At long last I've just had a good look at the book "C**p Cycle Lanes". I don't know if to laugh or cry.
However I have a serious question.
I am aware that the members of this forum represent a good cross section of professions and we regulary benefit from the input from posters with backgrounds such as engineering, legal, (dare I say...) policing, driving etc.
Therefore, is there anyone "in the know" enlighten me as to the protocols for putting paint or bollards down and calling it a cycle lane? Having seen the book, I'm facinated.
We can always discuss the momentary judgements of other cyclists, police, drivers etc, but some of these presumably planned "Cycle lanes" beggar belief. How are these decisions made?
Please help my bewilderment.
Of course the book has just reinforced my own local observations and existing dislike of many cycle facilities.
Cycle Lanes - How?
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Cycling 'facilities' are the result of all sorts of decision-making (or lack of it.)
Most highwaymen, and just about all those at the top of the tree where the real decisions are made, were trained in a former age, when spaghetti junction type provision was going to save us all.
Following from that, one of the most frequent reasons for problems is that cyclists are not considered from the outset in a new scheme. (Many of these have been on a highway authority's wish list for years and are ready and waiting in a drwer to pull out when money becomes available - so they predate the current emphasis on the promotion of cycling.) This means that they are added after the majority of the scheme has been implemented.
There is real resistance to anything other than the most superficial provision for cyclists. An example of this was the introduction of 'Cycle Audit and Review' which would have prevented problems caused by lack of timely consideration. This went all the way to the implementation stage and then suddenly, all the big misters who plan for cars got wind of it and took a very belated interest. Their vociferous protests, which amounted to nothing more than that they would have to plan properly for bikes, led to it all being watered down to just being required in so-called cycling schemes, thus defeating at a stroke the whole point. (Unfortunately, the CTC which had been closely involved in the preparation of this initiative with the well-respected Institute of Highways and Transportation (IHT) just rolled over to be tickled.)
'Cycling schemes' are usually small budget affairs left to some deputy assistant junior sub-underling with little or no interest in cycling, and no authority to do anything worthwhile if they are interested. At this level they are frightened of doing anything controversial or pioneering.
There are 'cycling officers' and I have met some good ones, but their role often ends up mediating between campaigners and the decisionmakers who would not condescend to consult cyclists directly. Local authority highway departments are generally quite large; highway provision is one of the few responsibilities remaining with local authorities. Cycling officers cannot possibly be involved in every scheme and can realistically only advise their colleagues when approached.
Overall, there has been a lot of spin from decisionmakers, both elected and appointed about providing for cyclists, but IMO it is generally pure humbug. (This is not to say there are good people doing what they can at national and local level, but they are generally impotent within the hierarchy.)
PS Why do no senior highwaymen ever seem to put their head above the parapet?
Most highwaymen, and just about all those at the top of the tree where the real decisions are made, were trained in a former age, when spaghetti junction type provision was going to save us all.
Following from that, one of the most frequent reasons for problems is that cyclists are not considered from the outset in a new scheme. (Many of these have been on a highway authority's wish list for years and are ready and waiting in a drwer to pull out when money becomes available - so they predate the current emphasis on the promotion of cycling.) This means that they are added after the majority of the scheme has been implemented.
There is real resistance to anything other than the most superficial provision for cyclists. An example of this was the introduction of 'Cycle Audit and Review' which would have prevented problems caused by lack of timely consideration. This went all the way to the implementation stage and then suddenly, all the big misters who plan for cars got wind of it and took a very belated interest. Their vociferous protests, which amounted to nothing more than that they would have to plan properly for bikes, led to it all being watered down to just being required in so-called cycling schemes, thus defeating at a stroke the whole point. (Unfortunately, the CTC which had been closely involved in the preparation of this initiative with the well-respected Institute of Highways and Transportation (IHT) just rolled over to be tickled.)
'Cycling schemes' are usually small budget affairs left to some deputy assistant junior sub-underling with little or no interest in cycling, and no authority to do anything worthwhile if they are interested. At this level they are frightened of doing anything controversial or pioneering.
There are 'cycling officers' and I have met some good ones, but their role often ends up mediating between campaigners and the decisionmakers who would not condescend to consult cyclists directly. Local authority highway departments are generally quite large; highway provision is one of the few responsibilities remaining with local authorities. Cycling officers cannot possibly be involved in every scheme and can realistically only advise their colleagues when approached.
Overall, there has been a lot of spin from decisionmakers, both elected and appointed about providing for cyclists, but IMO it is generally pure humbug. (This is not to say there are good people doing what they can at national and local level, but they are generally impotent within the hierarchy.)
PS Why do no senior highwaymen ever seem to put their head above the parapet?
Its only in cities where the majority cycle that they are paid attention to. ie when voters and tax payers can kick their ass if they screw it up.
Thats just cambridge though and even though journey wise they are on par with copenhagen, facility wise its still a bit british.
I think in 20 years time we'll see the new generation of highwaymen in senior positions and then we might see a change.
Thats just cambridge though and even though journey wise they are on par with copenhagen, facility wise its still a bit british.
I think in 20 years time we'll see the new generation of highwaymen in senior positions and then we might see a change.
I hate snow.
Part of the reason is a lack of cyclists giving there input into plans. Everything goes through consultation and the more cyclists who can view the plans and make comments the more likely a good result will be built. This can be done through contributing to local cycle forums or setting them up when they aren't there, contacting the local highways department and finding out how to be a consultee (many now have consultation details on the web so you just need to regulaly check if there is anything that might be of interest), contacting your local councillor if you are not happy with either local provision or the consultation procedure or becoming a CTC right to Ride rep (who can usually get sent relevant plans automatically).
It's no good everyone saying 'how does this sort of thing happen' and then sitting back and watching it happen again. Without involvment in the process how do we expect them to do what we want?
edit: Well the best I can find is a list of Right to Ride reps.
Actually, just sitting here writting this, I wonder if CTC holds a list of local cycle forums so people can contact them as it can often be difficult to find out if there is one for your area etc?
It's no good everyone saying 'how does this sort of thing happen' and then sitting back and watching it happen again. Without involvment in the process how do we expect them to do what we want?
edit: Well the best I can find is a list of Right to Ride reps.
Actually, just sitting here writting this, I wonder if CTC holds a list of local cycle forums so people can contact them as it can often be difficult to find out if there is one for your area etc?
Last edited by zenzinnia on 14 Aug 2008, 9:06am, edited 1 time in total.
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
I'm sure all your efforts were not wasted - it just feels that way. However the more people who get invovled the more chance there is of something happening and people taking notice. We are at a very positive time for cycle promotion at the moment with high petrol prices, climate change awarness, cycling towns, Olympic gold medals, active health projects and so much more. It's a good time for people to get involved and do mor to get the facillities and services from their councils that they want. There is too much sitting back and complaining (not just in cycling) and not enough getting out and doing.
Interesting responses, and thanks Zenzinnia. Sounds like you are "on the inside" as it were and are trying to encourage better involvement and therefore better decision making?
Without listing all the reasons (all lack of time related) I will not be taking an active role in engaging with the local authorities about cycle path provision. However I am not one just to be a whinger either. To that end I have always thought that my membership of CTC was a way of making sure "my" voice was heard on such matters. Can one therefore conclude that CTC as an organisation, or CTC Reps have consistently missed the boat when it comes to liaison on local cycle facilities? Thirdcrank suggests this perhaps?
How does a layman simply get involved in cycle facility plans, without immersing themselves in local authority procedure? Are they announced in local papers and posted locally, like planning applications for example?
Lots of questions I know.
David
Without listing all the reasons (all lack of time related) I will not be taking an active role in engaging with the local authorities about cycle path provision. However I am not one just to be a whinger either. To that end I have always thought that my membership of CTC was a way of making sure "my" voice was heard on such matters. Can one therefore conclude that CTC as an organisation, or CTC Reps have consistently missed the boat when it comes to liaison on local cycle facilities? Thirdcrank suggests this perhaps?
How does a layman simply get involved in cycle facility plans, without immersing themselves in local authority procedure? Are they announced in local papers and posted locally, like planning applications for example?
Lots of questions I know.
David
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
I did not intend to suggest that CTC reps have missed the boat (if we both understand the same thing from the expression.)
I meant to say that decent provision for cyclists needs to be incorporated from the outset in any scheme to be any good. Often it isn't. This is mainly because the way decisions are taken and the way highway authorities are organised.
There has been a lot of talk over the last dozen years about the promotion of cycling. Some of this is naive, wishful thinking by the green (in both senses of the word) politicians but the greater part of it is pure humbug. Spin.
I used to think that it was inevitable that conditions for cyclists would deteriorate as traffic got heavier. (I have seen innumerable such schemes before) In the mid 1990s there was a lot more hot air on the subject and I wrote to the then Chair of the Leeds City Council Highways and Transportation Committee telling her more or less that. She wrote to me (or rather signed a letter written by the cycling officer) and I was persuaded that this time it would be different. It wasn't. Now I am convinced that it is inevitable that conditions for cyclists will deteriorate as traffic gets heavier.
CTC reps - the foot soldiers in all this - did not miss the boat. They were repulsed as they swarmed up the gangplank and any rope they found hanging over the side. The odd few who actually made it onto the deck were thrown overboard.
At the national level Prescott arrived with the National Cycling Strategy on a plate. He seemed to assume the targets of doubling or tripling (or whatever) cycling would be achieved by magic. Nobody told him it would need action. It quietly petered out and at the national level the CTC rolled over to have its tummy tickled. IMO.
The evidence of what I say is all around and collated in the Warrington Cycle Campaign book and website.
Still no senior highwaymen with the bottle to pop up above the parapet
I meant to say that decent provision for cyclists needs to be incorporated from the outset in any scheme to be any good. Often it isn't. This is mainly because the way decisions are taken and the way highway authorities are organised.
There has been a lot of talk over the last dozen years about the promotion of cycling. Some of this is naive, wishful thinking by the green (in both senses of the word) politicians but the greater part of it is pure humbug. Spin.
I used to think that it was inevitable that conditions for cyclists would deteriorate as traffic got heavier. (I have seen innumerable such schemes before) In the mid 1990s there was a lot more hot air on the subject and I wrote to the then Chair of the Leeds City Council Highways and Transportation Committee telling her more or less that. She wrote to me (or rather signed a letter written by the cycling officer) and I was persuaded that this time it would be different. It wasn't. Now I am convinced that it is inevitable that conditions for cyclists will deteriorate as traffic gets heavier.
CTC reps - the foot soldiers in all this - did not miss the boat. They were repulsed as they swarmed up the gangplank and any rope they found hanging over the side. The odd few who actually made it onto the deck were thrown overboard.
At the national level Prescott arrived with the National Cycling Strategy on a plate. He seemed to assume the targets of doubling or tripling (or whatever) cycling would be achieved by magic. Nobody told him it would need action. It quietly petered out and at the national level the CTC rolled over to have its tummy tickled. IMO.
The evidence of what I say is all around and collated in the Warrington Cycle Campaign book and website.
Still no senior highwaymen with the bottle to pop up above the parapet
-
iaincullen
- Posts: 153
- Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 11:43am
I can't comment on the planning stages but can say that in my experience my local council is hopeless at correcting any bad design which is pointed out to them.
I contacted them in November 2006 regarding a dangerous cycle lane. It was too narrow (1.2m), in the doorzone, and on a downhill meaning higher cycling speeds for the accident it will cause one of these years.
Having had no reply by the end of January 2007 I e-mailed the Chief Executive which resulted in a reply of sorts from the road dept which said something like the lane met design standards when built, wide consultation on design, drivers should ensure it is safe to open the door etc. . Nothing in the reply indicated that the person who wrote it had actually gone out of his office to look at the location.
After I wrote again challenging some of their waffle I got a further reply stating
"I will however commission a Road Safety Audit to HD19/03 guidance taking
> into account the date of design and implementation. If the audit
> recommends alterations to the scheme then these will be undertaken"
Fair enough. We'll see. At present I'm still waiting despite several further e-mails, a FOI request, and lodging a complaint with the council complaints dept about the length of time this was taking.
In fact it is now over three months since the complaints dept acknowledged my e-mail but I've had nothing further yet from them. I'll wait until 4 months have elapsed then try again. The next level after that is the Local Govt Ombudsman. But to think I might have to go that far to get a roads engineer to look at a cycle lane.
My experience with Scottish Water wasn't much better. They had illegal "no cycling" signs at my local reservoir. Letters to them from me and requests from the Council Access Officer to take them down were ignored. They only took the signs down after I involved my MSP.
So if my council and Scottish Water are in any way typical of how public bodies deal with cycling issues keep your expectations low or you will be disappointed.
I contacted them in November 2006 regarding a dangerous cycle lane. It was too narrow (1.2m), in the doorzone, and on a downhill meaning higher cycling speeds for the accident it will cause one of these years.
Having had no reply by the end of January 2007 I e-mailed the Chief Executive which resulted in a reply of sorts from the road dept which said something like the lane met design standards when built, wide consultation on design, drivers should ensure it is safe to open the door etc. . Nothing in the reply indicated that the person who wrote it had actually gone out of his office to look at the location.
After I wrote again challenging some of their waffle I got a further reply stating
"I will however commission a Road Safety Audit to HD19/03 guidance taking
> into account the date of design and implementation. If the audit
> recommends alterations to the scheme then these will be undertaken"
Fair enough. We'll see. At present I'm still waiting despite several further e-mails, a FOI request, and lodging a complaint with the council complaints dept about the length of time this was taking.
In fact it is now over three months since the complaints dept acknowledged my e-mail but I've had nothing further yet from them. I'll wait until 4 months have elapsed then try again. The next level after that is the Local Govt Ombudsman. But to think I might have to go that far to get a roads engineer to look at a cycle lane.
My experience with Scottish Water wasn't much better. They had illegal "no cycling" signs at my local reservoir. Letters to them from me and requests from the Council Access Officer to take them down were ignored. They only took the signs down after I involved my MSP.
So if my council and Scottish Water are in any way typical of how public bodies deal with cycling issues keep your expectations low or you will be disappointed.
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
iaincullen wrote:I can't comment on the planning stages but can say that in my experience my local council is hopeless at correcting any bad design which is pointed out to them.
And that's the reason why it needs to be right from the start. With many things in life, if there is a mistake, you can start again or make some adjustments. Tarmac, concrete, roads signs etc are all pretty permanent. The creators of these follies have to go into defensive mode.
It's not just the fact that it's wrong, but these things are so conspicuous that cyclists are expected to use them, even when they are so utterly useless.
-
Pete Owens
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am
iaincullen wrote:"I will however commission a Road Safety Audit to HD19/03 guidance taking
> into account the date of design and implementation. If the audit
> recommends alterations to the scheme then these will be undertaken"
The scheme will have already been subject to a so called "safety audit" as this is mandatory for all highway schemes. However, safety audits are not really about safety, but simply about ensuring the design is consistent with the highway design manual ... and this is all to do with facilitating high speed motor vehicle movements it is of no benefit at all to vulnerable road users; they just want to get us out of the way of the important traffic, so any facility however stupid is seen as a good thing. There are no minimum standards for cycle facility design so they will all pass the audit.
The only exceptions I have come across are those rare cases where a cycle lane might actually be useful to cyclists - and the safety audit has put a stop to such an outrageous thought. for example:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... il2004.htm
was the direct result of a safety audit.