Cycling UK Forum

Anybody who really believes that a comprehensive, continuous, and coherent network of separate provision, well-built and well-maintained suitable for cycling is feasible in the UK, need only reflect on the separate provision for the most important vulnerable road users in our society - pedestrians.

I live in Leeds, one of the pioneers of the pedestrian precinct in the UK so in the shopping streets of the city centre, and in the centre of my own township, Morley, there are areas where motor traffic is prohibited, at least for part of the day. Generally, paving and so on is to quite a high standard but there are exceptions.

Go beyond these areas and the provision for pedestrians (or 'peds' as the highwaymen dismissively refer to them) is execrable. In almost every case, pedestrian provision is sacrificed to the needs of maintaining motor traffic capacity. Maintenance is shoddy. In the cycling context, the shabby, ill-conceived shared-use paths often come at the expense of the little that is already provided for people on foot. And of course, the different arms of the authorities turn a blind eye and even connive at the use of footways as car parking, especially where that maintains the free-flow of motor traffic.

Much of the centre of nearby Bradford was rebuilt as recently as the 1960's with an emphasis on pedestrian subways again with the sole intention of freeing roads for fast motor traffic. These ill-lit tunnels flooded whenever it rained; inconvenient as pedestrian routes, they were generally used as makeshift public conveniences and were frightening places to walk*. The determination of the general public to cross roads at street level has led to their eventual closure. More recently most of the discredited 1960's mess has been pulled down.

I have no reason to think that things are much different elsewhere in the UK.

A society which cannot provide a decent environment for pedestrians is unlikely to do any better for cyclists. In my opinion.

(* I originally put 'frightening places to go' )

The CTC represent Daniel Cadden in court, get the judge to throw out the case as there is no compulsion for cyclists to use cycle paths, then the president tells everyone that cycle paths are the way to go

Have a word someone.

eileithyia wrote:

reohn2 wrote:

Jac wrote:I agree T.T.
Good idea R2 - but I think it will need more than three of us

At the rate the CTC's going the numbers for a new club could grow quite quickly.
Its either that or take the club back from those who stole it.

.....oooooh anarchy in the ranks R2

Who, me

Terry T wrote:The CTC represent Daniel Cadden in court, get the judge to throw out the case as there is no compulsion for cyclists to use cycle paths, then the president tells everyone that cycle paths are the way to go

Have a word someone.

Seriously, he should be taken outside for a word in his shell-like

Having just made a rare visit to the CTC Desktop, I see the rolling cycling press digest feature, for want of a better name, makes no mention of any of the cycling material in the Guardian on Saturday, even though there is the allocation of a wooden spoon to something more recent.

Surely a guest appearance by our president in a special cycling supplement in a national newspaper merits at least a lead balloon?

Well it might not be on the front page but at least someone reported the hazard http://www.fillthathole.org.uk/hazard/3315

How many people here have e-mailed HQ about this topic?
They never read these boards it seems, or if they do, they never comment.
I've e-mailed the campaign dept. and HQ, and still await a reply

Jon Snow has a blog on C4 http://www.channel4.com/blogs/page/news ... cecbc7000b

his blog for 2 feb is about his new bike, no comments posted on it yet...

Terry T wrote:The CTC represent Daniel Cadden in court, get the judge to throw out the case as there is no compulsion for cyclists to use cycle paths, then the president tells everyone that cycle paths are the way to go

Have a word someone.

Snow was speaking about central london, the Cadden case was rural, connecting the two in order to persecute the president is not a valid criticism.

Ron wrote:

Terry T wrote:The CTC represent Daniel Cadden in court, get the judge to throw out the case as there is no compulsion for cyclists to use cycle paths, then the president tells everyone that cycle paths are the way to go

Have a word someone.

Snow was speaking about central london, the Cadden case was rural, connecting the two in order to persecute the president is not a valid criticism.

Oh yes it is. His comments fly in the face of CTC policy. You'd have thought he would have read the script

Terry T wrote:How many people here have e-mailed HQ about this topic?
They never read these boards it seems, or if they do, they never comment.
I've e-mailed the campaign dept. and HQ, and still await a reply

I'm still waiting for a reply from when I emailed them when the old forum was being disrupted to the point that pornagraphic website links were being posted by you know who.They don't want to know, it would seem there is another agenda that the membership knows little about.
As i've said before its becoming very London centred

This has been handled very badly by the CTC. Not even a comment on Mr Snow's article

reohn2 wrote:As i've said before its becoming very London centred

....CTC Towers is in Guildford.

R2 You have two councillors who are at your disposal on this board, and you can contact your own councillor if you wish - their e-mail address is on the website, but, if you wish, you can e-mail me and I'll send you their e-mail address.

To be truthful, Ron, I think Terry T has a serious point. The Daniel Cadden case garnered support from all over the country, not least London, where not a few CTC members see cycle paths that look fine as lines on a map, but less than magnificent on the ground. And, to be strictly accurate, Telford isn't rural. It's one of those new towns where seperation on the Buchanan model has been tried, tested and failed. In fact the judge at the appeal (I was there) made the point that to get on to the cycle path Daniel would have had to traverse traffic on foot at a junction.

Ron wrote:

Terry T wrote:The CTC represent Daniel Cadden in court, get the judge to throw out the case as there is no compulsion for cyclists to use cycle paths, then the president tells everyone that cycle paths are the way to go

Have a word someone.

Snow was speaking about central london, the Cadden case was rural, connecting the two in order to persecute the president is not a valid criticism.

I wouldn't call a dual carriageway in Telford rural. However it doesn't matter about the location. Daniel fought for his right to be on the road, and we should be defending our right to be on the roads everywhere. Jon Snow will talk about London because that's where he is.

However, what London gets other cities want (eg congestion charging). So if London was to get these segregated cycle paths which Jon Snow wants then other places will follow. Cyclists ignoring cycle paths incense drivers. They don't care what state the path is in: they think you should be on it and out of their way. This puts cyclists in a difficult position.

There is a segregated cycle path alongside the dual carriageway by the National Cycling Centre in manchester. One December day I was riding along this road, having car horns blasted at me and a great deal of verbal abuse. This was because I wasn;'t riding on the cycle path. This path was sheet ice, not having been gritted like the road.

So I say no thanks to segregated cycle paths. In his position as CTC president he should refrain from championing an idea which goes against CTC policy

Diane Bulley wrote: John Snow is carrying out the wishes of Council, thats his job, and its a very complicated one.

Sorry Diane, I don't agree.

I don't believe Jon Snow has been appraised of the wishes of Council. The President is a figurehead. It's unlikely that he would know anything about Council unless he attends the meetings. The aims of CTC, to get more people on bikes and to defend cyclist's rights should be foremost in any communications from the press. Telling the media that cycling on the roads in dangerous and that we should be on segregated cycle paths is diametrically opposite to CTC aims and should be confined to articles he writes in his Sustrans position. He cannot speak on behalf of both CTC and Sustrans with the same voice.