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
|