On the threshold of the next leap forward into the unknown, I was reflecting on the still-born National Cycling Strategy. (More accurately described as "notional")
In addition to all the fanciful (sorry aspirational ) projected increases in cycling, it had an apparently well-thought out strategy to achieve them. Even the overview chart ran to four pages of tightly-packed targets and monitoring mechanisms . All sunk without trace.
The sad (sorry, more realistic) replacement, apparently endorsed by the CTC is CyclingEngland* fount of the occasional hush money (sorry - development grant)
I searched their www on 'objectives' and 'strategy'
Nothing but pdf copies of all the failed tired hype (sorry excellent presentation) pushed out almost a decade ago by the NCS.
http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/search.php
I couldn't help wondering why the CTC allowed this to happen, with hardly a murmur. I suppose its better to be on board and respected as part of the establishment where you have lots of influence, rather than rocking the boat. If it wasn't for all these grumpy old gits (sorry CTC members) we'd be absolutely motoring along.
*I couldn't be bothered to check what they do in the rest of the UK.
National Cycling Strategy -RIP
-
simon l6 and a bit
yes - let's reflect on the fact that all those cycle paths have made no difference.
And let's also reflect on the fact that cycling in London is booming (actually, more than booming, it's completely out of control
) and that has nothing to do with cycle paths.
In fairness, things were tried and they didn't work. The new approach, to be trialled in the six demonstration towns may work. But it's surely better to try than not to try.
And let's also reflect on the fact that cycling in London is booming (actually, more than booming, it's completely out of control
) and that has nothing to do with cycle paths.
In fairness, things were tried and they didn't work. The new approach, to be trialled in the six demonstration towns may work. But it's surely better to try than not to try.
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Simon
I am sure you are right about the congestion charge in London causing a big change in transport mode and no doubt that is a good thing.
I do not understand the rest of your post.
The NCS was launched by the Tories over a decade ago masterminded Stephen Norris and bearing in mind all the New Labour spin, it might have been reasonable to assume it would be eagerly adopted by the new govt. The work had all been done for them.
The NCS was not about cycle paths - where did you get that idea? * It was a whole series of objectives, each with its own mechanisms and indicators. There were working groups packed with experts from every part of government and public life.
Some examples of proposals:
- Programme of refurbishment (rail) and design (coach and rail) for bike
carriage
- Reduce traffic speeds
- Identify scale of and solution to HGV threat
- Secure, ample cycle parking at key destinations in towns and at public transport interchanges
- Ditto places of education and the workplace
- Etc.
If this had been implemented we would have had nothing to talk about on here except steep hills and bonk.
Create a cycle friendly infrastructure a case study.
This was obviously a central objective, also partly explained as "Think cycling" in all highway management and public transport schemes. (My emphasis) Cycle audit was to be a key delivery mechanism and I remember prompt progress was made jointly with the IHT on this.
But then we came to implementation. That was when things moved from the level of dreaming to doing something. Suddenly all the Big Misters who build roads for cars and lorries realised that this applied to them and they were not going to have that. So it was watered down so that it more or less applied only to cycling schemes. I.e. effectively useless. FWIW I suggest that that is where it all began to turn to the cycle paths we both despise.
And the CTC? Well, as far as I remember they rolled over to have their tummy tickled. As with every other element of the NCS that eventually was ditched.
You say things were tried and didn't work. That was the bit I missed. I lived through 'things were abandoned whenever they involved actually doing something.'
I am sure anybody who bothers to read this is thinking 'So what? This is all history.' Well, I cannot get the introduction to the next big leap forward from up my nose, because if you read that, this is not history: it never even happened. The last decade was only marked by things like 'foot and mouth' disease and the Lottery sponsored success of our track team.
I do not suppose it was ever going to be easy to campaign against what happened, but if the CTC cannot campaign effectively for cyclists in the present green climate, it never will be able to. In reality, IMO the CTC is now a willing part part of the government's spin machine. The Govt. announces £x million for cycle training and it is in CTC press releases PDQ. When a member on here mentions this money, a respected former councillor says he is wrong. Meanwhile, on the Training part of the forum, a voice in the wilderness says he wants to become a cycle trainer and he cannot even get them to reply. (A phone rings unanswered ....)
===========================================
* Since I wrote this, a little bird has suggested to me that you might have been talking about the National Cycling Network, when I was talking about the National Cycling Strategy. That would explain my confusion over cycle paths. I will not comment on the NCN because I know so little about it.
I am sure you are right about the congestion charge in London causing a big change in transport mode and no doubt that is a good thing.
I do not understand the rest of your post.
The NCS was launched by the Tories over a decade ago masterminded Stephen Norris and bearing in mind all the New Labour spin, it might have been reasonable to assume it would be eagerly adopted by the new govt. The work had all been done for them.
The NCS was not about cycle paths - where did you get that idea? * It was a whole series of objectives, each with its own mechanisms and indicators. There were working groups packed with experts from every part of government and public life.
Some examples of proposals:
- Programme of refurbishment (rail) and design (coach and rail) for bike
carriage
- Reduce traffic speeds
- Identify scale of and solution to HGV threat
- Secure, ample cycle parking at key destinations in towns and at public transport interchanges
- Ditto places of education and the workplace
- Etc.
If this had been implemented we would have had nothing to talk about on here except steep hills and bonk.
Create a cycle friendly infrastructure a case study.
This was obviously a central objective, also partly explained as "Think cycling" in all highway management and public transport schemes. (My emphasis) Cycle audit was to be a key delivery mechanism and I remember prompt progress was made jointly with the IHT on this.
But then we came to implementation. That was when things moved from the level of dreaming to doing something. Suddenly all the Big Misters who build roads for cars and lorries realised that this applied to them and they were not going to have that. So it was watered down so that it more or less applied only to cycling schemes. I.e. effectively useless. FWIW I suggest that that is where it all began to turn to the cycle paths we both despise.
And the CTC? Well, as far as I remember they rolled over to have their tummy tickled. As with every other element of the NCS that eventually was ditched.
You say things were tried and didn't work. That was the bit I missed. I lived through 'things were abandoned whenever they involved actually doing something.'
I am sure anybody who bothers to read this is thinking 'So what? This is all history.' Well, I cannot get the introduction to the next big leap forward from up my nose, because if you read that, this is not history: it never even happened. The last decade was only marked by things like 'foot and mouth' disease and the Lottery sponsored success of our track team.
I do not suppose it was ever going to be easy to campaign against what happened, but if the CTC cannot campaign effectively for cyclists in the present green climate, it never will be able to. In reality, IMO the CTC is now a willing part part of the government's spin machine. The Govt. announces £x million for cycle training and it is in CTC press releases PDQ. When a member on here mentions this money, a respected former councillor says he is wrong. Meanwhile, on the Training part of the forum, a voice in the wilderness says he wants to become a cycle trainer and he cannot even get them to reply. (A phone rings unanswered ....)
===========================================
* Since I wrote this, a little bird has suggested to me that you might have been talking about the National Cycling Network, when I was talking about the National Cycling Strategy. That would explain my confusion over cycle paths. I will not comment on the NCN because I know so little about it.
-
mhara
simon l6 and a bit wrote:yes - let's reflect on the fact that all those cycle paths have made no difference.
And let's also reflect on the fact that cycling in London is booming (actually, more than booming, it's completely out of control
In fairness, things were tried and they didn't work. The new approach, to be trialled in the six demonstration towns may work. But it's surely better to try than not to try.
Here in Exeter - one of the 6 demonstration towns - the pace, debate, input, output - all growing. Increase of cranky (and some downright hostile) letters in local press from drivers. Counter-views coming in from cyclists. We're only half-way through the three years funding so it's too soon to say. But it is exciting working with other cyclists, local authorities, local businesses, schools, cycling organisations.
I'm just sorry there wasn't enough money for more than 6 demonstration towns.
-
George Riches
- Posts: 782
- Joined: 23 May 2007, 9:01am
- Location: Coventry
- Contact:
Cycle lane attitudes have become a litmus of concerned, aware, contemporary cyclists - dismiss them and side with the angels. If only life were that simple.
While ever people point out the way of tarmac righteousness I feel bound to recall the miniscule numbers taking the pledge. National utility cycling numbers are pitiful. Among the young, old and slow it's next to non-existent.
London cycling is not the bigger picture.
While ever people point out the way of tarmac righteousness I feel bound to recall the miniscule numbers taking the pledge. National utility cycling numbers are pitiful. Among the young, old and slow it's next to non-existent.
London cycling is not the bigger picture.
-
Howard Peel
Re: National Cycling Strategy -RIP
thirdcrank wrote:On the threshold of the next leap forward into the unknown, I was reflecting on the still-born National Cycling Strategy. (More accurately described as "notional")...
I couldn't help wondering why the CTC allowed this to happen, with hardly a murmur. I suppose its better to be on board and respected as part of the establishment where you have lots of influence, rather than rocking the boat. If it wasn't for all these grumpy old gits (sorry CTC members) we'd be absolutely motoring along.
The death of the NCS was just one aspect of the way the motor lobby, Britain's car-centric, right-wing press (see below), private motorists themselves and so on did everything possible to undermine the plans to develop a European-style integrated transport system in Britain, as laid out in John Prescott's excellent 1998 white paper 'A new deal for transport'. The plans were strangled at birth and there was nothing the CTC could have done to stop that happening.
A good book looking at this issue is 'A new deal for transport? The UK's struggle with the sustainable transport agenda' published by the Royal Geographical Society.
Cycle lane attitudes have become a litmus of concerned, aware, contemporary cyclists - dismiss them and side with the angels. If only life were that simple.
While ever people point out the way of tarmac righteousness I feel bound to recall the miniscule numbers taking the pledge. National utility cycling numbers are pitiful. Among the young, old and slow it's next to non-existent.
London cycling is not the bigger picture.
Quite so. An interesting read:
http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/facult...resistible.pdf
glueman wrote:Link no work.
Apologies - v poor keyboard dexterity...
http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/p ... stible.pdf
-
Howard Peel
On the other hand a study in Copenhagen has found that the creation of cycle lanes there has led to a 10% increase in casualties...
http://tinyurl.com/3dlkbm
Howard Peel wrote:
On the other hand a study in Copenhagen has found that the creation of cycle lanes there has led to a 10% increase in casualties...
http://tinyurl.com/3dlkbm
It should also be mentioned that in Copenhagen bicycle infrastructure is being modified in order to address the increased accident rate...
Last edited by Velo on 14 Nov 2007, 10:09am, edited 1 time in total.
-
wobblychainring
- Posts: 38
- Joined: 23 Feb 2007, 12:25pm
Howard, I'm surprised considering your usual robust comments on this forum that you chose to pick one statistic out of a whole report...
10% increase in accidents was on cycle tracks (it was 5% on cycle lanes), but there is quite specifc information on which junctions caused problems etc, and it's really not fair to quote the accident rise without quoting the cycling rise of 18-20% (on the tracks, with 5-7% on lanes) and a decline of car use of 9-10%...
My main problem with this report is that it is all percentages, without knowing what the original numbers were, a percentage rise or fall is a bit meaningless (I realise that in the report the writer does say if the rise is significant or not)
10% increase in accidents was on cycle tracks (it was 5% on cycle lanes), but there is quite specifc information on which junctions caused problems etc, and it's really not fair to quote the accident rise without quoting the cycling rise of 18-20% (on the tracks, with 5-7% on lanes) and a decline of car use of 9-10%...
My main problem with this report is that it is all percentages, without knowing what the original numbers were, a percentage rise or fall is a bit meaningless (I realise that in the report the writer does say if the rise is significant or not)
-
George Riches
- Posts: 782
- Joined: 23 May 2007, 9:01am
- Location: Coventry
- Contact:
Doesn't the Copenhagen report claim that the increased casualty rate is due to an increase in the number of cars crossing the path of cyclists? The new new cycle tracks have been put at the roadside, where motorists used to park; now motorists have to park in side roads which means they must cross the tracks, leading to an increased hazard for cyclists.