locally?

The rest is fluff

Surely giving tomorrows commuters some idea on how to deal with roads & traffic is a good idea? Riding around a playground hardly prepares people for hitting the road. It'd be nice to think that the parents would be responsible and would take their children out and teach them to ride safely and considerately, but that is rarely the case, so better spend the money and maybe some of them will learn something.

Sorry - but I have to agree with dellzeqq. Bikeability wastes huge amounts of money. More is spent on administration than on teaching people to cycle.

Why is the bikeability scheme so bad? We all know that anything that has an involvement with local authorities is going to spend more money on admin than anything else, but surely that alone isn't a reason to give up on it...

 

[dellzeqq]

I think Reg and I have been in part influenced by the scandalous goings-on in Milton Keynes, but, to put it in to perspective....

Bikeability costs £50 for a one day course per child. There is naff-all follow-through. What it does do is to attach a figleaf to the failure of the DfT and local authorities to get to grips seriously with the heirarchy of provision. It's clearly a good idea for children to ride bicycles, but the scheme puts the onus on the kid to look after him or herself when successive governments have done next to nothing about car use. That's indicative of a kind of moral ataxia - get the kids on bikes and let the adults drive cars - that is founded, in my view, on queasemaking kind of Victorian romantic vision of childhood as a repository of moral values. Whatever its extremely short term and limited practical merits it is, frankly, s**t. And expensive s**t.

Go back to my first point (much smartened up by Jonesy). If conditions favour cycling then people of all ages will cycle. That's it. Cycling England is an expensive substitute for political will. I call to evidence parallel roads of a similar stature, one full of cyclists, the other with far, far fewer.

 

[StuartG]

Bikeability costs £50 for a one day course per child.

That is a frightening figure. I wonder how much the (volunteer) IAM training costs? We surely need critical analysis of our riding whether 7 or 70 but that is not sustainable at that price. I'm guessing that the CRB checks on all those involved doesn't help especially when we lose more kids under the wheels of motorists than to the whiles of paedophiles.

The joy of cycling is that it can be a low/no cost liberating transportation system. Spending a pittance on Cycling England or even less is of no consequence whilst we allow unlimited advertising spending on the penis extending powers of modern motors. That's the real issue - why people are kidded into spending a significant part of their income in a non-optimal transportation system. And I think you already know the answer ...