That cycling declined in that period is not in dispute. I don't understand the argument though, are you claiming that people do dispute this? Laudable though the corollary is, where is the evidence that this taking the lane, in a separatist way, would be likely to work?
New member. I would suggest that in UK, 1930s to 50s, motoring was promoted as inevitable, desirable and congestion regarded as deplorable. Thomas Sharp, renowned for town planning, was employed to produce 'Oxford Replanned', 1948.
He illustrates various traffic counts at junctions, including Carfax, Oxford High St junction, Vehs: 5370, Cycles: 5482 (8 am to 8pm). He writes,
- It will be noticed that, in the figures given above, some prominence has been accorded to the number of bicycles that help to make up that volume of traffic at the various points mentioned. In most English towns and cities bicycle traffic can be more or less ignored as a factor leading to traffic congestion. It cannot be ignored in Oxford. The bicycle is not only one of the main components in any Oxford landscape: it is one of the main causes of traffic congestion. ... In Cornmarket St, cyclists and pedestrians overflowing from pave,nets to carriageway (which might ordinarily just manage to function as a four-lane street) to an effective capacity of only two lanes for vehicles on more than two wheels. So these, and the 24,000 two-wheeled vehicles that are propelled over Magdalen Bridge in a single day, cannot be lightly dismissed as a number of mere bicycles. A few locusts are of little importance. A swarm is a plague".
Whilst Sharp's conclusion for Oxford was a road through Christchurch Meadow, (not actually expunged for ten years) his perception that a bike was not a mode of traffic has not disappeared in 'our' thinking. To cycle safely, for most needs segregation on the busy roads. This is demanding as 60+ years of 'informed' orthodoxy is that it's unnecessary. My recipe isn't massive doses of extra spending. In Oxfordshire the bicycle is so disdained by transport planners and some engineers, that the Cycle Ambition project has known problems and no safe space. A major junction by the station has tight-ish roads for buses and other vehicles, and very large footway areas. Following five years are battling the footways are now 'shared', in part. But no indicated path for cycling, and of course, almost no connections between this shared space and the three traffic roundabouts which must be negotiated. You cant have paths because, given their own space, cyclists will go too fast and ignore pedestrians.
Such insane and prejudiced logic will not ever change, only direction will win. Norman Baker tried hard, using the word 'enable' as often as possible. But he couldn't rewrite the rules, or guidance.
I put my faith ... in instructing HAs to enable cycling for all, in every street reconstruction. Since the busiest routes are all our busiest routes, and roads last a generation or so before needing major reconstruction, such an 'edict' could see the nation's busiest general roads rebuilt for the use of anyone cycling, safely, in a generation or so. Whilst that implies a long wait for a kind of perfection, it could start in the next couple of years as my County spends millions each year on reconstruction. And whilst 'extra' moneys would be needed for significant new infrastructure, most of the network could be changed for next to nothing.
Of course, 'the will' is everything.
Graham
