Who is suggesting a solution with no cycling-specific infrastructure?
I've long since accepted it is necessary to get people cycling. But it's only one piece of the puzzle. I would rather it didn't subject novice cyclists to risks they might not yet be aware of.
I wasn't accusing you of not accepting it's a necessary part of the puzzle, but I've been in stakeholder consultation meetings with cyclists who push for removing cycling-specific infrastructure from projects, people who seem to have swallowed Franklin's spin whole.
You are talking about cycleways. Is this a generic term for cycle lane / cycle track or something else?
A cycleway is a separate way for cycles, like a carriageway is separate from a footway. So a cycle track (which in English law, isn't necessarily alongside a carriageway) is one, but so is a kerbed (sloping or full) or post-protected cycle lane. Much of what people call "shared use pavements" or similar terms that try to hide or minimise cycling are really "a cycleway with a right of way on foot". A with-flow cycle lane that's only paint for its entire length wouldn't normally be a cycleway: paint is not protective and can be taken away pretty easily next time the paint crew pass.
Just because I haven't met a cycleway that I've considered good does not mean I don't believe such a thing can exist.
If you've never experienced a good one, can you advocate for them effectively? Ideally, visit the Netherlands or Denmark, where not everything is good but it's easier to find good. Closer to you, Manchester has the beginnings but some looks incomplete (Trafford Road) while other places seems narrow or compromised (Oxford Road, Chester Road). I guess Boardman and Deegan weren't there long enough or didn't have enough power to get things finished. Birmingham has a few flagship routes which look more complete, such as the A38 from just inside whatever Middleway out to Selly Oak where it degrades into older stuff. Good is not perfect or flawless, of course.
The only thing that has come close in the two localities I often cycle are roads that have been closed to motorised traffic. Oh and a BOAT on a private estate in Shropshire that had an impeccable surface and although it was open to motor traffic, pedestrians and cyclists out numbered motorised vehicles by about 10:1.
Yeah, those are the easiest ways to get decent stuff. Near me, there's an abandoned section of an A road, and the roads through the Holkham Estate are very useful although not all are rights of way and some of the gates are very narrow.
I don't think you are familiar with how many local authorities actually operate. I've had my fill of dealing with local government - in a good number of different capacities - and in three different areas.
Oh, probably not. I've only been campaigning for about 25 years with five district councils, three county councils, two combined authorities and one unitary authority.
I've participated in more consultations for this particular authority than I can count and when you do get the opportunity to challenge councillors they straight up lie.
Some lie. Some don't. The liars don't tend to last as long around here, fortunately. It's far more difficult to deal with councillors who consistently oppose cycling but steadfastly believe they are doing the right thing and cannot be swayed by any evidence to the contrary.
That would be a waste of my time. Most of these reports are now not actioned. I used to report issues to the local authority but I gave that up and now, in my locality at least, I resolve problems in so far as I can myself.
Well, I think that's unsustainable. I do know what you mean because I sometimes cut routes clear, but I feel some time is better spent reporting the problems and then pursuing and publicising the inaction, because just doing it ourselves is basically double-taxation and will never get the authority to fulfil its duty.
I might be willing to cycle on a quiet dual carriageway on a Sunday morning but I'm absolutely not recommending that to anyone else. Please stop making these type of assumptions.
Again, it's not necessarily about you. For example, chapter 2 of Cyclecraft, "Basic cycling skills" contains the lovely advice "Increasing cadence and sprint speed are two of the most positive steps a cyclist can take to enhance safety. A good cadence to aim for is about 80, whilst a sprint speed of 32km/h (20 mph) will enable you to tackle most traffic situations with ease." Because adding more speed to a complex crash-risk situation always helps(!) 🙄 There are people who have swallowed this shoot and then conclude that any cyclist not capable of 20mph is not competent to cycle and should not be encouraged to do so, so no provision should be made for them or they can put up with awkward shoot which will slow them further and that's OK because any competent cyclist will be on the carriageway anyway....
When asked 'why don't you cycle' we know most adults cite drivers in one way or another. But I think that question is often answered in the same vein that people say they drive because they have to.
Others have covered people feeling they having to drive because bad design has made some of our country that way, which I broadly agree with.
I've found that when asked why they don't cycle, people don't directly cite drivers. In my nearest town, 35% said they're just not interested, 20% preferred to walk (it's a small town), 14% had no bicycle (but that might be linked to the bike theft problem), 14% said the roads are too busy (only 3% fear injury, though), 12% found weather offputting, 8% didn't know the routes or parking.
When a national survey (
Sustrans Walking and Cycling Index 2023) asked what would help people to cycle more, 67% want more routes away from roads, 65% want better public transport links including secure station parking, 63% want more protected cycleways, 63% want more quieter street routes, 53% access to home secure cycle storage, 53% access to a bicycle, 47% access to a cycle hire scheme, 45% access to an e-bike, 42% cycle training and organised rides, 34% access to a cargo bike, 25% access to an adapted cycle.
However, when asked directly whether fewer motor vehicles would help them to cycle more, 59% agreed. And 71% think that streets are currently dominated by motor vehicles. Maybe people are just reluctant to appear "anti-car" now because of all the guff from Sunak's leaders?
Hearts and minds have to be won, to get more people cycling. Public highways should be designed to make it as safe as possible - I'd like to see more LTNs, more road space taken away from motorised vehicles, clamp downs on on-street/pavement/cyclelane parking, and road designs that give more efficient and less impactful transport higher priority over less efficient and more impactful transport.
Great. How?
Campaigns should be run by local authorities, offering (in no particular order) free bike checks, cycle training and guided rides to show people where the less obvious cycling infrastructure is. Town Centre's should be closed to motorised traffic one day a month (yeah that'll go down like a lead balloon).
Bicycle checks, offers of training, guided rides? Yeah, that happens near me.
https://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/new...on_spring_active_and_sustainable_travel_event
As for closed to motorised traffic, that depends what you mean by "town centre". Lynn's very centre has been closed to motorists since the early 1980s. Sadly, it's also closed to cyclists and we're expected to go play on the A148 with only a little infrastructure mostly from the 1990s. Yeah, no.
Campaigns of checks, training, maps, rides and so on are fairly easy, with few willing to argue against them except on monetary grounds, but that's necessary but not sufficient. We also need some infrastructure too: signs putting up and maintaining, gaps in the network filled somehow (new cycleways, old roads closed to through motors, I don't much mind how), the dodgy old shoot fixing, secure parking expanded instead of being ripped out at the drop of a hat every single time and it being a struggle to even keep what was there. There's at least plans for this now in most of our area, through the Local Cycling and Walking Implementation Plans (LCWIPs), but actually getting the stuff in those plans built in the priority order still needs more pushing.
It's relatively cheap which makes it annoying to see millions spaffed up the wall on motoring vanity projects, like a hilltop multi-storey car park that will loom over the entrance to an ex-council estate for decades to come. Maybe the next UK government will have saner transport spending priorities.