All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group.

[thirdcrank]

I've been reading a couple of accounts of the first session of the Get Britain Cycling enquiry by the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group.

So what's it all about?

First, it's important to appreciate that the rather impressively titled group has no statutory authority to do anything much. All-Party Parliamentary Groups are formed from parliamentarians (peers and MP's) with a common interest in a subject. They are a part of the process of lobbying in our pluralist democracy, and this group wants to promote cycling. And fair enough.

One account of the meeting is from the CTC which had already published a detailed written submission to the Group.. (There have been so many of these enquiries that they must be able to rustle up something prepared earlier.) As for the first meeting, the CTC was invited and went.

Although witnesses were eager not to overstate the risks of cycling...

http://www.ctc.org.uk/get-britain-cycli ... g-strategy

A place at the table, a polite audience, and everything is hunky-dory. A case study of incorporation.

Another from the Cycling Silk:

It was a privilege to appear at the APPCG's Inquiry into 'Get Britain Cycling'. It was hugely reassuring that 8 Parliamentarians (including as it happens two of the brightest legal brains of their generation) were willing, together with other MPs who attended last week, to devote their time and energy to this important subject. ....

Once the learned friendship stuff is out of the way, it's understandable that as a leading lawyer himself, he highlights the impression that when pressed about evidence, the police delegates didn't know their arson from their ACPO. ( And while I'm in pathetic wordplay mode, at least he didn't quip "You're talking crêpe, Suzette,") But the police attitude to headcams, though very important, is only a relatively minor tactical issue in the context of a strategy to promote cycling.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... group.html

Anyway, I'm at a loss to understand why anybody thinks this initiative will achieve what the others have signally failed to do.

So what is to be done?

My submission to Huppers would my copy of the Notional Cycling Strategy: he doesn't need a new cycling strategy. just an analysis of why the NCS failed. Working parties worked (and possibly partied) and steering groups steered. The list of credits was longer than for a BBC drama. Even though this was all masterminded by an astute politician in the form of Steve Norris (so astute that he avoided promoting the fully-domesticated husband image and was able to concentrate on his American Beach Dancing) and much steam was raised, the legendary train didn't move forward so much as an inch.

It's all about the way our political system works, or rather doesn't. The NCS had no more chance of success than one of Joe Stalin's Five Year Plans to increase tractor production and he could summarily exterminate anybody stepping out of line.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, it seems that more people are cycling, at least in places like London, where the Tebbit effect is ...er... having some effect. Unfortunately, the main thing the authorities are responding to is the clamour for crackdowns on delinquent cyclists.

(Incorporation: if you want to beat them, invite them to join you.)

[7_lives_left]

I was wondering if there are any transcripts yet of the meetings. I tried to find it myself but I mustn't be looking looking in the right place. Is this something that Hansard would do? Or is "twitter" a replacement for that and if so what section of twitter do I look at? (Edit to answer my own question it is here). Maybe I should just be patient and wait for the report.

I am sure you are right to be sceptical Thirdcrank, but I am looking for to what Chris Boardman has to say in the next session.

[meic]

When I wish to take a journey, I have a choice between my car and my bike.
If I take my bike, I feel that the system is stacked against me in almost all respects, I am opting to be a second class road user. If I take my car then I am a proper road user with a full set of rights and nobody is surprised, upset or even notices that I am asserting them.

Every time I hear the words about promoting cycling, I just have to take a ride to see they are totally hollow.

Just one of many examples is the local temporary traffic lights. It is impossible to get through them in time even if you are setting off at the very start of the green light. This leads to conflict with a car that enters on its green light.
No complaining, campaigning or anything will get anything done about this issue. It is just a petty issue not worth bothering about compared to maintaining cars' traffic flow without having to wait more than 30 seconds at the lights. If you have to cycle on that road it soon becomes clear that support for cycling never makes it past words or gimmicks.

The traffic lights are just one example of the many that make you think "Why should I put myself through all this hassle when I have a good car that I am already paying "road tax", insurance and MOT for and I can just use for the price of some diesel?"

The only reason that we do it is for the love of cycling and for the majority of the population that love isnt there, but the car is. I dont see that promoting cycling will ever be as effective as the use of cars becoming less attractive.

[Geriatrix]

Quoting Peter Walkers Guardian blog who in turn quoted Dave Horton:

If cycling conditions remain much as they are across Britain, cycling will remain a very minor mode of urban mobility, practised mainly by a committed hardcore of cyclists who feel able to "do battle" with motorised traffic, while being completely off-putting for "the normal", and vast, majority. Current conditions for cycling STOP Britain cycling.

I share TC's scepticism on the parliamentary cycling enquiry but where else could you start?

[Geriatrix]

Just one of many examples is the local temporary traffic lights. It is impossible to get through them in time even if you are setting off at the very start of the green light. This leads to conflict with a car that enters on its green light.

I was nearly middled in Winchester in exactly that scenario except it wasn't temporarily lights that was the cause but off-peak timing. I made a complaint & they corrected the timing (by the next day), but that response probably wouldn't happen with temporary lights.

[Mark1978]

Of course with lights at roadworks the 'rules' is that you let oncoming traffic clear before you proceed.

[meic]

I did have my usual stand-up argument with the driver on this point.
To be fair, the car full of four twenty year old yobs, did seem to eventually get what I was saying after a short period of the driver just repeating "I had a green light".

[Mark1978]

A lot is said of Dutch cycling provision. So I went and had a look on streeview - amazing! Just about every road you look at has something.

This being a typical example of a rural road: http://goo.gl/maps/PYuXf - this should be commonplace in the UK too, on major roads there is usually room for a path such as this.

[Vorpal]

I have complained about temporary traffic lights on two occasions because the timing did not permit cyclists to pass within the green interval. Both times that I complained the timing was corrected within a day or two.

As for the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group... they seem to have good will amongst them. I doubt that it will turn to political will. However, I think that there is some hope that they can have some influence in small things. Every little thing helps to erode the prevailing attitudes.

That said, whilst I don't believe that everything is stacked against the use of pedal cycles, I agree that the use of cars becoming less attractive will be more effective than the gentle encouagement strategy employed thus far. However, as in everything related to cars, the political will lacks to actually deter anyone from using them, so I expect that we will have to wait for economics to do the job for us.

[TonyR]

I think the enquiry may have some impact but the problem is summed up by this reported response from a regional director of the Highways Agency:

Mr Wilson dismissed the notion of ring-fencing money for cycle provision. He said that road designers often had little or no training in how to cater for cyclists. “As a highways engineer myself I spend an awful lot of time designing roundabouts and bridges, actually I didn’t spend a great deal of time at university or subsequently looking at provision for non-motorised users.”

[Mark1978]

This isn't something which can be achieved by tinkering around the edges. It needs to be a national policy, properly funded (even if out of existing funds for roads), with clear objectives. Leaving it all entirely to local authorities won't do; as we all know they are useless at most things.

[Geriatrix]

I think the enquiry may have some impact but the problem is summed up by this reported response from a regional director of the Highways Agency:

Mr Wilson dismissed the notion of ring-fencing money for cycle provision. He said that road designers often had little or no training in how to cater for cyclists. “As a highways engineer myself I spend an awful lot of time designing roundabouts and bridges, actually I didn’t spend a great deal of time at university or subsequently looking at provision for non-motorised users.”

That quote sums up well what's wrong with so much cycle infrastructure. Planned and designed by someone who knows what a bicycle looks like but who's last practical experience of riding one was prepubescent.

There is also an entrenched attitude that those who travel by car have more important journeys (see transport advisor Richard Wellings as a prime example).

[thirdcrank]

I think the enquiry may have some impact but the problem is summed up by this reported response from a regional director of the Highways Agency:

Mr Wilson dismissed the notion of ring-fencing money for cycle provision. He said that road designers often had little or no training in how to cater for cyclists. “As a highways engineer myself I spend an awful lot of time designing roundabouts and bridges, actually I didn’t spend a great deal of time at university or subsequently looking at provision for non-motorised users.”

Funny he should say that. One of the recommendations in the Notional Cycling Strategy would have ensured that highwaymen did receive training in this speciality. It's also worth noting that another proposal - Cycle Audit and Review - which would have ensured that the needs of non-motorised road users, or at least cyclists would have been considered. When the work had been completed by the Institute of Highways and Transportation the big misters who design for motor traffic had it killed off.

It seems that nobody challenges these people when they spout rubbish.

[Vorpal]

This isn't something which can be achieved by tinkering around the edges. It needs to be a national policy, properly funded (even if out of existing funds for roads), with clear objectives. Leaving it all entirely to local authorities won't do; as we all know they are useless at most things.

It's not entirely fair to say that local authorities are useless. Some councils are much better at accomodating the needs of cyclists than the Highways Agency is. If they were supported with an adequate budget and national framework, they might be able to produce some very nice infrastructure.

That said, much of the progress is due to a few enthusiastic people, and they have to contend with some obstructive behaviour that varies from 'this is the way we've always done it' to downright hostility. And there are places where progress has been impossible.

The Highways agency, on the other hand, has mainly worked through agencies/contractors who hire other subcontractors... It is these engineers who, in the main, have no clue what to do about cyclists, except get them out of the way. And the only way to get them to do anything differently is to give them requirements in the form of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. DfT and anyone else can publish as many bright, shiny guidelines as they like. Highways engineers will follow the DMRB. And there are two problems with the DMRB, as regards cyclists. The first is that it is out of date when it comes to designing cycle-friendly infrastructure. The second is that some parts (safety audit is the best example) depend heavily upon the auditor's experience. If s/he isn't a cyclist or doesn't have enough exposure to the needs of cyclists, there is little hope that the safety audit(s) will be more than a tick-the-box exercise when it comes to pedal cycles.

IMO, the only way to fix that is to implement Cycle Audit and Cycle Review and good cycle design standards into the DMRB as *requirements*. Not guidelines. Guidelines are taken as optional. Maybe something like LTN 2/08 would be adquate without get-out clauses.

I understand that there may need to be exceptions. That's fine. Just make the exceptions harder to obtain and more expensive to implement. That might encourage more developers to *create* the space for a proper facility instead of putting in a half-baked scheme to (hopefully) satisfy that crazy cycle campaigner who objected to the planning application...

and others posted while I was composing this.

[Mark1978]

My concern is that all such things are well and good. However they apply to *new* road schemes, which despite what many people think are few and far between. The only way to make real progress IMO is to take the infrastructure we already have and improve upon it to facilitate cycling.