Gear Change

[G3CWI]

The latest Government policy document is a very positive step in the right direction:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...nge-a-bold-vision-for-cycling-and-walking.pdf

 

[Milkfloat]

This is the first time I have seen the design recommendations, they seem pretty reasonable to me. I wonder if they will be ignored like the current set.

 

[G3CWI]

This is the first time I have seen the design recommendations, they seem pretty reasonable to me. I wonder if they will be ignored like the current set.

It's entirely possible - unfortunately.

 

[mjr]

Is there anything that can be done to enforce the designs effectively except giving Active Travel England the power to direct highways departments?

Highways authorities could be made statutorily liable for damages resulting from crashes on substandard designs, but I know many cyclists refuse to report crashes for fear that they will be prosecuted for doing something wrong, which I think arises from the widespread lack of road-going cycling training and certification (Bikeability Level 3 or equivalent) making people doubt they used it right. Even fewer try to claim for damage or injury resulting from such a crash and it probably isn't helped by the Highway Code wording placing responsibility on all cyclists to assess whether crap infrastructure is safe ("Use cycle routes ... unless at the time it is unsafe to do so").

I think there's some sort of established liability when motorists crash due to designs falling below the standard in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Does anyone know whether that's statute or case law? Has it arisen because motor insurers are dealing with bigger sums and don't mind taking councils to court? Would cycle insurers ever think it worthwhile?

More severely, using the designs could be made a statutory duty, but who would prosecute highway authorities for failing? Councils already often seem to ignore the Equality Act and submit laughable Equalities Impact Assessments (roughly equating to "yes, this change to the road will fark wheelchair users and the only mitigation we can do is to hold a few tutorials telling them how to avoid this road") when that has a Commission who could enforce it.

So that's why I suspect some national executive agency has to be put in charge for design standards to work. Is there another way?

 

[G3CWI]

Is there anything that can be done to enforce the designs effectively except giving Active Travel England the power to direct highways departments?

I am hoping that Chris Boardman is in the frame to lead ATE...

 

[figbat]

I had a good read through it and, on the face of it, it seems pretty well-meaning if potentially a pipe-dream. One thing I didn't see though was any focus on training of road users that aren't cyclists. In other words, training for drivers to enhance their awareness of, anticipation of and avoidance of cyclists. Training on what new infrastructures actually mean - like these "mini Hollands" - not a lot of use if drivers ignore or violate their intentions (or simply don't understand or recognise them). There's a bit about increased punishment of drivers and protection of vulnerable road users but pretty much all training focus is on the cyclists themselves, when we know that a lot of the problems come from non-cyclists. One of the factors that makes the Dutch example so good is the ingrained awareness of cyclists and the venerated position they hold - not so much here, and public attitude is unlikely to change quickly.

 

[mjr]

I'm reading it now during my coffee break and it all sounds pretty radical and if they do it, then great.

BUT. What tools do they actually have?

They say they won't fund crap any more, but how much infra do they actually fund? I think most local crap is funded by housing developers, including our local council's own joint-venture companies. National government only funds cities, national parks and trunk roads, doesn't it?

It says except-cycles "should be the default on all quieter one-way streets" which is great, but who's going to pay the councils to change the legal orders and signs? No mention of that. Lazy car-crazy councils will just do nothing and plead poverty.

It says they will "enable effective enforcement of school streets outside London, by giving local authorities the powers" which is necessary but not sufficient. Again, the lazy car-crazy ones will simply not use the new powers.

12 mini-Holland schemes outside London and one zero-emission city. The lazy car-crazy just won't bid. I can already guess some of the likely city bidders: Bristol, Oxford and probably even fine-the-cyclists Peterborough.

"We will improve the [National Cycle] Network" but no mention of how and the defective bits are mostly on local council roads. The money in Theme 2 is all old money, I think, and while it claims to be "the largest sum ever committed", it's still dwarfed by the road-building budget, although there are the first moves to nibble the edge of that, or at least stop road-building being used to fark cycle routes.

Theme 3 is "empowering and encouraging local authorities" which is the same failed measure of the last three decades. We need something a bit stronger IMO so that even the lazy car-crazy stop farking cycling over. More regulate and direct than empower and encourage.

It also includes the worrying words "our main focus will be on medium-sized towns, larger towns and cities". So no change there then. Rural and semi-rural areas, where cycling should be an obvious choice for short trips between settlements and into towns, continue to be ignored by gov.uk

Theme 4, "enable ... protect" contains some interesting bits, including "consolidate existing ownership registers" which I think suggests finally getting fed up waiting for the likes of BikeRegister and Immobilise to end their peeing contest and cooperate properly. I'm a bit worried about "explore mandating retailers to number all bikes they sell on the new database" which seems rather intrusive.

I do love the Key design principles page and will be posting that in a few places. That could have come straight from a space4cycling campaigner. If only the trousers matched that mouth!

 

[All uphill]

Is there anything that can be done to enforce the designs effectively except giving Active Travel England the power to direct highways departments?

Highways authorities could be made statutorily liable for damages resulting from crashes on substandard designs, but I know many cyclists refuse to report crashes for fear that they will be prosecuted for doing something wrong, which I think arises from the widespread lack of road-going cycling training and certification (Bikeability Level 3 or equivalent) making people doubt they used it right. Even fewer try to claim for damage or injury resulting from such a crash and it probably isn't helped by the Highway Code wording placing responsibility on all cyclists to assess whether crap infrastructure is safe ("Use cycle routes ... unless at the time it is unsafe to do so").

I think there's some sort of established liability when motorists crash due to designs falling below the standard in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Does anyone know whether that's statute or case law? Has it arisen because motor insurers are dealing with bigger sums and don't mind taking councils to court? Would cycle insurers ever think it worthwhile?

More severely, using the designs could be made a statutory duty, but who would prosecute highway authorities for failing? Councils already often seem to ignore the Equality Act and submit laughable Equalities Impact Assessments (roughly equating to "yes, this change to the road will fark wheelchair users and the only mitigation we can do is to hold a few tutorials telling them how to avoid this road") when that has a Commission who could enforce it.

So that's why I suspect some national executive agency has to be put in charge for design standards to work. Is there another way?

It is possible at a local level to campaign to get the local authority to formally adopt the standards for all new work. Then campaigners can use local press to highlight good and bad practice.

It's hard work, but it can and does have an effect.

 

[mjr]

It is possible at a local level to campaign to get the local authority to formally adopt the standards for all new work. Then campaigners can use local press to highlight good and bad practice.

It's hard work, but it can and does have an effect.

I know it's possible and it can, but other times it doesn't. Some politicians seem to assume that the 69% of motorists in the population will outvote the 14% of cyclists if it comes down to a crunch: and it rarely does because people vote in council elections about other issues than transport, such as schools, or the bins being emptied, or the performance of the national government. It remains to be seen if the recent estimated increase to 40% of adults cycling starts to make any of the car-crazy councillors nervous.

I feel like we need something that works for the whole country now and doesn't leave it to chance, the efforts of local volunteers and a postcode lottery of grants.

Also, is local formal adoption still needed now that there is an instruction from the DfT to councils to reallocate road space to cycling?

 

[Mike_P]

Not holding my breath on this one, if North Yorkshire cannot ensure tree branches are above cyclists height on a cycle track not much likelihood of these being properly implemented

 

[Drago]

I'm reading it now during my coffee break and it all sounds pretty radical and if they do it, then great.

BUT. What tools do they actually have?

They say they won't fund crap any more, but how much infra do they actually fund? I think most local crap is funded by housing developers, including our local council's own joint-venture companies. National government only funds cities, national parks and trunk roads, doesn't it?

It says except-cycles "should be the default on all quieter one-way streets" which is great, but who's going to pay the councils to change the legal orders and signs? No mention of that. Lazy car-crazy councils will just do nothing and plead poverty.

It says they will "enable effective enforcement of school streets outside London, by giving local authorities the powers" which is necessary but not sufficient. Again, the lazy car-crazy ones will simply not use the new powers.

12 mini-Holland schemes outside London and one zero-emission city. The lazy car-crazy just won't bid. I can already guess some of the likely city bidders: Bristol, Oxford and probably even fine-the-cyclists Peterborough.

"We will improve the [National Cycle] Network" but no mention of how and the defective bits are mostly on local council roads. The money in Theme 2 is all old money, I think, and while it claims to be "the largest sum ever committed", it's still dwarfed by the road-building budget, although there are the first moves to nibble the edge of that, or at least stop road-building being used to fark cycle routes.

Theme 3 is "empowering and encouraging local authorities" which is the same failed measure of the last three decades. We need something a bit stronger IMO so that even the lazy car-crazy stop farking cycling over. More regulate and direct than empower and encourage.

It also includes the worrying words "our main focus will be on medium-sized towns, larger towns and cities". So no change there then. Rural and semi-rural areas, where cycling should be an obvious choice for short trips between settlements and into towns, continue to be ignored by gov.uk

Theme 4, "enable ... protect" contains some interesting bits, including "consolidate existing ownership registers" which I think suggests finally getting fed up waiting for the likes of BikeRegister and Immobilise to end their peeing contest and cooperate properly. I'm a bit worried about "explore mandating retailers to number all bikes they sell on the new database" which seems rather intrusive.

I do love the Key design principles page and will be posting that in a few places. That could have come straight from a space4cycling campaigner. If only the trousers matched that mouth!

I do like the final provision on that poster. That is perhaps where current practice is most lacking.

 

[mjr]

I do like the final provision on that poster. That is perhaps where current practice is most lacking.

I know several designers who cycle. I think there are also problems with their professional and political masters ordering them to cut corners: put them on bikes before they can order changes. "Safety auditors" too, plus they should all have to ride it when it's finished too, as one North Somerset cabinet member famously refused to.

View: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=553509894744158&id=102814153147070&_rdr

 

[mjr]

It's analysed in Streets Ahead: Episode 11: Changing Gear https://shows.acast.com/streets-ahead/episodes/episode-11-changing-gear

 

[mjr]

Shapps's other (and much more expensive) road building programme looks to be heading to court after he ordered officials not to assess the environmental impact. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ds-plan-doubt-shapps-overrode-official-advice

 

[sheddy]

^ I think its these guys https://transportactionnetwork.org.uk