I signed up to, on the basis of their published aims and the eight point
plan. That was on Thursday.
On Saturday, I bought the Times for the first time in twenty years,
specifically because of the promised cycling coverage. Later on Saturday
morning I emailed the editor threatening to withdraw my signature. Why?
The plan and the aims were good, as were the first two days of coverage in
the Times. Saturdays' "Guide to Safe Cycling" was abysmal, the pits, just
really, really awful. It was the usual helmet promotion stuff, with lots
of horror stories about how dangerous cycling is, but how you'll be
completely safe if you wear a helmet, with the ubiquitous James Cracknell
holding up his bloodstained helmet, the one he's sponsored by even though
he claims to have no commercial relationship with any helmet manufacturer.
There didn't appear to be any bloodstains on the manufacturers name oddly
enough.
I'm not exactly surprised that the originator of the campaign was calling
for unity amongst cyclists, as judging by reports, I'm not the only one to
be feeling misled by their original plan, and now feeling betrayed. It's
hard to believe that they didn't know what they were doing when the helmet
promotion was published, so just what is their agenda? and are reporters
not capable of even the most basic research these days?
On 6 February 2012 21:28, Kevin Hickman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Quick interlude: has everyone signed #cyclesafe?
>
> Don't know, but I have :o)
>
> Dave's question "who is cycling for?" chimed with me as a cycle
> campaigner. The question I asked myself after a couple of years of
> campaigning was "who am I campaigning for?"
>
> The answer has to be future bike users. A huge group of people who don't
> cycle now but who will make up the majority of bike users following a
> successful cycle campaign. People who aren't like me. There's no doubt in
> my mind that that latent majority exists in the UK.
>
> I don't believe a campaign that aims to make them all like me has any
> chance of success. A successful campaign will be one that takes account of
> the majority's fears and sensibilities and provides them with a pleasant
> cycling experience. When I look around I don't see any short cuts, but I
> have seen and ridden in a working model. That's what I'm putting my money
> on.
>
> Unfortunately for me, I find I've moved from one minority, that of bike
> users in the UK, to an even more elite group, cycle campaigners who were
> born or live on the wrong side of the channel. In fact I'm tempted to draw
> a venn diagram of all the factions within the group that make up cycle
> campaigners, but although I think I'm on pretty good terms with them all,
> that might be a step too far :o)
>
> It can be bloody depressing being in these minority groups, but I take
> heart in the knowledge that more closet cyclists are outing themselves
> everyday. And especially in the fact that a large proportion of these are
> young and are women. Even the current promotion and marketing of cycling,
> whether intentionally or not, is producing cyclists that don't make the
> warrior grade, shifting the median towards a more european norm.
>
> Will it be enough to break out of the dilemma UK cycle campaigning finds
> itself in? ie, how do you cater for the well honed views of the hardy AND
> the largely silent needs of a latent majority? Without a british Penalosa,
> I can't see any other way.
>
> Was it right for the UWAC research to question the views of the current
> cycling fraternity and use the S word? What should it have concluded? What
> else could it have concluded? It might not have been the conclusion
> campaigning bodies wanted to hear, but unless those bodies believe the
> evidence is flawed I can only assume they're grateful someone found out now
> and not in another ten years time.
>
> And I think Dave's right to question the trumpeting of large percentage
> gains of small absolute numbers. Being a local campaigner I recognise that
> practically that's all that can be managed and isn't to be sneered at.
> Hell, I'd love to increase cycling 100% where I am, but as Katya said -
> it's peanuts. I'd be a lot happier if someone had some leverage on the
> bigger picture. When the UK's main cycle campaign department challenges
> academia on how to conjure up political will and funding, then it's time to
> ask some fundamental questions.
>
> I heard someone call for unity amongst cyclists again today - it was the
> guy running The Times' campaign (if he's new to this game he must be
> wondering what the hell he's unleashed - obviously not looked in on
> cyclechat!) I wish him all the luck in the world, but what he really needs
> to work on is uniting the cycling and the motoring fraternities. Both need
> to give a little to gain a lot. We need to remove the majority of daily
> conflicts that keep fuelling road rage like a fusion reaction. We're only
> human and we need to eliminate the stimuli that make us nasty, rather than
> promoting highly rational "let's be nice" messages to people pumped with
> adrenaline.
>
> *deep breaths*
>
> I was fortunate enough to go cycling with the guy who was behind the 90's
> BT ad campaign, you remember, Bob Hoskins with "It's good to talk, innit".
> Good to write in this case, or it should be. Hope I haven't offended anyone
> - 'cept Richard of course, we regularly offend each other :o)
>
> Kevin.
>
>
> On 6 Feb 2012, at 16:22, Katja leyendecker wrote:
>
> Interesting thread.
>
> Quick interlude: has everyone signed #cyclesafe?
>
> Back to business. Of course, it's the sheer frustration of accepting
> peanuts that is the problem to the cycle campaigner. Cyclists aren't
> monkeys.
>
> Peanuts: minute increases in cycle modal share being hailed as a success
> when much more needs to be done, money if available is thrown down the
> drain as politicians and engineers grapple with the presumed pressure of a
> seemingly car-centric population...
>
> It's an academic vs campaigning divide. The angle on the subject is simply
> a different one.
>
> I think I can see both sides.
>
> Kat
>
> Katja Leyendecker
> - - -
> http://newcycling.org.uk
> twitter @newcycling
> - - -
> http://kleyendecker.co.uk
> twitter @katsdekker
>
> This email has been sent using touchpad technology. Any spelling mistakes
> or typos are therefore not my fault =)
>
> On 6 Feb 2012 09:43, "Adrian Lord" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> John
> You seem to have chosen to entirely miss my point. Cycling Englands money
> was spent locally by the local authorities and subject to the same
> political scrutiny and local accountability as any other spending. Ctc
> and other local campaign groups were actively involved and supportive in
> most of the places I visited. But we were interested mainly in getting
> ordinary people to ride bikes, not in being 'accountable to cyclists' which
> is different. Many of the consultants and board members attended Cycle
> Nation and other public forums, but cycling england was not a public facing
> or campaigning organisation precisely because ctc and others serve this
> purpose. I agree with richard mann that there should be no need for cycling
> england and it has largely served its intended purpose to demonstrate to
> government that putting money into cycling in a focussed way gets results
> even in small towns and cities outside london.
> When we started working with CE in 2005 a DfT official said to us this
> really was the last chance for cycling as there had been no increase or
> results from previous funding for years, no political support and most
> authorities had targeted zero growth in LTP2. The dominance of cycling
> projects in LSTF submissions and public support in The Times suggests that
> this is no longer the case.
>
>
> Adrian Lord
> Associate
> Arup
> Tel: +44 (0)121 213 3650
> Mob: +44 (0) 785 031 8882
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY automatic digest system [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 12:01 AM
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]
> >
> Subject: CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Digest - 4 Feb 2012 to 5 Feb 2012 (#2012-18)
>
> There are 3 messages totaling 935 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Digest - 31 Jan 2012 to 1 Feb 2012 (#2012-13) (2)
> 2. Cycling England etc.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:42:29 +0000
> From: Nick Cavill <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Digest - 31 Jan 2012 to 1 Feb 2012
> (#2012-13)
>
> John
>
> I repeat my earler point: it would be helpful if you actually read some of
> the reports that present clear evidence of the achievements of Cycling
> England, rather than rely on anecdote. These show clear increases in
> cycling in the towns (from multiple data sources, not just automatic
> counts) and full economic analyses that used the DfT's own methodology and
> showed very high benefit:cost ratios. These are based on real data (rather
> than the SQW report that was only modelling.)
>
> Best wishes
>
> Nick Cavill
>
>
>
> On 3 Feb 2012, at 20:32, John Meudell wrote:
>
> > I forgot to mention, in five years as a director of the CTC Cycling
> England never once offered to come and discuss their programme or approach
> with CTC National Council either (Kevin Mayne informed us he was on the
> board as a private individual and, as such, could not provide any insight
> into CE's programme).
> >
> > The issue isn't whether or not they were paid, but is whether or not
> they were prepared to be accountable to the people (cyclists) on whose
> behalf they were working and spending tax money. Given the poor reputation
> that quango's have (not just) amongst the general public, one would have
> thought it essential to avoid that particular banana skin. Instead it
> looked a bit like a cartoon that appeared in the Guardian Weekly during the
> period that Vietnamese boat people were in the news in the late 70's.
> Unfortunately there's no means to share it on this forum but, in summary,
> it could be described as the "message in a bottle" approach to PR.
> >
> > I'd note that, as a former director of the CTC, I also didn't and don't
> get paid. I also work evenings and weekends, and provide information for
> free. But my contact details are publicly available (still) and I
> regularly appeared at conference and exhibitions, and people still ring me
> up and e-mail me long after I've gone, and I've never bothered about being
> challenged (as you may realise I quite like it!). That's part of the
> process of developing robust answers (and I mean in terms of the quality of
> the replies and solutions not the style of response). External stimulus,
> in any form, is an opportunity to challenge one's own thinking....and needs
> to be grabbed with both hands and not punted into touch ('scuse the rugby
> metaphor....as a Welshman it was too good to miss!).
> >
> > To quote one of my bosses, "to do things right you first have to do the
> right things". What I am questioning is whether Cycling England was doing
> the right things (I believe not) and if not why not. Noting the high
> profile campaign that the Times has kicked off in respect of cycling's
> safety, if Cycling England was such a success why have high profile
> cyclists (some of whom were involved with CE) signed up in support so
> quickly? Furthermore, if a company was so successful at persuading
> customers to buy its product, what would their customers response be if
> they were then told it increased the likelihood of them being killed (cycle
> KSI's are increasing)?
> >
> > I agree, comparisons with the Netherlands purely on the basis of
> cycling, in isolation from all the other social and physical factors have
> limited value. Direct translations of individual measures to a UK
> environment likewise. Each nation has its own culture, which defines it's
> approach to the political, regulatory and social frameworks which in turn
> define the physical environment and the norms which make it work....for
> them.
> >
> > In truth the UK is where the Netherlands was about 40 years ago.....so
> the comparisons need to be taken at that starting point....and a change
> process figured out, along with associated tactics and measures and timings
> to enable that change. I haven't noticed anyone, not least Cycling
> England, describe how they are going to create effective change and ensure
> that it works, effectively and cost effectively. And few of us have ever
> had the opportunity to discuss it, in an open and professional forum, with
> Cycling England.
> >
> > I'd note, I have a presentation I gave to our local Town Centre Forum,
> comparing Dorking, a rural market town, with Assen, a rural market town in
> the Netherlands and one I've lived in (and worked and etc., etc.) on and
> off for nearly 35 years. In the case of the latter the difference are
> stark, in the former, well....it just hasn't changed. It looks and
> functions as it did 40+ years ago. Quite happy to come and discuss it
> anytime...and talk the hind legs off the proverbial donkey on the subject
> of "The Dutch Way".....at least my take on it.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > John Meudell
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian Lord
> > Sent: 03 February 2012 12:58
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Digest - 31 Jan 2012 to 1 Feb 2012
> (#2012-13)
> >
> > John
> > Cycling England Board was not paid apart from their expenses. Only
> their Programme Manager, Cycling Towns Manaager and Bikeability Manager had
> fixed term contracts with the DfT. Phillip Darnton received an allowance
> for 2 days input per week but typically put in 5 or 6 days work and still
> continues to be involved in the Cycle-rail Taskforce for example. Myself
> and other consultants were employed on a call-off basis to assist the Board
> with admin and to help out the various Cycling England sponsored projects
> with advice and information, and occasionally technical help such as
> design. Every Cycling Town had to go through the usual political battles
> over removing parking spaces, causing delays to other traffic,
> unsympathetic and disinterested councillors, adverse anti-cycling press
> reports, opposition from disability groups and pedestrians, and often the
> local cycle campaigners who were more interested in their personal journeys
> and long-standing issues than in getting 'new' people to cycle. Resorting
> to cliché, everybody I met who was involved in Cycling England gave
> 110%,travelled around the country, worked overnight and weekends at various
> times and did way beyond the 'job description' so I'm sorry if you didn't
> see anyone at Excel but don't on that basis condemn the entire set up and
> compare them to merchant bankers!
> >
> > There was no sense of doing things a certain way, and the towns and
> other partners did try all sorts of ideas, but as with all funding there
> was pressure to spend the money each calendar year which inevitably leads
> towards the 'art of the possible' rather than trying to change the world
> all in one go and getting nowhere. In most cases we are starting from such
> a low and poor base of infrastructure and knowledge in the UK (e.g. my
> first visit to xxxx their engineer asked me 'what is an advanced stop
> line?') that some guidance on what would be helpful to get more people
> cycling was appreciated.
> >
> > One thing that Sir George Young (ex transport minister and 'Bicycling
> Baronet') said to me when we visited Holland to look at Bike and Rail
> infrastructure was that the whole 'terms of trade' between cyclists and
> other road users is different to the UK. I think this is very astute (and
> also becoming apparent in various UK shared-space schemes), and even in the
> way in which Dutch people step straight onto zebra crossings. Some
> infrastructure only works if there are lots of cyclists and pedestrians and
> until we reach that point in the UK we perhaps have to design for a more
> cautious and defensive style of cycling - while at the same time trying to
> give cues to the more experienced and confident cyclists about when to
> 'take the lane' and merge into general traffic. So (together with the fact
> that there's no political appetite to reduce car tyranny) we end up with
> two slightly compromised and different approaches instead of the more
> coherent and uniform infrastructure that is seen in the Netherlands and
> Denmark.
> >
> >
> > Adrian Lord
> > Associate
> >
> > Arup
> > Admiral House, Rose Wharf, East St, Leeds, LS9 8EE United Kingdom
> > t +44 (0)113 242 8498 d +44 (0)121 213 3650
> > f +44 (0)121 213 3001 m +44 (0)785 031 8882
> > www.arup.com
> > ems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 22:16:05 +0000
> From: burton richard <[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?
>
>
> On 5 February 2012 21:42, Nick Cavill <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > John
> >
> > I repeat my earler point: it would be helpful if you actually read some
> of
> > the reports that present clear evidence of the achievements of Cycling
> > England, rather than rely on anecdote. These show clear increases in
> > cycling in the towns (from multiple data sources, not just automatic
> > counts) and full economic analyses that used the DfT's own methodology
> and
> > showed very high benefit:cost ratios. These are based on real data
> (rather
> > than the SQW report that was only modelling.)
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Nick Cavill
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3 Feb 2012, at 20:32, John Meudell wrote:
> >
> > > I forgot to mention, in five years as a director of the CTC Cycling
> > England never once offered to come and discuss their programme or
> approach
> > with CTC National Council either (Kevin Mayne informed us he was on the
> > board as a private individual and, as such, could not provide any insight
> > into CE's programme).
> > >
> > > The issue isn't whether or not they were paid, but is whether or not
> > they were prepared to be accountable to the people (cyclists) on whose
> > behalf they were working and spending tax money. Given the poor
> reputation
> > that quango's have (not just) amongst the general public, one would have
> > thought it essential to avoid that particular banana skin. Instead it
> > looked a bit like a cartoon that appeared in the Guardian Weekly during
> the
> > period that Vietnamese boat people were in the news in the late 70's.
> > Unfortunately there's no means to share it on this forum but, in
> summary,
> > it could be described as the "message in a bottle" approach to PR.
> > >
> > > I'd note that, as a former director of the CTC, I also didn't and don't
> > get paid. I also work evenings and weekends, and provide information for
> > free. But my contact details are publicly available (still) and I
> > regularly appeared at conference and exhibitions, and people still ring
> me
> > up and e-mail me long after I've gone, and I've never bothered about
> being
> > challenged (as you may realise I quite like it!). That's part of the
> > process of developing robust answers (and I mean in terms of the quality
> of
> > the replies and solutions not the style of response). External stimulus,
> > in any form, is an opportunity to challenge one's own thinking....and
> needs
> > to be grabbed with both hands and not punted into touch ('scuse the rugby
> > metaphor....as a Welshman it was too good to miss!).
> > >
> > > To quote one of my bosses, "to do things right you first have to do the
> > right things". What I am questioning is whether Cycling England was
> doing
> > the right things (I believe not) and if not why not. Noting the high
> > profile campaign that the Times has kicked off in respect of cycling's
> > safety, if Cycling England was such a success why have high profile
> > cyclists (some of whom were involved with CE) signed up in support so
> > quickly? Furthermore, if a company was so successful at persuading
> > customers to buy its product, what would their customers response be if
> > they were then told it increased the likelihood of them being killed
> (cycle
> > KSI's are increasing)?
> > >
> > > I agree, comparisons with the Netherlands purely on the basis of
> > cycling, in isolation from all the other social and physical factors have
> > limited value. Direct translations of individual measures to a UK
> > environment likewise. Each nation has its own culture, which defines
> it's
> > approach to the political, regulatory and social frameworks which in turn
> > define the physical environment and the norms which make it work....for
> > them.
> > >
> > > In truth the UK is where the Netherlands was about 40 years ago.....so
> > the comparisons need to be taken at that starting point....and a change
> > process figured out, along with associated tactics and measures and
> timings
> > to enable that change. I haven't noticed anyone, not least Cycling
> > England, describe how they are going to create effective change and
> ensure
> > that it works, effectively and cost effectively. And few of us have ever
> > had the opportunity to discuss it, in an open and professional forum,
> with
> > Cycling England.
> > >
> > > I'd note, I have a presentation I gave to our local Town Centre Forum,
> > comparing Dorking, a rural market town, with Assen, a rural market town
> in
> > the Netherlands and one I've lived in (and worked and etc., etc.) on and
> > off for nearly 35 years. In the case of the latter the difference are
> > stark, in the former, well....it just hasn't changed. It looks and
> > functions as it did 40+ years ago. Quite happy to come and discuss it
> > anytime...and talk the hind legs off the proverbial donkey on the subject
> > of "The Dutch Way".....at least my take on it.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > John Meudell
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:
> > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian Lord
> > > Sent: 03 February 2012 12:58
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Digest - 31 Jan 2012 to 1 Feb 2012
> > (#2012-13)
> > >
> > > John
> > > Cycling England Board was not paid apart from their expenses. Only
> > their Programme Manager, Cycling Towns Manaager and Bikeability Manager
> had
> > fixed term contracts with the DfT. Phillip Darnton received an allowance
> > for 2 days input per week but typically put in 5 or 6 days work and still
> > continues to be involved in the Cycle-rail Taskforce for example. Myself
> > and other consultants were employed on a call-off basis to assist the
> Board
> > with admin and to help out the various Cycling England sponsored projects
> > with advice and information, and occasionally technical help such as
> > design. Every Cycling Town had to go through the usual political battles
> > over removing parking spaces, causing delays to other traffic,
> > unsympathetic and disinterested councillors, adverse anti-cycling press
> > reports, opposition from disability groups and pedestrians, and often the
> > local cycle campaigners who were more interested in their personal
> journeys
> > and long-standing issues than in getting 'new' people to cycle.
> Resorting
> > to cliché, everybody I met who was involved in Cycling England gave
> > 110%,travelled around the country, worked overnight and weekends at
> various
> > times and did way beyond the 'job description' so I'm sorry if you didn't
> > see anyone at Excel but don't on that basis condemn the entire set up and
> > compare them to merchant bankers!
> > >
> > > There was no sense of doing things a certain way, and the towns and
> > other partners did try all sorts of ideas, but as with all funding there
> > was pressure to spend the money each calendar year which inevitably leads
> > towards the 'art of the possible' rather than trying to change the world
> > all in one go and getting nowhere. In most cases we are starting from
> such
> > a low and poor base of infrastructure and knowledge in the UK (e.g. my
> > first visit to xxxx their engineer asked me 'what is an advanced stop
> > line?') that some guidance on what would be helpful to get more people
> > cycling was appreciated.
> > >
> > > One thing that Sir George Young (ex transport minister and 'Bicycling
> > Baronet') said to me when we visited Holland to look at Bike and Rail
> > infrastructure was that the whole 'terms of trade' between cyclists and
> > other road users is different to the UK. I think this is very astute
> (and
> > also becoming apparent in various UK shared-space schemes), and even in
> the
> > way in which Dutch people step straight onto zebra crossings. Some
> > infrastructure only works if there are lots of cyclists and pedestrians
> and
> > until we reach that point in the UK we perhaps have to design for a more
> > cautious and defensive style of cycling - while at the same time trying
> to
> > give cues to the more experienced and confident cyclists about when to
> > 'take the lane' and merge into general traffic. So (together with the
> fact
> > that there's no political appetite to reduce car tyranny) we end up with
> > two slightly compromised and different approaches instead of the more
> > coherent and uniform infrastructure that is seen in the Netherlands and
> > Denmark.
> > >
> > >
> > > Adrian Lord
> > > Associate
> > >
> > > Arup
> > > Admiral House, Rose Wharf, East St, Leeds, LS9 8EE United Kingdom
> > > t +44 (0)113 242 8498 d +44 (0)121 213 3650
> > > f +44 (0)121 213 3001 m +44 (0)785 031 8882
> > > www.arup.com
> > > ems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 23:58:13 +0000
> From: Simon P J Batterbury <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Cycling England etc.
>
> 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.simonbatterbury.net/> | http://www.environment.unimelb.edu.au<
> 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?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Digest - 4 Feb 2012 to 5 Feb 2012 (#2012-18)
> ***********************************************************************
> ____________________________________________________________
> Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
> systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses
>
>
>
>
