Active Travel England - Boardman

rareposter
Posts: 1987
Joined: 27 Aug 2014, 2:40pm

Re: Active Travel England - Boardman

Post by rareposter »

Interesting thread here on it:

https://twitter.com/DrBenBeck/status/15 ... yIZiQ&s=19

Notably though, of the top three reasons given, if you do (2), then (1) and (3) sort of take care of themselves...
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Active Travel England

Post by Jdsk »

ratherbeintobago wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 10:08am
Jdsk wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 10:05amAnd adding that if we can find ways to encourage walking and cycling that are effective and can be implemented quickly and cheaply then we should adopt them. That could include social prescribing. With evaluation.
It could be… but as has been said above social prescribing isn’t going to change the one consistent factor in people not walking/cycling - the perception that the roads are simply too dangerous.
I know that this is a cycling forum... but I'd expect social prescribing to be much more effective in encouraging walking than cycling. And the beneficial effects on personal health are available from either.

Jonathan
Last edited by Jdsk on 24 Aug 2022, 10:25am, edited 2 times in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Active Travel England

Post by Jdsk »

rareposter wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 10:09am Interesting thread here on it:

https://twitter.com/DrBenBeck/status/15 ... yIZiQ&s=19

Notably though, of the top three reasons given, if you do (2), then (1) and (3) sort of take care of themselves...
Thanks for that.

"Adults’ self-reported barriers and enablers to riding a bike for transport: a systematic review":
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 22.2113570
(I think that version isn't paywalled; please could someone confirm.)

Jonathan
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4112
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Active Travel England

Post by squeaker »

Jdsk wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 10:13am
"Adults’ self-reported barriers and enablers to riding a bike for transport: a systematic review":
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 22.2113570
(I think that version isn't paywalled; please could someone confirm.)

Jonathan
Nope: only the abstract is free :(
"42"
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Active Travel England - Boardman

Post by Vorpal »

Jdsk wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 10:05am
Vorpal wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 9:59am
Jdsk wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 9:12am And while we're doing that we also need to find ways to help people get more exercise and lose weight. And in the short-term most of that will be without major changes to the built environment.
How do we find ways to get people to get more exercise, without enabling active travel?
...
I don't know what you are including in and excluding from "active travel".

I was agreeing about the major social changes that you described. That's why I wrote "And". Many of them are going to be difficult, slow and expensive. That'a a reason to start now, but they'll still be difficult, slow and expensive.

And adding that if we can find ways to encourage walking and cycling that are effective and can be implemented quickly and cheaply then we should adopt them. That could include social prescribing. With evaluation.

Jonathan
OK. I maybe should have said that if we enable active travel, most people will get more exercise. As for losing weight, I don't think that we should put pressure on people to do so. I think that if we enable active travel and address some of the cultural, environmental, and psychosocial issues that prevent people from being active, we will solve most of the problem. The rest of it needs to be enabled through the health service. Social prescribing may be a part of that, and certainly GPs and other medical practitioners need more flexibility with regard to what they can prescribe. However, other elements of health care need to enable social prescribing. Furthermore, I refer back to my comments on the thread about obesity viewtopic.php?p=1672308#p1672308

We need to think very carefully about 1) the problem we are trying to solve & 2) the harm that stigmatisation of fat bodies does
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Active Travel England

Post by Jdsk »

squeaker wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 10:29am
Jdsk wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 10:13am "Adults’ self-reported barriers and enablers to riding a bike for transport: a systematic review":
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 22.2113570
(I think that version isn't paywalled; please could someone confirm.)
Nope: only the abstract is free
Thanks

Please could you check the link directly from the tweet:
https://twitter.com/DrBenBeck/status/15 ... yIZiQ&s=19

Screenshot 2022-08-24 at 10.36.44.png

Jonathan
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Active Travel England - Boardman

Post by mjr »

Vorpal wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 8:38am Active Travel England, like their predecessors, have limited capability to make changes. They get some funding, mostly for walking & cycling schemes. But, as others on this thread have touched upon, much of the problem is seeing active travel as *walking and cycling schemes*, rather than an integral part of built space and transport systems. What we need is not cycle campaigners. It is social and urban campaigners. We need cities, towns, and villages designed to enable people of all ages and abilities to get themselves around in most circumstances.
One big power ATE have over built design is that they will be a statutory consultee on major planning applications.

One big problem with that is the current National Planning Policy Framework explicitly states that "111. Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe."

The Commissioner needs to have a brass neck and insist that stuff like wide-radius corners that enable fast blind car turns, or too many rat runs through an area, are now unacceptable, even if they are desirable to give more choices of refuse lorry and bus routes through a new estate.

The other needed changes IMO are to upgrade the NICE guidance on the built environment to a reason to reject plans (even NHS sites don't follow its recommendations) and to give ATE power to reject design changes during the Section 278 process, which is the post-approval secret process where planned highway designs get all the good sucked out of them by outdated highways engineers and road "safety" auditors.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Active Travel England

Post by mjr »

Jdsk wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 10:11am
ratherbeintobago wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 10:08am
Jdsk wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 10:05amAnd adding that if we can find ways to encourage walking and cycling that are effective and can be implemented quickly and cheaply then we should adopt them. That could include social prescribing. With evaluation.
It could be… but as has been said above social prescribing isn’t going to change the one consistent factor in people not walking/cycling - the perception that the roads are simply too dangerous.
I know that this is a cycling forum... but I'd expect social prescribing to be much more effective in encouraging walking than cycling. And the beneficial effects on personal health are available from either.
I'm unconvinced: the walking infrastructure for it often isn't there either. Sprawling 1980s/90s suburbia in some market towns is classed as "remote rural areas" with no corner store, no continuous pavement and more than a mile of road walking to one, thanks in part to police obsession in not allowing non-motorised links to neighbouring estates combining with highways insistence that the only access road comes off an A road with spare capacity.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
ratherbeintobago
Posts: 974
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

Re: Active Travel England

Post by ratherbeintobago »

mjr wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 10:50am]
I'm unconvinced: the walking infrastructure for it often isn't there either. Sprawling 1980s/90s suburbia in some market towns is classed as "remote rural areas" with no corner store, no continuous pavement and more than a mile of road walking to one, thanks in part to police obsession in not allowing non-motorised links to neighbouring estates combining with highways insistence that the only access road comes off an A road with spare capacity.
I think there’s increasing pushback against that particular piece of “Safer by Design” guidance.

Unfortunately once new developments are built, it’s very hard to add selective permeability later…
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6258
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Active Travel England - Boardman

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Vorpal wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 9:59am As for major changes to the built environment, that is less necessary than you might think.

We can get 90% of the way there with things like LTNs and school streets, improvements to the existing environment (removing kerbs, improving surfaces during maintenance, etc.), ensuring that new housing (which is badly needed) includes mixed use & designs for independent living, and significant improvements in public transport.

It's not something that 'big picture' will happen quickly, but if we are to meet climate change mitigation goals, it needs to start now, and aggressively.
Those things are all good but while they make active travel easier and more attractive, and might make driving less attractive, I think long term and, yes, in the 'big picture' it's necessary for us to address the need to travel. We need to look at things like siting of schools and employment, not to mention accessibility of housing (accessibility in the physical sense but primarily in the financial and administrative sense).
ratherbeintobago
Posts: 974
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

Re: Active Travel England - Boardman

Post by ratherbeintobago »

Some of that is down to employers too though, especially as staff travel is often a big chunk of their CO2 footprint - they should be pressing councils to build lanes.

Especially so when they’re public sector.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Active Travel England - Boardman

Post by mjr »

Bmblbzzz wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 11:00am
Vorpal wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 9:59am As for major changes to the built environment, that is less necessary than you might think.

We can get 90% of the way there with things like LTNs and school streets, improvements to the existing environment (removing kerbs, improving surfaces during maintenance, etc.), ensuring that new housing (which is badly needed) includes mixed use & designs for independent living, and significant improvements in public transport.

It's not something that 'big picture' will happen quickly, but if we are to meet climate change mitigation goals, it needs to start now, and aggressively.
Those things are all good but while they make active travel easier and more attractive, and might make driving less attractive, I think long term and, yes, in the 'big picture' it's necessary for us to address the need to travel. We need to look at things like siting of schools and employment, not to mention accessibility of housing (accessibility in the physical sense but primarily in the financial and administrative sense).
Siting will take years to repair but yes, it should be addressed.

One easement we could make now is encouraging and rewarding flexitime in order to enable active travel between school dropoffs and workplaces, reducing the economic waste of commuter car jams. The government could give a tax break to firms where no more than N% of workers start or finish within 30 minutes, for example.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Active Travel England

Post by Jdsk »

Proper Blokes: Walk and talk groups for men's mental health:
https://theproperblokesclub.co.uk/about-us/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... for-blokes

Jonathan
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Active Travel England - Boardman

Post by Vorpal »

mjr wrote: 24 Aug 2022, 10:42am One big power ATE have over built design is that they will be a statutory consultee on major planning applications.

One big problem with that is the current National Planning Policy Framework explicitly states that "111. Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe."

The Commissioner needs to have a brass neck and insist that stuff like wide-radius corners that enable fast blind car turns, or too many rat runs through an area, are now unacceptable, even if they are desirable to give more choices of refuse lorry and bus routes through a new estate.

The other needed changes IMO are to upgrade the NICE guidance on the built environment to a reason to reject plans (even NHS sites don't follow its recommendations) and to give ATE power to reject design changes during the Section 278 process, which is the post-approval secret process where planned highway designs get all the good sucked out of them by outdated highways engineers and road "safety" auditors.
I agree. I've also done some traffic volume modelling (using the same tools as local highways authorities), and in my experience, local authorities generally fail to account for cumulative impacts, even when they (i.e. new housing estates, shopping centres) have already received planning permission.

There is some decent official guidance available for planning & the built environment in the UK, but key aspects require legal status & enforcement, rather than guidance.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Post Reply