Active Travel England - Boardman
-
- Posts: 1987
- Joined: 27 Aug 2014, 2:40pm
Re: Active Travel England - Boardman
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...
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...
Re: Active Travel England
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.ratherbeintobago wrote: ↑24 Aug 2022, 10:08amIt 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.
Jonathan
Last edited by Jdsk on 24 Aug 2022, 10:25am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Active Travel England
Thanks for that.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...
"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
Re: Active Travel England
Nope: only the abstract is freeJdsk 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
"42"
Re: Active Travel England - Boardman
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#p1672308Jdsk wrote: ↑24 Aug 2022, 10:05amI 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
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
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Re: Active Travel England
Thankssqueaker wrote: ↑24 Aug 2022, 10:29amNope: only the abstract is freeJdsk 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.)
Please could you check the link directly from the tweet:
https://twitter.com/DrBenBeck/status/15 ... yIZiQ&s=19
Jonathan
Re: Active Travel England - Boardman
One big power ATE have over built design is that they will be a statutory consultee on major planning applications.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 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.
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
-
- Posts: 974
- Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm
Re: Active Travel England - Boardman
This is quite an interesting listen: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/s ... 0576245248
Re: Active Travel England
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.Jdsk wrote: ↑24 Aug 2022, 10:11amI 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.ratherbeintobago wrote: ↑24 Aug 2022, 10:08amIt 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.
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.
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
-
- Posts: 974
- Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm
Re: Active Travel England
I think there’s increasing pushback against that particular piece of “Safer by Design” guidance.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.
Unfortunately once new developments are built, it’s very hard to add selective permeability later…
Re: Active Travel England - Boardman
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).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.
-
- Posts: 974
- Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm
Re: Active Travel England - Boardman
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.
Especially so when they’re public sector.
Re: Active Travel England - Boardman
Siting will take years to repair but yes, it should be addressed.Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑24 Aug 2022, 11:00amThose 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).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.
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.
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Re: Active Travel England
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
https://theproperblokesclub.co.uk/about-us/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... for-blokes
Jonathan
Re: Active Travel England - Boardman
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.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.
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
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom