Richard
My experience completely. There's been a creeping arrogance to accompany a
general decline in standards since my sojourn in Central Government in the
90's.
Cheers
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Burton
Sent: 15 September 2011 16:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Please ignore cyclists, especially when they are telling you to
ignore cyclists...
In my experience, it doesn't make much difference how much of the jargon you
know, or how expert you are. One of the reasons I took my MSc Transport
Planning was to be more authoritative when pointing out how utterly awful
were the plans of the SGlos highway planners, but it made absolutely no
difference: they still ignored me, their own policies and national guidance.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Justin Spinney
Sent: 15 September 2011 15:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Please ignore cyclists, especially when they are telling you to
ignore cyclists...
John, how right you are! I wrote a chapter a while back which looked at the
ways in which non-expert knowledges of LCC cycle campaigners either get
ignored by TfL or they have to learn the expert language of TfL which often
loses much of the value they brought to the table in the first place.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:22 AM, john meudell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks, Justin, I make no apologies for describing myself as an
> operations researcher...and a professional engineer. I'm convinced
> that we have to examine the conditions and behaviours that prevent (or
> maybe that should read resist) informed, evidence based policy......
>
> As regards Jonathan's comments regarding engineering, and speaking as
> a professional engineer myself, cyclists have a point. Unfortunately
> many have come to the end of their tether and, owing to the gross
> ineptitude displayed by the highways profession in this country, over
> many years, now take the view that the engineers and planners are
> incapable of anything
but
> the simplest of approaches....and then only one at a time!
>
> That said, Adrian, it would be nice to think non-cyclists would be as
> capable as you suggest but, given your own observations regarding the
> information environment for cyclist and non-cyclists, I question
> whether these groups can be as objective and understanding as is
> necessary to generate meaningful improvement. So I question whether
> there's really the knowledge capacity out there to engage in design
> and development activities....particularly given the basic "stupidity"
> of the highways engineering establishment. They just don't have the
> capacity to
understand,
> let alone define solutions to, basic
> problems.
>
> Even if they did, the transport establishment is generally hostile to
input,
> even from experienced engineers and campaigners. To quote the
> original draft of LTN 2/08 (aka Cycle Friendly Infrastructure 2)
> "Campaign groups
can
> be helpful in offering specialist expertise and may even undertake
> audits, but by nature their priorities may be limited to particular
> issues", a charter to ignore what individuals and groups are saying.
> Furthermore genuine safety concerns regarding existing cycling
> infrastructure were additionally ignored in the draft of the current
> Highway Code, which would have suggested mandatory use of the existing
> Crap cycle infrastructure...until CTC intervened, threatening use of a
> judicial
review.
>
> Although that last document was changed in many respects the wording
> is
now
> even worse...." Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and
> toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of
> these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience
> and
skills,
> but they can make your journey safer".
>
> In truth few cyclists have the experience or detailed to make a (spot)
> judgement as to whether cycle infrastructure is "safe" or "unsafe",
> either generally or in the conditions prevailing at the time judgement
> is
required,
> so how are they to describe the issues to an engineer, transport
> administrator or politician is such a way that their comments get
translated
> into "effective action"?
>
> (Note: One definition of knowledge is that it is ".......the capacity
> for effective action in the domain of human actions")
>
> The sad fact is that we, both cyclists and non-cyclists, have become
> so institutionalised and manipulated (which is what you, Adrian,
> describe in your main paragraph) that I'm no longer convinced anything
> meaningful is possible without some sort of major (cultural) shock to "the
system"
> (probably a series of high profile road deaths)....and leadership from
> the top, consistent over many years. That won't happen soon, and it
> won't happen easily.
>
> Many other nations have managed to move towards improved environment
> for cyclists largely through improved infrastructure provision for
> cyclists
(by
> improved I mean internally relative to their current provision).
> Often doing so without the endless guidance, manuals, focus groups and
> "self serving leaflet campaigns" our public sector has indulged in
> over the
years
> (and all of which are ignored even if they understood and implemented) .
>
> It's not rocket science....but it might as well be.
>
> Cheers
>
> John Meudell
> C.Eng, MIMechE
> Research Associate
> Swansea University
>
|