Will this help cycling?

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-28352678

..or just another talking shop?

A five-fold increase in spending on cycling infrastructure is needed to increase both actual and perceived road safety for cyclists, MPs have said.

the committee said cyclists had complained of aggressive driving, poorly-designed junctions and a failure to enforce speed limits

The committee also called on the heavy-goods vehicle industry to improve its safety record, and argued that bicycle training should be made available to more schoolchildren.

It also called on the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency it[to?] ensure that motorists are tested on their approach to sharing the roads with cyclists.

IMO the biggest problem is that attitudes of some drivers to their responsibilities and it does seem to me that driving instructors may well bear some blame for that. 

I'm not a big believer in cycle paths or cycle lanes.  Unless they are done properly they do far more harm than good and with the spending cuts in prospect they aren't likely to get done properly in the future any more than they have in the past.

[Kim]

My guess, no.  Because when it's about cycling, it's talk and tokenism.

Change will come when it becomes about restricting motor traffic for the benefit of all.

[Jaded]

Agreed. The danger doesn't come from the roads, it comes from the way roads are used. The bullies thrive and the system protects them when things go wrong.

[tonycollinet]

I take a slightly more optimistic view.

It might in effect be tokenism - but it is resulting from a recognition that something needs to be done, which in itself is a step forward. The discussions which will result from these plans can only raise the profile of cycling which will - given time - result in real improvements.

[Kim]

Cycling doesn't need its profile raised, though.  It needs to be accessible to normal people.  Which means those who are scared of motor traffic.

Recognising that something needs to be done is the easy bit.  Admitting what the something actually is seems to be what we have a massive cultural barrier to, let alone putting it into practice.  Hence tokenism.

Cycling doesn't need a special budget.  Cycling facilities should be funded and maintained by the highways budget, in favour of Fitting More Cars In as a way of moving people about.  That's a cultural change.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I agree with that, cultural change is what's needed.

More and better lanes might well get more people on bikes, but what we really need is for the whole road to be a people lane. What that means is the purpose of the road is not to get from A to B but to do things; buying and selling, playing, eating, talking, and pretty much everything. Even displaying your recently deceased grandfather's body in a glass-topped coffin before the funeral and then holding a wake which closes the whole street a week later! (admittedly this might clash somewhat with British culture, but I give it as an example of what does happen - saw it in india). Leave main roads for transport, all the others are for sport. And slobbing. And dancing and ranting at your neighbours and playing hide and seek and and and and and
and living really

Enforcement of regulations is very important too, and I agree with asterix about driving instructors - they are (a lot/most of them) very much drivers who didn't make Silverstone rather than teachers on roads.

[mattc]

Cycling doesn't need its profile raised, though.  It needs to be accessible to normal people.  Which means those who are scared of motor traffic.

Agree, but we shouldn't assume that it's 'normal' to be scared of motor traffic - it didn't used to be!

Cycling doesn't need a special budget.  Cycling facilities should be funded and maintained by the highways budget, in favour of Fitting More Cars In as a way of moving people about.  That's a cultural change.

Definitely. I believe there are lots of regs about highway projects that would facilitate cycling/walking IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

So along with the driving laws, I think the construction/design regs need a clampdown. This doesn't need to cost much!

[ian]

Indeed.

The picture on the article kind of summed it up. Imagine the same picture taken at a light in Copenhagen, Berlin, Amsterdam, etc.

Build environments for people. That includes drivers, cyclists, and – most importantly – pedestrians. That includes infrastructure as appropriate, but other measures. Streets that are pleasant to walk in are pleasant to live in. They're pretty nice to cycle in too.

And we need to tackle the lawlessness on our roads for everyone's sake.

Ringfenced cycling budgets, I think we all know, never materialise and what does is a token gesture that ends up with a couple of hundred metres of painted cycle lane and then the END OF ROUTE.

[Jaded]

I never heard the shout "get on the cycle path!!!" before there were cycle paths.

[Freya]

I never heard "you don't pay road tax" when there weren't any roads

[Jaded]

 

[mattc]

Nope, lost on me too!

I wonder if Danish riders get MORE abuse if they forget/refuse to use a cycle-path than us Brits?

[levitator]

From the article:

despite Prime Minister David Cameron last year calling for a "cycling revolution" following successes in the Olympics, the Paralympics and the Tour de France.

This looks worryingly like the attitude to turn cycling into a merely a spectator sport, like football.  I must admit I enjoy watching TDF highlights, but its not everyday cycling is it?  Roads closed, racers taking huge risks, plenty of crashes.  There must be lots of folks watching this saying, its' fun to watch but not for me!

We need to put less emphasis on cycling as a sport.

[levitator]

Spending on cycling?  There are too many ways of getting it wrong.  Six-foot lengths of cycle path leading nowhere, forcing you to kerb-hop or go back out into the traffic at right angles: useless!  I've seen them.

Junctions: I'd say the safest option for a busy junction is traffic lights with an advance GO for cyclists.  The most dangerous options are flyover junctions, closely followed by large roundabouts: especially roundabouts painted with exit lanes on the roundabout itself.

[mattc]

From the article:

despite Prime Minister David Cameron last year calling for a "cycling revolution" following successes in the Olympics, the Paralympics and the Tour de France.

This looks worryingly like the attitude to turn cycling into a merely a spectator sport, like football.  I must admit I enjoy watching TDF highlights, but its not everyday cycling is it?  Roads closed, racers taking huge risks, plenty of crashes.  There must be lots of folks watching this saying, its' fun to watch but not for me!

We need to put less emphasis on cycling as a sport.

Totally agree!

(and I'm a keen spectator, helper and participant).

[Basil]

Cycling doesn't need its profile raised, though.  It needs to be accessible to normal people.  Which means those who are scared of motor traffic.

Agree, but we shouldn't assume that it's 'normal' to be scared of motor traffic - it didn't used to be!

Cycling doesn't need a special budget.  Cycling facilities should be funded and maintained by the highways budget, in favour of Fitting More Cars In as a way of moving people about.  That's a cultural change.

Definitely. I believe there are lots of regs about highway projects that would facilitate cycling/walking IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

So along with the driving laws, I think the construction/design regs need a clampdown. This doesn't need to cost much!

Yes. This.
The more we concentrate on building separate farcilities  because people are too terrified to ride on roads, the more we alienate cycle use as bona fides road transport.  Surely this is counter productive?
I recently spent a couple of weeks in a small town/suburb of Frankfurt.  The cyclists were legion. All ages.  And I do mean all.  All types,  grannies to goths, toddlers to suits.  Women, as many as men.
And do you know how many cycling facilities there are in that town?  None.  None whatsoever.  The attitude of the motorists was, to a (honoury) Brummie, a revelation.  A glimps of how things could be.

We need to reclaim the road.  We need to reclaim it for the nervous, the children and the people. 
We need reeducation.

Say no to segregation.

[Kim]

Brits like education.  It means they don't have to do anything.

I don't realistically see how we can reclaim the British roads from car culture by re-educating drivers.  We need tangible, and indeed physical, incentives for them not to use their cars.

That doesn't necessarily mean cycle paths (though I do believe there's a place^[1] for non-crap ones), but things like restricting the availability of parking, closing roads to motorised through-traffic and all sorts of other measures that are going to be deeply unpopular with the typical voting motorist.


_{[1] Alongside trunk roads, mainly.}

[Cudzoziemiec]

I'd agree with pretty much all of that. People don't, mostly, drive because they're petrol heads but because driving is perceived as, and very often actually is, the most convenient way of getting somewhere. In this respect they are the diametric opposite of cyclists, who cycle for the cycling itself, not to reach a destination. So, a lot of people drive despite seeing the damage it does in terms of pollution, noise, disengagement, etc etc (which isn't to say that a lot/most are oblivious) but apart from a few whacky coal rollers and the like, no one actually wants those things - they're just a price that has to be paid. So making driving inconvenient or prohibitively expensive is the thing that will get people out of cars. It's all a matter of scale, really. When half the households of the country had one car and the others had none, it wasn't a big problem. Now that half have one and the others have two or three, it is a big problem.*

*Just like a lot of things, but that's going OT.

[Cudzoziemiec]

What I forgot to say is that this

things like restricting the availability of parking, closing roads to motorised through-traffic and all sorts of other measures that are going to be deeply unpopular with the typical voting motorist.

is IMO already beginning to happen, in a small way. No central government is going to dare to even say it's needed but some in Westminster do, I reckon, see the need for it. They still have to spout car-happy rhetoric because they want to get re-elected so what's happening is the task is being delegated to local authorities. It's at the local level that parking restrictions, 20mph limits, RPZs, even emission zones and congestion charges, are being introduced. Even, going way back to the early '90s, the road closures in the City of London, though motivated and explained by terrorism (it was the IRA back then, remember?), were not wholly unconnected to the already perceived need to make streets liveable and - since no one actually lives in the City - businessable. It's surely no coincidence that many of the roads remained closed after the IRA had faded away and that the same district is now a 20mph zone.

So we are beginning to head in this direction, even if we're not allowed to tell ourselves this, but it's still a long, long journey with plenty of derailments, dead ends and abandoned roads.

[woollypigs]

I wonder if Danish riders get MORE abuse if they forget/refuse to use a cycle-path than us Brits?

Yes get shouted at, we were told off for not using a cycle lane, we didn't know were there.

[jsabine]

I'd agree with pretty much all of that. People don't, mostly, drive because they're petrol heads but because driving is perceived as, and very often actually is, the most convenient way of getting somewhere. In this respect they are the diametric opposite of cyclists, who cycle for the cycling itself, not to reach a destination.

To my mind, this is one of the things that needs to change if we're to get a cultural shift. I don't think it's healthy to try to get more cyclists on the road¹, but it's definitely right to get more people on bikes on the road. As long as riding to work or to the shops or out to a friend's house is seen as Cycling, needing special Cycling Clothes and Cycling Skillz, there's a problem. After all, you don't put on Motoring Clothes or use highly developed Motoring Skillz² - you just get in your car and drive.



1: At least, not in the context of encouraging utility cycling. Obviously more cyclists is a Good Thing ...
2: Even if they damn well ought to.

[Mr Larrington]

BRITAIN already has an excellent network of cycle paths.  The only thing wrong is that it has too many cars on it.

[Robh]

BRITAIN already has an excellent network of cycle paths.  The only thing wrong is that it has too many cars on it.

Got it in one.

[red marley]

Public cycle hire schemes (of the Boris Bike variety). But they need to be large scale and extend out significantly into residential areas as well as be close to pleasant cycling environments.

They have the big advantage that they require very little investment by the individual to have a go (no need to purchase a bike; no special bike clothes required or seen to be required; no lights, locks or helmets; no shed or secure storage required;). As a result they are particularly good for those unsure about whether getting on a bike is for them (and that is likely to be the majority of people).

In my cyclotopia, we'd have large-scale interoperable bike share schemes in all cities and large towns. I think it would be money well spent, and still a fraction of what we spend on maintaining motor traffic on our roads.

[levitator]

I'm not anti-cycling-path, I use them if theyr'e good enough to use, that means well surfaced, no sharp corners and not too many pedestrians.  Admittedly that last one is not something the authorities can control, if a cycle path turns into a popular path for walking or is in a busy shopping area, may as well give up calling it a cycle path and give it over to pedestrians entirely.

Sharp blind corners on a cycle path, which you can't see round and certainly can't go round at any sort of cycling speed, that's a bugbear of mine.  Have come off more than once at one of those, admittedly one time it was icy.

And the silly painted on stretches only a few yards long, on an otherwise straight road, serve no purpose whatsoever I avoid those.

Making junctions more easily negotiable for cyclists who regard them as places of terror.  That should be priority.