thirdcrank wrote:OGB
What's your plan now? You are unlikely to convince me and even if you did, it would not take you any nearer your goal. (I only say "me" because there are few others posting.)
You have mentioned an absence of support for your ideas locally. Will you be canvassing to try to change that?
You feel the CTC should either campaign for your ideas or move over. I presume you will go through the procedures to try to get that change of policy such as taking this up with your councillors?
I get the impression that you feel that Sustrans is the organisation that is most likely to do what you want. I don't think there is any formal way you can influence their policy. I see they are appealing for funds to allow them to continue. I'd hesitate to suggest a substantial donation as I think you mentioned having been made redundant, but it sounds as though they could soon be downsizing.
My plan is what it has always been been which is I want to see many more people cycling in my town. We have had 2 1/2 years of the Cycle Town project which has basically followed the traditional approach of Bikeability training, installing cycle parking, Dr Bike etc etc. It has largley not done much with infrastructure except for some very useful contraflows. Generally people still have to cycle on the roads and the evidence is clear: they won't do it in any significant numbers and they won't let their children do it.
The town is subject to substantial growth (25% in population) which means a lot of houses and without significant development of sustainable transport it is difficult to see how the town will cope. The developers plans nearly always include cycling facilities of one form or another and these usually suffer from the typical problmes of these faciltiies in the UK such as the inevitable giving way at every minor road. This means that they won't deliver the required outcome, will be a waste of money and will just give the anti cycling lobby something to bash cycling with. BUT they would be much better with some design changes and it is this that I am seeking to achieve and it would bolster my arguments if I could use UK examples of what is required. Local Government Councillors locally are pretty supportive of cycling but there has been some opposition based on a view of cyclists as Lycra louts which is so far from the truth its a joke.
It is clear from the CTC forum that many existing cyclsits are largely happy with the status quo. The problem is that potential cyclists are not persuaded that the roads are safe and usable and I don't think that the CTC's policies are likely to increase numbers much. This brings me to my main point which is that the CTC sets itself up as the cylists spokesperson and I don't think it is that representative. The AA and IAM regualrly do ePolls of their members to find out their views. When has the CTC done this? I suspect that many belong to the CTC for the insurance and legal service only. I do think Sustrans is more relevant to utility cycling but , for example, whenever new stats on cycling safety come out its always the CTC who are the cyclists spokesperson trotting out the same old thing that cycling is safe. Well, they could be right but no one believes it apart from dyed in the wool Right to Riders.
The Right to Ride is a distraction, what is needed is are Rideable Routes that can be ridden by the average cyclist and children. This is what I want and I don't care if they are on or off road.
