With all due respect, this is not new…and the overall concept is more than aptly captured in the hierarchy of provision.  It just that most transport planners, engineers and politicians seem not to have heard of it or recognise it exists, let alone design transportation systems based on it.

That said, as a cycle campaigner, I share your frustrations with cycle campaigners, but much of this the (general) culture of campaigning in a UK setting….and the associated frustrations.  Campaigns get captured by those  who bang the table loudest (often single interest sub-groups), or gain so much publicity that outsiders think they represent the views of the whole.  (I seem to remember the International Socialists were very good at that when I first went to University (a lot of years ago)).  In this respect it would be interesting to examine the tactics of the two most successful campaigns, those associated with live animal exports and Gurka rights, to learn the lessons.

But the foundation of reasoned and rationale arguments go out if the window, particularly if, as is often the case, little supporting evidence or information on which to base the debate (or not exchanged).  And in the absence of information, emphasising the lack of knowledge…all that’s left is politics!

This seems to be the standard tactic of elected representatives and, more worryingly, the executive.  So much so that personally I tend to lead into all consultation invitations with a freedom of Information request these days.

In such an (anti-) social participation environment it is very easy to lose sight of very basic frameworks that would, if deployed, help focus efforts to produce a safe and encouraging highways environment for cyclists (and pedestrians and the disabled).

To be honest there are times when I feel that researchers are spending too much time and effort researching the culture of cyclists, when we would be much better served researching the attitudes of politicians, officers and non-cycle owning public to cycling (and not the cyclists themselves).

Cheers

John Meudell

From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dave du Feu
Sent: 26 August 2011 00:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Urban vs rural

I largely agree with Richard.   For years we have been plagued by those campaigners who appeared to think that cycle facilities are largely not needed and that we just need to train up everyone enough so that they can use the roads as they are.

Let's not go to the extreme opposite where we support nothing except wholly segregated very wide bike paths.

An 'unambiguous position' is just not feasible given physical and political (including cost) realities.

Research seems pretty clear that to get the absolute maximum cycle usage an infrastructure such as Netherlands/ Denmark is required.   We should aim/fight for that where it is physically and politically realistic.

However in many places it is not realistic, either in the short/medium term for political reasons or often in the medium/long term for physical reasons (as Richard points out).  Yet cities like Oxford and Edinburgh have shown that quite substantial increases in bike use are perfectly feasible using non-physically-segregated onroad measures such as widespread onroad bike and bus/bike lanes, ASLs, parking restrictions, bus priorities, etc.   No, these cities have not risen to European levels of bike use, but they have risen substantially, in a situation where European-style infrastructure was absolutely not feasible, usually for both physical and political reasons.

Perhaps ironically, by succeeding in raising bike use significantly, such cities are increasing the pressure to gradually develop a segregated infrastructure.  That is certainly the case in Edinburgh where the recent Active Travel Action Plan [http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2010/09/cec-active-travel-action-plan/] has a 2-pronged approach - first, to make the road system appear as safe and welcoming as possible with measures such as above (called "cycle friendly city") and second, at the same time, to gradually develop a network (the "family network") which would be segregated as far as possible, as and when physical and cost realities allow.  This pragmatic dual approach seems to me highly realistic and to be commended.

Dave (du Feu) involved with Spokes the Lothian Cycle Campaign

--
** Spokes: www.spokes.org.uk;  twitter.com/SpokesLothian
** Personal:  twitter.com/DaveduFeu;  www.flickr.com/photos/34847720@N03/sets
** Great sites: badscience.net, 38degrees.org.uk, copenhagenize.com, thebikestation.org.uk, ghgonline.org, www.sei.se