Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[blockend]

Blockend - why accuse others? That's the bit I don't get. You're addressing people who spend their working lives thinking about this stuff and trying to move things forward, and others who have spent years plugging away at councils, and typifying them as 'The Campaign' and 'lycra-clad', suggesting that they are in some way elitist.

You want a cycle path down the side of an A-road - go to it. Just don't expect me to join in. I'm asking my council to block off rat-runs and persuading young people to take up cycling. How is that letting the side down?

You keep bringing up the CTC. Why?

I think I brought up the CTC once, in response to someone suggesting people (me?) might have some issue that had nothing to do with the current debate. I thought it was a cheap shot but readers are apt to form judgements on less, so it's worth nipping in the bud. To bring it up again, after 30 years membership I decided it doesn't do what the label suggests, my decision entirely and long overdue.

From joining the thread familiar characters hove into view, the Straw Man and his chum Ad Hominem. I was accused of attacking 'people' while attacking nothing but an idea despite taking quite a bit of fire myself. The dedicated working lives stuff I'm not buying. To use the aphorism about a plan lasting as long as the first assault, any look at a dozen randomly chosen British locations will confirm utility cycling is a mixed picture at best. How we got there and how we get out of it seems very much open to debate.

As for elitist, well the vehicular cycling model seen in action does have something of the martial about it, though I wouldn't condemn fit people from approaching things that way, I do it myself and I'm long past my best. I'm questioning how significant it is as a way of getting more people cycling.

 

[dellzeqq]

well I stand corrected on the CTC thing.

I think, to be fair, their campaigning days are pretty much over. The 'national' strategy is broken, and the RtR network has been allowed to wither.

 

[blockend]

well I stand corrected on the CTC thing.

I think, to be fair, their campaigning days are pretty much over. The 'national' strategy is broken, and the RtR network has been allowed to wither.

Don't get me started on the CTC, we'll be here all week.

 

[Ravenbait]

From joining the thread familiar characters hove into view, the Straw Man and his chum Ad Hominem.

I may be coming at this from the completely opposing viewpoint, but I am still uncomfortable with the personal digs I've seen directed at you. That we each are differently affected by terrible things that happen is not a reason for one person's reaction to be viewed as superior to another's: you have my sympathy for your loss.

As for elitist, well the vehicular cycling model seen in action does have something of the martial about it, though I wouldn't condemn fit people from approaching things that way, I do it myself and I'm long past my best. I'm questioning how significant it is as a way of getting more people cycling.

I do take issue with the elitest label, however, and don't think it does your argument any favours. It's hard to see that what you are looking for is separate cycle provision alongside roads all but the blissfully ignorant or masochistic would avoid anyway when most of your posts seem to suggest that those who ride on the road are some form of warrior type who would do well transported back to Sparta.

I've recently been helping a friend of mine take up cycling. Kit advice, technique advice, setting up her bike, adjusting the gears, etc etc. What made her take the plunge in the end was partly because when she and her partner meet up with me and mine, my husband and I are almost always on our bikes. She would see us ride and think "I want to do that." Right now she's using tracks because she is not confident in her bike control but she will move onto the road when she is ready. It wasn't the provision of tracks that made her get on her bike, though. It was desire and having the motivation to do something about it.

I object to cycle tracks because of years of experience of how much worse things get on the road when such things are provided. Things can already be bad on the road -- we wouldn't be discussing off-road provision if riding amongst traffic was like sharing space with cuddly bunnies and cars made of marshmallow that were limited to 15mph. I don't want to see a world in which provision for the pootlers means spending squillions on constructing a segregated network to be shared with dog walkers and oblivious toddlers; with the result that those of us who prefer the utility cycling model are forced off the road by either the hazard of selective attention blindness or motorists made even more angry and aggressive by us "holding up traffic" when there's a "perfectly good cycle track".

I object to separate provision because I don't see the roads as the problem. The drivers are the problem. I'd prefer to tackle them rather than give in and attempt a strategic withdrawal to a hypothetical cycling Utopia of well-constructed, well-maintained, traffic-free routes with either no conflict points or priority at junctions. We have limited space and limited resources.

I think the disagreement, fundamentally, is in which is the impossible: changing the cultural attitude towards cyclists or changing the cultural attitude towards cycling provision. Personally I think that the latter can't happen because we lack the space and I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary. The former is also going to be extremely difficult, but it's not subject to physical limitations, at least.

Sam

 

[snibgo]

As for elitist, well the vehicular cycling model seen in action does have something of the martial about it, though I wouldn't condemn fit people from approaching things that way, I do it myself and I'm long past my best. I'm questioning how significant it is as a way of getting more people cycling.

Well, I've had to stop cycling and wait patiently both in my own village and in Cambridge for toddlers on bikes who hadn't yet learned which side of the road they should be on. This gladdens my heart.

 

[blockend]

Sam, I don't actually recall using the word elitist and if I did it was inappropriate. When accusations are flying language tends to be first casualty. I fully agree cars and commercial vehicles are the problem but they don't appear to be on their way out any time soon, so we're really arguing about which outcome is likely to get numbers cycling in the short and medium term. The longer view of oil shortages, climate change and the rest I'm not nearly expert enough to form an opinion on.

The vehicular/Franklin model is likely to be the way forward in large cities, if they have a sympathetic enough administration to bring in measures that will seed bike growth quickly, like transit charges, car park removal, blocking rat runs, etc, etc. As someone who used to enjoy the cut and thrust with cars in the bicycle desert of 70s and 80s London (and lots of other places) I'm not hypocritical enough to deny others the joy of traffic jamming now.

It keeps coming back to this thing of how well vehicular cycling translates outside the city. The reality is it's patchy. Country lanes, no problem, they're bike lanes without the paint. Most B-roads, mostly fine if you keep your wits about and give yourself escape room. A-roads are a mixed bag and not always due to relative traffic speeds. I don't think we can wave away their designed-in perils or dismiss them as freakish or expect cyclists to alpha test their viability. It's not just dual carriageways barely two trucks wide either, lots of towns gained inner ring roads 40 years ago, with underpasses, concrete walls, tall kerbs topped with high metal railings, the usual stuff that triggers a cyclist's sixth sense.

The Franklin idea doesn't address these in more than a heads up, boldy go way and unless someone keeps them on the agenda, it would be easy to think they're no longer a point of serious discussion.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

here's an idea, step away from the thesaurus, reign in the melodrama and actually make a clear and concise point

There were several clear and concise points in that post. I don't think that's fair.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

There's a bit of a tendency to blame other cycle campaigners, rather than the car-god.

It's true that some of our visions are mutually exclusive, so inevitably we fight. To me, it would be helpful if the more extreme integrationists/segregationists could accept that something in between is inevitable, and work on fine-tuning that, rather than harping on about the unachievable.

Name names. Who do you perceive here in this thread to be one of your extremeists?

 

[dellzeqq]

From joining the thread familiar characters hove into view, the Straw Man and his chum Ad Hominem. I was accused of attacking 'people' while attacking nothing but an idea despite taking quite a bit of fire myself. The dedicated working lives stuff I'm not buying. To use the aphorism about a plan lasting as long as the first assault, any look at a dozen randomly chosen British locations will confirm utility cycling is a mixed picture at best. How we got there and how we get out of it seems very much open to debate.

As for elitist, well the vehicular cycling model seen in action does have something of the martial about it, though I wouldn't condemn fit people from approaching things that way, I do it myself and I'm long past my best. I'm questioning how significant it is as a way of getting more people cycling.

Attacking an idea is no different from attacking a person if you label it The Campaign.

And, once again, I still don't see how anybody here, or even The Campaign, can be accused of letting you, or cycling down. People and organisations proceed according to their best understanding and hopes. Sustrans, for which I have not a vast amount of time (but more time, perhaps, than my great friend WilliamNB) decided to promote off-road routes in towns and long-distance routes between towns. Now I can say that I find NCN1, bits of NCN2 and bits of NCN4 to be nonsensical, but Sustrans went out, raised the cash, and got it done, so fair play to them. I just happen to think that they're barking up the wrong tree, and that, at times, they are gravely disrespectful of the LCC and CTC, but if they want to promote off-road routes through parks and such-like, as far as I'm concerned they're welcome to get on with it. If they were to propose a segregated cycle lane down Streatham High Road then I'd jump up and down on their bones, but, in fairness to Sustrans, they'd never do anything that daft.

On the other hand very many people have decided that there's a better way of organising towns, and that cycling, while an adjunct to that better way, is not the be-all and end-all. That's based on their knowledge and experience. You seem to be suggesting that somehow they are content with cycling being the preserve of the lycra-istes, and that their 'neglect' of cycle paths beside main roads is wilful. Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think setting yourself up in judgement of them is wrong. And, once again, I'd like to know how asking for rat-runs to be stopped, getting young people on bikes (beside running the coolest award-winning ride in the southeast, blah, blah, blah) is letting the side down.

 

[Richard Mann]

Name names. Who do you perceive here in this thread to be one of your extremists?

This thread has been (mostly) sane. People are not always coherent, so it's not always clear where they are coming from.

Extreme views (especially city-segregationism) get squashed pretty quickly - too quickly really, so they just go away licking their wounds, not convinced. I think there's another school that doesn't really like cycle lanes, and tends to advocate a wide-or-nothing approach, which winds me up because (1) there's diddly-squat evidence for such a position and (2) it overstates the likelihood of the status quo plus a bit of encouragement/training getting us anywhere. But as blockend said - don't get me started.

 

[blockend]

Attacking an idea is no different from attacking a person if you label it The Campaign.

I believe you're quite wrong there. Some people relate so closely to a particular position on an issue that their opinions and their self-worth are inseparable, I'm willing to bet you've met a few in your campaigning time. Challenge one on the implications of moving a traffic bollard and it's as though you've claimed his mother sleeps with a goatherd and entire retinue.

I don't believe more than a dozen people believe all roads are safe for cyclists and are prepared to back it up with primary position at 4.30 on a Friday afternoon but most of them inhabit cycling forums. My parody of them as The Campaign (caps) is an attempt to illustrate what happens when they confuse practical considerations and survival instinct with a sealed philosophical position.

If you're asking me whether I'd like to see all new main roads intended for the national speed limit accommodate a dedicated cycle track and outdated tracks beside dual carriageways modernised, absolutely. It's not a case of getting bikes off the road, it's an acceptance that you'll never slow haulage and commuters down to the impact speeds demanded of city roads. And until you do, cyclists will get hurt or die.

 

[dellzeqq]

well, for what it's worth my view is completely different. I think people who are sceptical about segregation make up their minds on the basis of what they see in front of them. If I had no other thoughts on the matter I'd be sceptical on the basis of what I see,

I accept that I, and some others, think segregation in towns is a bad thing in and of itself, but, in my case that's because I think there's a lot more to towns than cycling.

 

[Dan B]

If you're asking me whether I'd like to see all new main roads intended for the national speed limit accommodate a dedicated cycle track and outdated tracks beside dual carriageways modernised, absolutely. It's not a case of getting bikes off the road, it's an acceptance that you'll never slow haulage and commuters down to the impact speeds demanded of city roads. And until you do, cyclists will get hurt or die.

If you were asking me (and yes, I acknowledge that most probably you're not), I reckon it's the wrong question in the first place: I'd like to know whose idea it was to build a new road there anyway, and why. (To that end I suppose that the requirement to add a cycle track would be a useful delaying tactic - like the public enquiry for the rare kind of leafmould in the SSSI the road goes through, or the hedgehog tunnels - but I think that represents a confusion of end and means).


But let's suppose that there is a legitimate reason for wanting a particular might-as-well-be-a-motorway road between locations A and B: make it a damn motorway already! Alternative provision should exist not just for cyclists but for horse riders, pedestrians, low-powered mopeds, learner/less confident drivers ... and if that's "too expensive" then it should be acknowledged that putting in a de-facto motorway on which all the above are technically allowed and practically discouraged has exactly the same costs, it's just that you're foisting them on the disadvantaged instead of charging them to the beneficiaries.

 

[blockend]

I fear we're having parallel conversations. Until you address what happens to cycling outside towns, you can't claim a comprehensive solution to advance cycling, which is the largest slice of my beef. My fear, based on a wide reading of internet boards, is extra-urban cycling is seen as a sporting activity on a par with surfing and hang gliding. A pastime, a day trip in an adventure playground. Fun, but of very little relevance.

 

[dellzeqq]

Why should a solution be comprehensive?