Cooo….didn’t think I’d start this sort of debate. This could be fun.
Let’s make this clear. I realise that there are cities in the UK more hazardous to cyclists health but, having cycled extensively in Europe, North America and the Far East over a period of 35 years, I stand by my statement that “If you can cycle confidently in London, you can cycle anywhere in the world…and stay alive!” Cyclists in any other UK city can take heart from the fact that, on that basis, they have an even greater chance of staying alive than their London based counterparts!
Secondly, cycling in London can in no way be described benign. It was (reasonably) benign when I started regularly cycling there (or should that be here, ‘cos I do it so often) in the mid-80’s, with a bunch of people who were no way as confident or experienced cyclists as myself. I’ve lived and cycled in and around London since then and it has become ever more hazardous. It was probably at its worst in the mid 90’s pre-congestion charge, at a time when I was commuting from Dorking to Central London by bike a couple of times a week. Since then it hasn’t really got much better… the hazards have only changed. That is reflected in the significant rise in serious accidents involving cyclists in London…..though I suspect that objective evaluation would reveal the rise is, in part, the result of the general increase in cyclists on the road, reinforcing a view that cycling’s safety hasn’t improved in the capital, but the numbers exposed to the hazards of cycling in the capital have increased. On the other hand there’s also been an increase in the number of large vehicles in the city and a police force and public authority with little interest in objective investigation of the causes of accidents (I know, I’ve tried to report dangerous driving on a number of occasions, on one recent occasion an incident which took place in front of six police officers….and you’ve no chance). In practice there’s little objective, grounded research to determine causality or to guide safe design and enforcement.
I totally agree with Tim’s comments that it’s only a few very experienced cyclists who think that the hazards aren’t real but only “perceptions”. Anyone who tried the “Scalextrics” designed facilities in Torrington Place/Tavistock Place and elsewhere will agree that cyclists have really only swapped one source of hazard for another. The worrying part is the acceptability of statements included in the Highway Code that “cyclists should use the cycle infrastructure if they feel it’s safe to do so”. If you are of the view that cycling safety is all about perceptions of safety, then there’s no such thing as unsafe infrastructure (and that applies not just to cycle infrastructure). That’s patently not true and, as someone who has spent a lifetime in seriously hazardous industries, talking down safety hazards in that way is irresponsible in the extreme.
(On that basis I’d hope contributors would forgive me for my occasional tirades against the highways engineering establishment. In all my career, and all the countries I’ve worked in, I’ve never seen this level of attitude and aptitude deficiency in engineering for safety in capital facilities (which is what infrastructure is))
Thirdly, however, I disagree that Cycling England has actually contribute to improvements for cycling….even if, as suggested, its hands were tied. In truth Cycling England has only served as a distraction from addressing core problems, problems whose roots not only lie in the (lack of) quality in transport and spatial planning and infrastructure design and implementation, but also in the politicisation of safety for road users and convenience for cyclists and pedestrians.
Comments by both Darnton and Grimshaw, since leaving Cycling England, beg the question “why did they bother”?. Had the great and the good stood back and evaluated the context within which their efforts would take place, then maybe they’d’ve taken a different and, probably, more effective position, and developed a different Terms of Reference. Either that or, as professionals whose hands are being tied, just walked away. Instead they lobbied that (only) they knew how to implement cycle friendly policies and infrastructure (yeah, right!) and fell into the politicians standard trap….of being bought off without any long term commitment to change and policy implementation.
I’d argue that Cycling England efforts were limited by the (self defined) lack of remit in three areas; research into cycling and it’s interaction with other modes, provisions for cycling and cyclists within the overall spatial and transport planning frameworks, and into the cycling safety dimension.
In fact the writing was on the wall from day one, CE weren’t going to listen to anyone except their own voices. I recall attending the Cycle Show in Excel, some months after the setting up of Cycling England, at which CE had taken a stand. Except there was no-one on it except some plinths with computer screens and a looped glossy ad….and no people. Whilst they may have shown up for the PR photo call on press day, the members clearly weren’t going to hang around to talk to the people who were paying their wages and/or expenses. (Obviously todays senior bankers have been taking lessons from CE board members…..”our policy is not to talk to the people who pay us wages to act in their best interests”. )
Since the demise of Cycling England Darnton has commented he was shocked at the attitude of some local authorities on the subject of cycling….yet CE continued to plough on without much in the way of change, or even impact, in that dimension being apparent. And, since retiring, Grimshaw has made similar comments about the quality of cycling infrastructure (only repeating comments made some years earlier by one of his Technical Directors, who left shortly after making his comments, only five months after joining Sustrans). Since then most of the infrastructure we have seen (CE or otherwise) continues to be poorly engineered, the “soft” schemes poorly thought through and structured, and all questionable in terms of effectiveness in the long term.
In truth all that has happened is that time and opportunities have been wasted for, in truth, a paltry sum of money. Were transport planners and engineers to take an integrated, safety conscience and cost effective approach to major, and minor, infrastructure projects, and integrate the provisions for cyclists (and other modes) into their knowledge base and thought processes, even those amounts of money would not be necessary. Why is it that CE didn’t take this on board?
I’d note a recent Treasury report of infrastructure cost comparisons with the Netherlands suggested our costs were 12 – 15% higher than theirs. The Panorama programme on “Cost of the Railways” ventured to suggest that rail costs were 30% higher then in Europe, whilst my own cost comparisons indicate that for some projects in the Netherlands it is higher again (double on a comparative basis). When you consider that these projects will included quality provision to cater for much higher levels of cycling, along with integration with other modes, you have to ask the question whether we should be talking about costs in such a disaggregated manner. Even today, cycle facilities in major projects are often stuck on as an after-thought…..the consequence of disintegrated thinking. So, in truth, discussing about spend on cycling dis-aggregated from basic infrastructure spend is a meaningless and, ultimately, fruitless discussion.
Over the last twenty or thirty years cycling in the UK has become an increasingly frustrating and scary experience, with many of the claimed improvements in truth just monuments to the failure of the planning and infrastructure establishments. In that same period I’ve been in a position to look hard at developments in thinking and doing in other countries (including North America) and the improvement their planners and engineers have achieved. There is no comparison and there has been little or no improvement here.
And in that, it must be said, cycling’s own establishment has to shoulder some of the accountability.
Cheers
John Meudell
C.Eng, MIMechE
Research Associate, Swansea University
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Jones
Sent: 31 January 2012 14:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A request for help
Chris
<<How also are non-cyclists supposed to understand the details that make a Dutch-designed cycle paths work well? Would they not simply say that the unmaintained, unswept, bumpy pavement conversion with liberal ‘cyclists dismount’ signs are perfectly acceptable?>>
I find that a rather patronising assumption. People who are not committed to cycling under the current system do not need a qualification in road and traffic engineering to be able to posit that they (or close others) wish to be kept away/protected from busy traffic whilst reaching vital destinations directly, safely and with dignity (i.e. humanely without recourse to speed or dressing up for battle). And they do not need a qualification to render the current offering wholly unacceptable vis-a-vis jumping in the car.
<<I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who is prepared to campaign for a cycle path from x to y who isn’t a cyclist,>>
This is the privilege we had as dedicated researchers on the UWAC project where we witnessed strong evidence that people (whether they are committed or potential practitioners or indeed are thinking about significant others cycling i.e. typically children, partner) WANT better conditions for cycling (and walking) even if they could not articulate that as eruditely as those supposedly purporting to represent the 'cycling community'.
I would agree re Cycling England and Phillip Darnton. Sterling work. He should go down in the anals of trying to do something for cycling in England [with his hands tied]. Realistically then, perhaps we do not need to start from the position of 'every main road' but we could at least agree to put in place appropriate mechanisms in the form of statutory guidance and regulation with teeth (i.e. to Dutch design standards and laws to address power asymetry on the road as we suggested in the UWAC report) and perhaps start by making it incumbent on local authorities to implement a significant corridor within their jurisdiction to Dutch design standards matched by central government funding. We need an equivalent 'Traffic in Towns' moment, 'Cycling in Towns', perhaps rather than tinkering around the edges to ill effect.
BTW - I'd like to draw your attention to a thoughtful post from my UWAC colleague Dave Horton on his Thinking About Cycling Blog
http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/
Best wishes
Tim
On 31 January 2012 13:42, Chris Peck <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Indeed Damien – the damage from that omission is already being felt. The draft Northern Ireland Active Travel Strategy cited UWAC saying:
“to improve walking and cycling we need to listen to the majority who don’t already choose greener modes of transport rather than the minority who do.”
(http://applications.drdni.gov.uk/publications/document.asp?docid=23517 p 15)
I’m not sure how a statement telling policy makers to ignore the views of existing cyclists and pedestrians is going to unlock political will and funding if the only people pushing for better facilities for cycling and walking are themselves existing committed cyclists and pedestrians. How also are non-cyclists supposed to understand the details that make a Dutch-designed cycle paths work well? Would they not simply say that the unmaintained, unswept, bumpy pavement conversion with liberal ‘cyclists dismount’ signs are perfectly acceptable?
I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who is prepared to campaign for a cycle path from x to y who isn’t a cyclist, just as I, a non-driver, don’t campaign against my local council raising car parking charges or implementing residents’ parking. However, the latter campaigning topics contribute a great deal more to local councillors’ postbags than new cycle paths.
As for funding, Tim’s suggestion that this lies with the stroke of a Ministerial pen is true, but that’s easier said than done. The final settlement for Cycling England (since abolished) gave it an annual budget of around £60m, or a little over £1 per person per year. That funding was extracted thanks mainly to some heroic lobbying by Phillip Darnton, but it’s chicken feed against the scale of the problem: to transform every major road and provide it with proper quality segregation (even after you’ve managed to obtain the political will etc) would likely be in the tens of billions. Not impossible, but not a realistic call on Government.
Chris
Christopher Peck
Policy Co-ordinator
CTC, the national cyclists' organisation
Tel: 01483 238313
Mob: 07951 213 554
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Damien O'Tuama
Sent: 31 January 2012 12:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A request for help
Hi Tim and Chris et al,
Following the debate from Dublin here and much of it resonates with local discussions.
I realise (from correspondence with Dave Horton) that the word "solely" was omitted inadvertently from the final UWAC report. A very unfortunate and unhelpful little omission, I must say, as committed cyclists through (for example here in Ireland) the Dublin Cycling Campaign have spent many years developing their ideas on how to make cities and streets bicycle friendly based on careful research and reasoning and that final UWAC wording is likely to be music to the ears of some policy-makers here who would much prefer not to listen to any reasoning from advocates challenging their thinking.
When appending "segregation" with "[quality]" above, I really think we also always need to be appending "integration" with "[quality]" e.g. through pushing the arguments re safe (1.5m+) overtaking distances etc.
DamienOn 31 January 2012 11:41, Tim Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Chris
The point that I am trying to make is nit picking claims by Meudell by arguing that the war in X (Rural A Roads) is more dangerous than Y (Minor Roads) whether based on 'objective' or subjective measures is somewhat of a distraction and perhaps reflects the malaise within the cycling advocacy community.
UWAC - We made clear in the recommendations (somewhat controversially), "...do not base policies about walking and cycling [solely] on the views and experiences of existing committed cyclists and pedestrians."
This could be a significant move towards unlocking political will and funding given the mixed messages that are received about infrastructure (i.e. integration v [quality] segregation) which has larged allowed the 'do-nothing' (or to put it another way, 'appear to do something' approach) to perpetuate over the last half century - but a unified message is beginning to emerge amongst the Cycle Embassy of Great Britain and London Cycling Campaign.
Unfortunately in the UK the hard-line vehicular cycling principle (perpetuated by John Forester in the USA and John Franklin in the UK*) persists whilst the rest of northern Europe where most cycling gains are taking place rolls out purpose built cycle systems properly integrated into the transport system. And of course the funding to do so is down to the stroke of a Minister's pen - meanwhile the cycling advocacy world still squabbles about the 'expense' of building quality segregated infrastructure!
Best wishes
Tim
*See John Pucher's tussle John Forester on this one http://www.vtpi.org/puchertq2.pdf
On 31 January 2012 11:01, Chris Peck <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Eh? Of course subjective safety is important, which is I appended the phrase ‘as well’, indicating that in this occasion the subjective feeling of danger which Gary experiences on rural A-roads is also backed up by the fact that it is in fact a significantly more dangerous place to cycle. I’m not saying the latter is more important than the former, rather I’m just putting some numbers to a qualitative judgment.
There will be lots of people who find cycling on minor urban roads far too risky as well. Huge changes are required to shift those people’s perceptions. Many, but not all those changes are set out in the UWAC findings. What was distinctly lacking from that document was the means to achieve that ‘radical overhaul’, ie how to obtain the political will and funding. Still – we can’t expect everything from a single research project!
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Jones
Sent: 31 January 2012 10:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A request for help
Dear Chris and all
Interesting use of the word 'objectively'. Subjective is 'real' enough to the 'subjects'. Of course people on this list will step forward and state, "that is really not my experience of cycling in London..." with implication that folk really just ought to get over it and try cycling to overcome their fears (and cycle training can help prepare for this!).
I read an interesting analogy by Blogger Cyclinginfo (an adept racing and commuter cyclist) http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/ this morning paraphrasing Michael Hutchinson writing in Cycling Weekly a couple of weeks ago: "Cycle around Kings Cross, London, and you can feel like a Lancaster bomber on a low flying mission across occupied Europe – trying to remain unmoved by all the flack coming from every angle. It’s not a surprise American and London cyclists are the most likely to wear a helmet, fluorescent jacket et al. , even if the effect is purely psychological, you feel like you need some kind of protection."
As our Understanding Walking and Cycling research based on extensive in-depth research across four cities outside of London made clear, we are kidding ourselves if we think that a democratic landscape of cycling will emerge out of the current transport system without radical overhaul. The key is to eradicate the war not to encourage the trembling troops to train to go into battle.
Tim JonesOn 31 January 2012 10:00, Chris Peck <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
“This really is not my experience of cycling in London (UK), I'd suggest London (UK) is one of the more benign areas to cycle in in Britain hence some areas of the inner city with 10% modal share of cycling and rising. Cycling on rural A4 roads in Britain outwith built up areas can be far more intimidating.”
… and objectively more risky as well:
* 313 deaths per billion kms cycled on rural A-roads last year.
* 11 deaths per billion kms cycled on minor urban roads.
(see: http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/1110_CTC_Transcom_RSS-con-final.pdf, from RAS30018)
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of gary cummins
Sent: 31 January 2012 09:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A request for help
John Meudell said:
On that particular point, I’d suggest making a clear distinction between the UK and Europe. My experience is that, if you can cycle confidently cycle around London without getting intimidated, run off the road or killed, you can survive anywhere!
This really is not my experience of cycling in London (UK), I'd suggest London (UK) is one of the more benign areas to cycle in in Britain hence some areas of the inner city with 10% modal share of cycling and rising. Cycling on rural A4 roads in Britain outwith built up areas can be far more intimidating.
Gary Cummins
________________________________________________________________________
CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation provides a comprehensive range of services, advice, events, and protection for its members.
CTC Charitable Trust, CTC's charity arm, works to promote cycling by raising public and political awareness of its health, social and environmental benefits, and by working with all communities to help realise those benefits.
To find out more, to join or support CTC visit www.ctc.org.uk, or phone 0844 736 8451.
Cyclists' Touring Club, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England number 25185.
CTC Charitable Trust, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England number 5125969. Registered as a charity in England and Wales number 1104324 and in Scotland number SCO38626
Registered office: Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, GU2 9JX
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by CTC. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
--
Research Fellow
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
& Department of Planning
Faculty of Technology Design and Environment
Oxford Brookes University
Gipsy Lane Campus
Oxford OX3 0BP
Tel +44 (0)1865 483436
[log in to unmask]
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/about/faculties/tde
EPSRC Understanding Walking and Cycling summary findings now available for download:
http://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/17bb3ed2-1209-b3e9-5357-614f329af72e/1/Quote: "“A society which measures man’s [sic] worth in terms of volume of publications accumulated is no less sick than one which measures his worth in terms of dollars amassed” (Stea 1969:1)."
Stea D (1969) Positions, purposes, pragmatics: A journal of radical geography. Antipode 1(1):1–2
________________________________________________________________________
CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation provides a comprehensive range of services, advice, events, and protection for its members.
CTC Charitable Trust, CTC's charity arm, works to promote cycling by raising public and political awareness of its health, social and environmental benefits, and by working with all communities to help realise those benefits.
To find out more, to join or support CTC visit www.ctc.org.uk, or phone 0844 736 8451.
Cyclists' Touring Club, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England number 25185.
CTC Charitable Trust, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England number 5125969. Registered as a charity in England and Wales number 1104324 and in Scotland number SCO38626
Registered office: Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, GU2 9JX
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by CTC. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
--
Research Fellow
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
& Department of Planning
Faculty of Technology Design and Environment
Oxford Brookes University
Gipsy Lane Campus
Oxford OX3 0BP
Tel +44 (0)1865 483436
[log in to unmask]
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/about/faculties/tde
EPSRC Understanding Walking and Cycling summary findings now available for download:
http://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/17bb3ed2-1209-b3e9-5357-614f329af72e/1/Quote: "“A society which measures man’s [sic] worth in terms of volume of publications accumulated is no less sick than one which measures his worth in terms of dollars amassed” (Stea 1969:1)."
Stea D (1969) Positions, purposes, pragmatics: A journal of radical geography. Antipode 1(1):1–2
________________________________________________________________________
CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation provides a comprehensive range of services, advice, events, and protection for its members.
CTC Charitable Trust, CTC's charity arm, works to promote cycling by raising public and political awareness of its health, social and environmental benefits, and by working with all communities to help realise those benefits.
To find out more, to join or support CTC visit www.ctc.org.uk, or phone 0844 736 8451.
Cyclists' Touring Club, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England number 25185.
CTC Charitable Trust, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England number 5125969. Registered as a charity in England and Wales number 1104324 and in Scotland number SCO38626
Registered office: Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, GU2 9JX
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by CTC. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
--
Research Fellow
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
& Department of Planning
Faculty of Technology Design and Environment
Oxford Brookes University
Gipsy Lane Campus
Oxford OX3 0BP
Tel +44 (0)1865 483436
[log in to unmask]
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/about/faculties/tde
EPSRC Understanding Walking and Cycling summary findings now available for download:
http://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/17bb3ed2-1209-b3e9-5357-614f329af72e/1/
Quote: "“A society which measures man’s [sic] worth in terms of volume of publications accumulated is no less sick than one which measures his worth in terms of dollars amassed” (Stea 1969:1)."
Stea D (1969) Positions, purposes, pragmatics: A journal of radical geography. Antipode 1(1):1–2