How to get the government to invest more in cycling infrastructure?

[Glow worm]

One way streets and no entry signs cause great problems because you aren't allowed to put an 'except cyclists' sign on it, even in situations it'd be good practical to do so.

Looks like they manage it in Norwich though! (Queen Street). Shame we can't have a few more of these.

 

[pshore]

This has always bugged me- seems crazy. Is there any practical reason for such a law that I can't think of?!
There are plenty of junctions like the one you describe in Cambridge such as this one:

No entry except cycles signs are being trialled in Cambridge. According to the local cycle campaign, their prevention was down to a single person in the DfT, now retired. Bonkers.
See http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/88/article1.html

 

[marinyork]

No entry except cycles signs are being trialled in Cambridge. According to the local cycle campaign, their prevention was down to a single person in the DfT, now retired. Bonkers.
See http://www.camcycle....8/article1.html

Yes, there's been a great deal of hope on this one recently which is why I specifically mentioned it. At a stroke it'd immediately wipe thousands of pounds of requests for about a couple of dozen useful short cuts round here (the main problem being funding rather than not wanting to install them).

 

[HJ]

Hi Georgina and



I don't think they were for the bikes

What might be a cheaper and more effective way of encouraging cycling would be to introduce a law of presumed liability for a bigger vehicle hitting a smaller one (sometimes called strict liability). In this case a car driver would be presumed to be at fault in the event of a collision with a cyclist (and a cyclist at fault in a collision with a pedestrian) unless it was proven otherwise. It might just give more vulnerable road users some more respect.

Also put in bus lanes everywhere. They are a good width for cycling, usually gritted and almost always better maintained than cycle lanes that are often added as a tick-box extra to road schemes. They also restrict the road space available to cars so encouraging public transport and bicycle usage.

Want Fairness and liability on the roads? Try writing to your MP, I did. It is better than doing nothing...

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Want Fairness and liability on the roads? Try writing to your MP, I did. It is better than doing nothing...

Done. I have sent the following through http://www.writetothem.com/

I have copied bits from the letter in the page you referenced; I hope they don't mind.

Dear David Crausby,

I am writing concerning the current state of affairs regarding the
treatment of vulnerable road users by a small but significant
proportion of motor vehicle drivers. My own experience as a cyclist,
commuting 25 miles round trip to work and back, is that there is at
least one incidence of a driver taking significant risks in relation to
my safety every day.

In this country, where the roads are shared by motor vehicles,
pedestrians and cyclists, it is clear that motor vehicles bring almost
all of the risk to the situation. The 2008 road casualty figures show
that 332 pedestrians were killed in car/pedestrian collisions, and in
car/cyclist collisions 52 cyclists were killed. In all 390 cases not
one car driver was killed. Amongst pedestrians, cyclists and car
drivers, it is clear that the car driver is the most likely party to
inflict injury or death upon the others.

Given this huge imbalance in risk, it is surprising that, in most such
incidents, the burden of proof when seeking redress currently rests on
the injured party to prove negligence on the part of the injuring
party. Since it is very difficult to prove negligence in such cases,
the personal risk to those motorists who do not show regard for the
safety of vulnerable road users is unlikely to be sufficient to
influence their behaviour and cause them to take more care. All this
does not seem fair to me.

The government claims to be concerned about the poor health of the
nation including the problem of rising levels of obesity, ecological
sustainability, and energy consumption, yet does not currently seem to
have the will to take the actions that would be necessary to encourage
a more active and sustainable lifestyle through activities such as
replacing car journeys with foot or bicycle journeys.

Given these points, could I please ask you to get in touch with the
Minister for Transport, the Minister for Road Safety and your party
colleagues on the Transport Select Committee. It would be much
appreciated if you could highlight to them, that we should subscribe to
a more civilised system that is favouring the vulnerable.

Liability should therefore be considered on a fair and proportionate
basis to provide legal protection to the vulnerable road user. This
could be achieved by establishing a hierarchy of care where the burden
of proof would always be on the user of the heavier vehicle (the party
more likely to cause injury or death), an approach sometimes referred
to as strict or presumed liability. This would show the commitment of
this Government to its agendas of societal and social fairness, healthy
living and ecological sustainability.

This principle of proportionality described above is in place in all
but five European countries. The UK being one of them; the other four
are Ireland, Romania, Cyprus and Malta.

Yours sincerely,

 

[georgina]

@ MrGrumpy Cyclist and HJ

I too have just emailed my local MP, I hope I recieve a positive response.

I have just bought up this topic of strict liability with friends over lunch who say that they are glad the law is as it is - so they now don't have to worry as much when they hit a cyclist whilst driving!!! Even more of a reason for this law to be changed!

 

[snorri]

the government are meant to be serving the opinion of the population?

I don't agree that the government are meant to bow to popular opinion. The government is elected to improve the living standards and quality of life of the population as far as the economy of the country permits. One of the drains on our national economy at present is the fixation on private motoring with its damaging effects on the environment and health of the population. Less spend on provision for private motoring and the effects of private motoring leaves more money for cycling infrastructure.

 

[dellzeqq]

or better yet, put a gate across the road with a Fire Brigade lock. Room either side for bikes. Job done.

(The second you start talking kerbs, Dan, you're in to big money)

 

[Black Sheep]

I agree - like how it is done at sea: larger machine powered boats give way to the man-powered ones.

In theory, however when taught how to manoeuvre small boats in estuaries and at sea it is pointed out that you are more manoeuvrable despite being sail powered and so need to take some action

I've never had a larger boat move for me

 

[Black Sheep]

Hi snorri, hard measures have a larger effect because they are more likely to get people thinking differently. However, the problem lies with the opinion of the people. For example, in Manchester a congestion charge was suggested in 2008, but the final vote was put to the greater Manchester population and they voted 79% against it. So the hard measures suggested are good, I think firm action does need to be taken however, if the people do not agree with it, is it worth it since the government are meant to be serving the opinion of the population? In my opinion, the bottom up approach is good, and if the government can get the wider population to see the benefits of cycling before stricter regulations are bought in then they would have the support of the people.

The issue with the hard approach is that congestion charging puts overheads up for small businesses. Sainsburys across the road from the model shop I work in can afford to have their lorry arrive at 6am and pay staff to be there to unload, we can't so it happens at 2pm on a Friday afternoon, charging us to get the van to the shop would result in one of two things, either moving to outside the congestion charge zone and possibly a decline in sales or passing on some of the cost to our customers, neither option is one we'd want to take

The other issue with pushing fuel and VED costs up is that it would hit the nhs too
My wife drives to work as public transport is crap or non-existent at the times she starts and ends shifts on her ward. Hopefully later this year she'll be on more normal 9-5 hours working a community nurse role but this will still require use of the car as it isn't practical and sometimes not possible to do the rounds by public transport or bike.
VED rise or fuel rise would mean a lot of people in similar situations would struggle to meet the costs from their own pocket, community staff can claim milage back from the nhs who have limited funds.

The other issue with higher fuel costs is fuel theft both from filling stations but also from drilling and draining car petrol tanks.

 

[Black Sheep]

A little case study that I thought you might like: During and after the war bikes were extensively used in European cities since they were a cheap way of getting around. However, in the 1960s/1970s motorised travel was taking off all over Europe and cities were making changes left, right and centre to create space and facilities for them. Copenhagen at the time was no different to any other city, the city council were putting forward plans to build roads over what cycling facilities were there, and direct cyclists on to quieter back roads however there was a public outcry and the young Copenhagen's demonstrated against the reduction in importance of the cycling facilities. There was some contempt in government but they eventually yielded to the dominance of cycling in their city - and today, they have 37% of commuters going by bike within the city. I think there is a lot of money floating around in government, and if the public campaign for it hard enough then it can be directed to wherever they want it to go.

I can not think of a Danish car company, as such I will assume car ownership occurred later and slower in Denmark than in the uk. I do know that of the thousand car companies the uk had there were hundreds of them in Coventry which in the 1920's had traffic congestion problems ( studied it as part of a transport design course)

The uk's road network has, since ww2 been planned increasingly with the car in mind, much more than our European neighbours and so has become more ingrained in our lives.

I personally will drive the 100 miles from my home to my parents' as it takes 1.5 hours instead of 3 hours to a dodgy train station in the middle of nowhere needing to be picked up for the last 20 mins.

The wife's parents are worse, nearest station directly is 50 miles from their door, other option is change at Birmingham, change at Manchester and then be picked up for a 30 min car journey, either of these journeys for two people on return tickets, it's cheaper to hire a car!

Basically, we got used to planning for cars earlier even if it was just an 'everyone share the same route' but also public transport is so useless for getting places (thanks mr beaching) unless you live near London or enjoy the legacy of the southern railway which, unlike it's northern counterparts, was built to transport passengers between London and the ports / resort towns. The northern lines were built with industry in mind.


sorry for the tripple posting, I can't figure out how to multiquote when using my phone.

 

[subaqua]

No entry except cycles signs are being trialled in Cambridge. According to the local cycle campaign, their prevention was down to a single person in the DfT, now retired. Bonkers.
See http://www.camcycle....8/article1.html

there is one on Leytonstone High Road too. makes it a little safer than having to negotiate the bus station entry/exit and the Goldline taxi rank at the bottom of Church lane.

 

[brokenbetty]

there is one on Leytonstone High Road too. makes it a little safer than having to negotiate the bus station entry/exit and the Goldline taxi rank at the bottom of Church lane.

Quite a few around Tottenham /Bruce Grove area. But we are a bit lawless so maybe the council thought no one would notice a fishy sign

 

[dondare]

It seems washing facilities and good cycle storage are ways to encourage everyone to cycle more and drive less. Any suggestions for improvements to cycling infrastructure which would encourage colleagues to leave their car behind? Say there were cycle lanes (perhaps segregated) and priority for cyclists at junctions along major routes into city centres would that increase the number of miles cycled in the UK everyday? The government need to be encouraged that a large investment in cycling facilities will be "vale la pena" i.e. worth it! before they invest.

The more cyclists demand cycle lanes, either painted or segregated, the more cyclists will be expected to keep to 'their bits' ans stay out of the way of cars. All the cycle lanes that I know of are more dangerous and inconvenient than the road would be without them.

 

[dand_uk]

why does cycling infrastructure have to mean pathetic cycle lanes painted on 50cm of the road or a narrow bumpy footway with blue signs up? The best "cycle path" network is the exising road network (with a few exceptions for high speed busy roads).

IMO there are better ways to attract cycling such as:

1) enforcing the speed limit
2) tougher prison sentences for drivers who kill or seriously injure any other road user.
2) cracking down on illegal/aggressive/uninsured/drunk drivers
3) lower speed limits on all urban roads except thru roads.
4) Driver education

My prefered engineering methods would be:
1) A cycle expressway - segregated cycleway the width of one half of a singlecarriageway or a country road (~3-4m) closed to all vehicles except cycles. (Haha never gonna happen). This should be a on a well used route (perhaps suburb to city centre, old rail corridors are ideal!) and have similar segregation as that of trunk roads - limited number of junctions to maximise thru flow speed. Similar design to Bus Rapid Transit schemes that are popping up just without the buses!
2) On roads with few side junctions a wider carriageways would allow vehicles to overtake cyclists within the same lane without conflict
3) Contra flow cycle lanes, roads with the route blocked for thru traffic except cycles, and make junctions permeable to cyclists in all directions even when motorised traffic has to go one way. Ok example here (bikes go straight or left, cars go left)
4) MORE BUS LANES PLEASE! If only all cycle lanes were this wide!