 |
 |
Richard
Whilst it is true the CROW manual is defined as guidance, there is only one authority accredited for issuing cycle facility design guidance in the netherlands….whereas any public and quasi-public body in this country can including, but not exclusively or exhaustively, DfT, Highways Agency, Cycling England, Scottish Government, Sustrans, local authorities and any public body with a PR department.
Actually it is clear in the CROW guide what you do with a busy 30ft road (or rather the metric equivalent….even guidance in this country is issued in metric measures these days). Unfortunately, from rather too much personal experience, highways engineers in this country have real difficulty interpreting written guidance, even if they’ve actually read it. (I’d note, I had one senior engineer responsible for cycle facilities almost proudly explain to me that he’d never read any of the guidance available, either nationally or, as was this case, his own local authority’s guidance on cycle facility design.)
I have a copy of the CROW manual (english language 2007) which I’ll bring to the Symposium in September for the edification those that haven’t seen it. I personally think it should be a compulsory reference for all university courses in transport planning and engineering….but even then it probably still wouldn’t reach the consciousness of the relevant professions.
Far too often I find myself in discussion with highways engineers who have applied little or no thought either to the design they are presenting, the people who are going to use it or any of the cost or safety issues the physical environment creates.
In truth, if infrastructure projects were properly engineered costs would more than likely go down even when all user’s needs have been properly and professionally taken into account. But such is the poor quality of infrastructure engineering in this country, and the unwillingness of both regulatory and professional bodies to recognise let alone address the problems, I don’t see any mechanisms to create the will to change.
Cheers
John Meudell
C.Eng, MIMechE
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Mann
Sent: 01 February 2012 10:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A request for help
Tim - there are no Dutch standards. Only guidance. And their guidance isn't especially clear on what you do with a busy 30ft road.
I'd agree about not tinkering, but I'm afraid it's a difficult engineering/planning/political/social problem that isn't going to be solved by demanding that other people be ignored.
Richard
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Tim Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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.