Department for Transport

[PBancroft]

Just thought I'd share in case anyone is interested.

A month ago I contacted the DfT regarding what was being done to promote cycling as a viable means of transport. This was in response to perceived or actual abuse from motorists which is frequently recounted on these boards. I am fortunate to have not had much experience of this, but I got on the high horse anyway.

This was the response given on behalf of Rosie Winterton and James Fitzpatrick:

Thank you for your email of 5 October, to Rosie Winterton and James Fitzpatrick about cycling. I have been asked to reply.

I am sorry to hear that you suffer abuse from impatient drivers. I assure the Department takes the issue of safety very seriously. The Department’s publicity campaigns promote safe cycling practices and aim to increase awareness of cyclists' needs amongst other road users. The ongoing "Cycle Safe" campaign covers a wide range of cycling issues, and has included the launch of a "Drive Safe Cycle Safe" leaflet between us, the Automobile Association, and the CTC. This is aimed at making motorists and cyclists more aware of each others needs on the road. We believe this is an important step towards bringing about safer conditions on the road for both cyclists and motorists.

The Government is committed to encouraging more walking and cycling as we view both, as healthy, useful and enjoyable means of travel especially for local journeys like those school and work. We realise that in order to increase cycling and walking we need to create safer conditions. The overall responsibility for providing safe routes is an important part of the local highway authority's responsibility.

Central Government provides funding for cycling and walking to local highway authorities, who then able to use it to make infrastructure changes, like providing new cycle routes. The funding is delivered through a process called Local Transport Plan (LTP) settlement and for 2008/09 local authorities received £327 million. However it is for the local highway authority decide on their priorities as to how much they spend on walking and cycling and what infrastructure changes they put in place. We provide general guidance to authorities to better inform their judgement on planning design and legal aspects of providing local infrastructure facilities.

We also believe that cycle training is a vital element in encouraging cyclists from an early age. A new National Standard for cycle training called ‘Bikeability’ was launched by Cycling England, in England, in early spring 2007. They are working with local authorities and others to increase the number of children who have access to good quality cycle training. We too, think that training provides the opportunity to influence travel behaviour from a young age. Teaching children the necessary skills should help them grow into responsible adult cyclists and continue to enjoy the benefits of cycling.

You too can update your cycling skills as adult lessons are also available. You can contact CTC or take a look at their website at www.ctc.org.uk or the Bikeability website at www.bikeability.org.uk.

Thoughts? My own regarded the "Drive Safe Cycle Safe" leaflet which they seem so proud of. As a cyclist and as a motorist I've never seen one. I bet most people haven't. And then the emphasis on updating cyclist training...

 

[John Ponting]

And then the emphasis on updating cyclist training...

haven't seen your letter but assume you wrote as a cyclist ? They have pressed the buttons which reply to a cyclist. Seems Ok to me. Bit vague of course but they always are.

... think that training provides the opportunity to influence travel behaviour from a young age ...

I have always believed that good time on 2 wheels will improve all driving standards - make all aware of road conditions and proximity of other vehicles etc. Bit of cycle training followed by motorcycle traing before taking car licence still help me most days.

Just my opionion of course.

 

[Brains]

Having just ridden from Hook of Holland to Den Helder up the North Sea Route I now see how many decades ahead of us the Dutch are regarding cycling as a viable means of transport

I would like to know if the DoT even have a tenth of the Dutch model as a target, and if so, by what date.

 

[domd1979]

I've yet to meet anyone from the DfT who gives me any confidence that they have even the slightest clue what they're doing...

 

[Bollo]

Top job for getting off your bum to do that. I suppose any reply is better than none, but its not what you'd call a manifesto, is it?

The thing that struck me most was the lack of any talk of support from plod.

 

[Origamist]

Top job for getting off your bum to do that. I suppose any reply is better than none, but its not what you'd call a manifesto, is it?

The thing that struck me most was the lack of any talk of support from plod.

Compared to some of the replies I have received over the years, that's almost up there with the Dutch bicycle master plan.

 

[magnatom]

Is this the leaflet?

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pdf/pgr/roadsafety/drs/cyclingandmotorcycling/drivesafecyclesafe

 

[PBancroft]

Is this the leaflet?

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pdf/pgr/roadsafety/drs/cyclingandmotorcycling/drivesafecyclesafe

Dunno - as I said, I've never seen it, and they didn't send a copy to me. For what its worth, this is the letter that I sent to them:-

Please can you advise what is being done to promote cycling as a viable means of transport?

I ask, not because I wish to see more cyclists on the road (though that would be nice) but rather because of the abuse I frequently encounter from other road users.

I am often "honked" at by drivers for daring to hold them up for the few seconds it takes to safely get past me. This is of course much better than those who simply refuse to give a safe distance when passing. Occasionally I am shouted at, told to "get on the pavement" (despite this being illegal).

I understand that I am not alone in this experience. Many other people who cycle on a regular basis similarly find themselves abused or endangered on the road quite intentionally by other road users.

Whilst it is all well and good to report these issues to the Police it would seem to me that the problem is much bigger than that. The road is seen by some as a space for motorised vehicles only. In my personal opinion, the prolific use of substandard cycle lanes, or even worse poorly thought out shared use paths, only serves to bolster this view.

I would applaud any move to require mandatory cycle training, perhaps as part of the national curriculum, to encourage cyclists themselves to obey the rules of the road and act in a safe manner. Regardless I do believe that the greatest danger cyclists face is from motorised vehicles, and people who believe that the speed limit is a target. There must be a means of encouraging drivers to respect cyclists and I cannot help but wonder if it is an issue that the DFT take seriously. This is not just an issue of cyclist deaths or injuries, but rather the attitude we are shown on the road.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

There is a lot in there that, retrospectively, I wish I had worded differently. They seem to have picked up the ball on cycle training and run with it, glossing over the rest.

I am tempted to respond (actually, I'm more than tempted - I will respond). However I am going to be more careful in producing that letter.

I would heartily encourage anyone else here who wishes to make the effort to do so as well. Dew drops, and all that.

 

[Jeremy Parker]

Just thought I'd share in case anyone is interested.

[snip]

Thoughts? My own regarded the "Drive Safe Cycle Safe" leaflet which they seem so proud of. As a cyclist and as a motorist I've never seen one. I bet most people haven't. And then the emphasis on updating cyclist training...

Well, I suppose that everyone on this list owns a copy of "Cyclecraft" and knows everything in it, but that's not true of all cyclists. You might be able to learn from a book, but for most people some training is a good thing.

There are not just the known unknowns, there are the unknown unknowns as well, things you don't even know that you don't know. There may even be occasional areas of an even worse kind of ignorance; things you think you know, but which aren't actully true. It's true that cycling is safer than walking, but even so it's been estimated that four out of five cycle accidents could have been avoided by the cyclist in question. There's no point in having an accident if you don't have to, and then being laughed at, like all these London gutterbunnies winning themselves Darwin awards to the left of left turning lorries

Jeremy Parker

 

[PBancroft]

Well, I suppose that everyone on this list owns a copy of "Cyclecraft" and knows everything in it, but that's not true of all cyclists. You might be able to learn from a book, but for most people some training is a good thing.

To be fair, I should have posted my original letter in the OP, but I didn't. I actually did make a point of suggesting that mandatory cycle training would be a good think, perhaps as part of the national curriculum.

My feelings on the emphasis of cycle training in the letter is that it disregarded my concerns about poor driver behaviour. Yes, some accidents can be avoided by cyclists amending their actions. However it would be naive to think that simply retraining cyclists will solve the problem - and if cyclists can be so readily encouraged to retrain (and I'm not saying this is a Bad Thing) why can't drivers be too?

 

[Origamist]

It's true that cycling is safer than walking, but even so it's been estimated that four out of five cycle accidents could have been avoided by the cyclist in question. There's no point in having an accident if you don't have to, and then being laughed at, like all these London gutterbunnies winning themselves Darwin awards to the left of left turning lorries

Jeremy Parker

Source?

 

[domd1979]

Mustard mit I would have gone for 4 out of 5 accidents not being the cyclists fault (if not a higher percentage), not the other way round.

 

[Lurker]

Mustard mit I would have gone for 4 out of 5 accidents not being the cyclists fault (if not a higher percentage), not the other way round.

Even if true, the statement "it's been estimated that four out of five cycle accidents could have been avoided by the cyclist in question", is not the same thing as saying either that

(a) four out of five accidents aren't the cyclists' fault
or
( four out of five accidents are the cyclists' fault

The word 'accident' being used loosely here.

 

[Amanda P]

Interesting that the DfT leaflet says

"Give cyclists space - at least half a car’s width - and never force past them."

While the Highway Code says

"Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car."

 

[BentMikey]

Mustard mit I would have gone for 4 out of 5 accidents not being the cyclists fault (if not a higher percentage), not the other way round.

Close, but not quite. I seem to recall that most cycling accidents are single-vehicle accidents, i.e. mostly the cyclist's fault. OTOH, in the subset of collisions involving cyclists and motor vehicles, only 1 in 5 is due to the cyclist. That implies that drivers are awfully casual around cyclists and are to blame in 4 out of 5 incidents.