A few points on the last couple of weeks

The comment about the mode of engagement is important. I don’t know Cycling England (formed after I left the country) but I am surprised there was not  extensive enlistment of existing expertise in cycling organizations and groups, if this is a valid complaint.  After all, the biggest complaint in local cycling groups is that their reservoir of knowledge is often ignored by government transport agencies and planners. Hence, crap schemes emerge, which are difficult to redress, or none at all. To overcome this is relatively easy – consult! It happens in Ealing now, but it took us a decade to get the process right.

I am not persuaded by the argument that habitual cyclists don’t understand the needs of beginners so should not be too involved in planning or design, [which was mentioned  in an earlier post] . This leaves transport ‘professionals’  with less local knowledge (but perhaps a transport engineering qualification)  to design the infrastructure and the ‘get on your bike ‘ schemes. Social scientist generally argue that ignorance of indigenous or local knowledge is disastrous – so too with urban cycling. Tap into those who do it. Populist bike infrastructure planning – has it ever been tried in western cities?

There was also talk of extending advocacy to ethnic communities who have a low rate of cycling,a nd how to do this. The Ealing example is interesting. When we re-formed the  Ealing LCC group in 1995 it was pretty ‘anglo’ and most members were based in and around Ealing itself. But the Borough spreads extensively, being one of the largest in London, and encompasses Southall and Greenford which have a completely different social profile - high South Asian in particular. In recent years David Eales has set up a BikeHub and workshop in Greenford, as a conscious effort to operate outside the Ealing  core, and has initiated many schemes with local communites, for example bike workshops and build-ups from recycled parts among local youth.  There is a way to go and evaluations are not yet in, but see here. http://www.ealingbikehub.co.uk – it is an impressive operation.

On whether London is somehow different to elsewhere in the UK and is more or less dangerous – a tiring discussion. When I lived there , both growing up in the bike hostile south east suburbs and also later campaigning in Ealing, we had nothing like the inner city modal share of today, and every week was a battle. I am just glad the place now has a few more cyclists and a cycling Mayor(regardless of his other dodgy policies)

Dr. Simon Batterbury

Director | Office for Environmental Programs | Walter Boas Building (163) | University of Melbourne, 3010 VIC, Australia.   &

Associate Professor | Dept. of Resource Management and Geography|  221 Bouverie St  (rm L2.33)

+61 (0)3 8344 5073   (OEP) | direct +61 (0)3 8344 9319  | simonpjb@ unimelb.edu.au | http://www.simonbatterbury.net | http://www.environment.unimelb.edu.au

From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of burton richard
Sent: Monday, 6 February 2012 9:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Digest - 31 Jan 2012 to 1 Feb 2012 (#2012-13)

I don't think anyone is disputing that there was a rise in cycling in the areas where Cycling England invested.  My point is that it could have been a bigger rise if they had made use of the huge asset that was so obviously available - the goodwill and organisation of the thousands of cyclists in the area, many of whom we willing and able to help.  Instead, they were ignored, excluded and antagonised, and reacted accordingly.  Was this really the best way to use scarce resources?  Wouldn't it have been better to get your natural allies on board and enthusiastic to help and at least provide political support?  Instead of which they became disillusioned, disheartened and cynical.

Yes, the number of cyclists went up, but how much higher would that figure have been if Cycling England had worked with local cyclists?