Cycling UK Forum

I think we need to be more political (with a small "p") rather than less and draw up an agenda to reclaim the streets and roads for the benefit of non-motorised users, such as pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. We need to get vast numbers of drivers and heavy loads off the roads and onto their feet, bikes, public transport and railways, for all sorts of reasons: safety, the environment, carbon emissions, health, congestion etc. Attitudes have to be changed so that the car is no longer regarded as King. Start with reducing the number of unnecessary vehicle journeys.

Here's some suggestions:
urban speed limit of 10 mph for all motorised vehicles;
single carriageway speed limit of 40 mph;
fit tachographs to all vehicles;
an escalating ban on vehicles with less than 1 passenger, rising to 3 passengers travelling into urban areas;
more car/van/lorry free areas for pedestrians and cyclists;
ban all building of retail parks out of town;
no encroachment on cycle lanes.

Any more suggestions?

It's worth noting that Yours Gluely, a man still clutching to his forties, can remember when side roads were virtually empty of cars and A road traffic was occasional. A boy so inclined could collect registration plates, many with less than six digits, and still have time for a Black Jack or Fruit Salad in between entries.
It's all gone mad in the last forty years but the assimilation has been total. People won't readily give up using their cars as default transport unless they tick a range from expensive, inconvenient and heavily penalised.
Right now they are relatively cheap, mainstream, warm and handy for carrying shopping and children. They've also enjoyed the implied normalcy of four decades of heavily subsidised road building while public transport has been decimated - if decimated meant nine parts removed instead of one.

It'll take serious planning, not shrillness to bump people out their cars.

This debate has wandered slightly from the original posting about the CTC not informing members about its political activities; but has raised some very interesting points along the way.

Nothing is to be gained by trying to get other road users banned (motorcycles over 125cc) as that only reinforces the "us and them" mentality. The last thing we need is more division and animosity on the roads. As an ex-motorcyclist I would fight tooth and nail to preserve the rights of people to ride them (whatever cc the machines have). I have never had any problems with motorcyclists when out on my bike.

As for cyclists running red lights; I use a busy road junction every day and, without fail, see motorists speeding through red lights on a daily basis. Only a couple of days ago I saw three cars, in convoy, drive through a red light. It was on red when the first car went through so the other two following had no excuses. If the lead car had stopped the other two would have piled into the back of him because they were racing to beat the lights. There is no excuse for ANYONE to ignore red traffic lights - except emergency vehicles. When I was in Zurich I was amazed and amused to see pedestrians waiting for the "little green man" to light up before crossing the road even though there were no vehicles in sight! Imagine that happening here.

I'm afraid it is down to the British attitude that causes problems on the roads. I've noticed that the word "society" has been mentioned in several postings. It was Thatcher who stated that there was no such thing as society and spawned the "I'm All Right Jack" mentality where everyone should be out for themselves and the "devil take the hindmost". Politics is a dirty word these days and we are reaping what Thatcher sowed across our land - get what you can and sod everyone else. That mind set prevails on the roads too.

Having been to Amsterdam and seen how the bike is number one over there, it pains me to see how we cyclists are treated here. It is right that CTC should fight our corner but not at the expense or freedom of others. With freedom and rights come responsibilities and until killing someone with a motor vehicle is treated as man slaughter or murder the message of "look out for each other" will never be realised. In the meantime we cyclists must obay the rules of the road if we are going to shout about others ignoring them.

I was sadened that CTC allied itself with the letter about motorcycles without informing or surveying the membership about the issue. I endorse what was said about large motorcycles being easier to handle than small ones and wonder why powerful two wheelers have been singled out and the powerful four wheelers ignored. Why not get all cars restricted to a top speed of 50mph and prevent the sale of more powerful vehicles?

I have no problem with anyone who likes cars and has a fast, sporty vehicle, as long as they drive it with other road users in mind. The attitude of "I don't like it - so ban it" seems to invade much of our lives these days and adds fuel to the isolationist or seige mentality. Someone suggested taxing car drivers if they did not carry passengers. So what if you are single, or work odd hours, or live where public transport does not go? Is it your fault that you travel alone? I have just booked a train journey to Birmingham and am having real difficulty reserving a seat. I have been told that "seat reservations are subject to availability" - I may have to stand all the way! Next time I want to go, I'll take the car because it is less stressful and I'll get a seat!

Cycling has been an important part of my life since I was a toddler and pinched my big sister's two wheeler and rode of down the street some 50 odd years ago. I look at my two year old grandson and hope that he will fall in love with two wheels as I did. Then I look at the traffic hurtling by his house and fear for his life. More power to CTC for promoting cycling but condeming other road users just makes them dig their heels in and fight their corner. The great divide widens.

PaulB wrote: I'm afraid it is down to the British attitude that causes problems on the roads. I've noticed that the word "society" has been mentioned in several postings. It was Thatcher who stated that there was no such thing as society and spawned the "I'm All Right Jack" mentality where everyone should be out for themselves and the "devil take the hindmost". Politics is a dirty word these days and we are reaping what Thatcher sowed across our land - get what you can and sod everyone else. That mind set prevails on the roads too.

Quite so, what happens on Britain's roads is but a mirror of the values which are dominant in the wider 'society'. However, it would also be fair to say that such attitudes ran deep in Britain long before Thatcher came along! In the words of Claire Corbett from her book 'Car Crime'.

From the car's inception, an elite of drivers welcomed the freedom to explore extended horizons; controls were not especially appreciated, and the criminal labels arising from enforcement of the few existing driving laws were vociferously rejected (Emsley 1993: 374). Pleas of 'unfair treatment' were treated seriously in Parliament and by senior police (ibid.), and what emerged was a sense that drivers were being victimised by an overzealous criminal justice system. Traffic penalties, however, were hardly onerous for the well-to-do (ibid.: 366). Rejecting criminalisation for their own 'minor' infractions, the well-off instead perceived car criminals as 'other drivers' such as 'foreign born chauffeurs' (ibid.: 369) and those who stole their cars.

Interestingly, little has changed over the intervening decades. Dangerous drivers are still 'other drivers' (never ourselves), and inappropriate speeds are never our own. Driving 'infractions' are rarely treated as crime, and powerful newspapers, purporting to represent all drivers, still portray 'the poor victimised motorist' (e.g. Daily Mail 15.9.99; Daily Express 5.3.02). Theft of vehicles, their parts and contents still represents the traditional view of car crime. The main difference is that a small car-owning elite has grown into a mass of drivers consisting of most adults. Yet importantly, elitist attitudes still prevail, boosted by the erstwhile stewardship of Mrs Thatcher, who supported a car economy and encouraged autonomy and self-responsibility under neoliberal colours, all of which may have helped legitimate drivers' wishes to decide for themselves how to drive and to use laws as guidelines if they desired.

Howard Peel wrote:[what happens on Britain's roads is but a mirror of the values which are dominant in the wider 'society'.

That's why the CTC needs to become more political. It's attitudes that need to be changed and a re-ordering of priorities. So it's got to come from government. It would mean some unpleasant restrictions on drivers, and even on the types of vehicles people can buy and how they can drive them. And massive investment in public transport and less investment in new roads which only leads to further congestion.

We put up with several thousand deaths on the roads every year and tens of thousands of injuries, yet a train crash involving relatively few deaths by comparison is treated as a national disaster, generates a public outcry, orchestrated by the gutter press, and the government orders billions to be spent on safety measures. That sort of money could be better spent if organisations like the CTC argued more cogently.

We need to reclaim the streets on behalf of pedestrians and cyclists.

Auchmill wrote:We put up with several thousand deaths on the roads every year and tens of thousands of injuries, yet a train crash involving relatively few deaths by comparison is treated as a national disaster, generates a public outcry, orchestrated by the gutter press, and the government orders billions to be spent on safety measures. That sort of money could be better spent if organisations like the CTC argued more cogently.

We need to reclaim the streets on behalf of pedestrians and cyclists.

Here! Here! Especially about the train crash issue. I used to live in Potters Bar around the time of the train crash and the Hatfield "disaster". Both were utterly tragic for everyone involved but the outcry was totally out of kilter with the reality. If over 3000 die on our roads every year then that's on average over 8 deaths per day. Hatfield killed 4 and Potters Bar killer 7 both less than the daily death toll on our roads. But we had weeks of news reporting for both train crashes (and obviously nothing about the 8 on the roads). Due to the media hype people stopped using the train because they are "unsafe" and switched to car instead causing probably more deaths.

So the CTC needs to be more influential to try and balance the pro-car lobby.

Auchmill wrote:We put up with several thousand deaths on the roads every year and tens of thousands of injuries, yet a train crash involving relatively few deaths by comparison is treated as a national disaster, generates a public outcry, orchestrated by the gutter press, and the government orders billions to be spent on safety measures. That sort of money could be better spent if organisations like the CTC argued more cogently.

We need to reclaim the streets on behalf of pedestrians and cyclists.

Indeed it might have been cogent for CTC to pipe up with the logical argument that money would be better spent, would save and improve far more lives, if spent on other transport issues than headline-grabbing rail crashes. But even if we could have made ourselves heard above the general hullabaloo, it would not have been very clever.

fatboy wrote:Here! Here! Especially about the train crash issue. I used to live in Potters Bar around the time of the train crash and the Hatfield "disaster". Both were utterly tragic for everyone involved but the outcry was totally out of kilter with the reality. If over 3000 die on our roads every year then that's on average over 8 deaths per day. Hatfield killed 4 and Potters Bar killer 7 both less than the daily death toll on our roads. But we had weeks of news reporting for both train crashes (and obviously nothing about the 8 on the roads). Due to the media hype people stopped using the train because they are "unsafe" and switched to car instead causing probably more deaths.

So the CTC needs to be more influential to try and balance the pro-car lobby.

Absolutely. Who wouldn't like our CTC to be more influential? However we can only do what we have the resources to do and in terms of membership and money, vis-avis the pro-car lobby, we are a minnow swiming with sharks. But our membership is unusually motivated and when called to arms - as with the recent Highway Code campaign - enables CTC to punch well over its weight, as the Ministry respectfully acknowledged! And whilst we didn't get all that we asked for even then, to get any change at all in a document already laid before Parliament was a major achievement.

A wise man prayed for the strength to change the things he could change, the calm to accept the things he couldn't, and the wisdom to tell the difference. I think that in the last few years CTC has gotten better in all those respects, but give us more strength and we can certainly try to change a bit more.

With referance to CTC having to employ a person to read the forum, would it not be possible for headquarters to post on the mesage board to gauge if members agree with the policy. The moderators have had to refer in the past.
If members can ask questions in the open then maybe some misunderstandings can be avoided.

If members can ask questions in the open?

I can not think of any restrictions on me asking questions in the open from the CTC. As I see it everyone gets to say as they like on this forum unless they get too personal.

Ben Lovejoy says plenty of things that some of us dont like but he is free to do so and we argue it out. Over and over again but no one has tried to censor him, because he plays by the rules.

I have said things that were unpopular and had it suggested that it would be unhelpfull if parts of my comments were lifted out of context by anti-cycle groups. However those comments still remain.

Of course there are subjects we are not allowed to discuss freely under law or because they would instigate a witch hunt by the newspapers. However your comment implies we have additional restrictions imposed by the CTC.
Frankly they are just plain powerless to impose any such restrictions.

In the section About these boards under contacting the CTC it does say.
Any exchange or enquiry on these boards cannot be recognised as a formal enquiry or commentry on CTC policy.
It does have useful links.
My point is I can not ask an open question and get an oficial reply without a moderatprs help through here.

Edwards wrote:With referance to CTC having to employ a person to read the forum, would it not be possible for headquarters to post on the mesage board to gauge if members agree with the policy. The moderators have had to refer in the past.
If members can ask questions in the open then maybe some misunderstandings can be avoided.

CTC staff and councillors browse these boards in their own time or work time and comment ad hoc. Some are moderators, most aren't. It's not at all "official" and most people seem to like it that way.

If you want to provoke an "official and public" response from CTC, I suggest you post your question on here and also email it to the appropriate CTC department, advising what you have done and inviting a response on the understanding that you will publish it if they don't. I can't promise it'll work, but it's what I would try if that's what I was after.

PaulB wrote:Nothing is to be gained by trying to get other road users banned (motorcycles over 125cc) as that only reinforces the "us and them" mentality..

show me, please, where the CTC has said that it wants to see motorcycles over 125cc banned.

Edwards wrote:In the section About these boards under contacting the CTC it does say.
Any exchange or enquiry on these boards cannot be recognised as a formal enquiry or commentry on CTC policy.
It does have useful links.
My point is I can not ask an open question and get an oficial reply without a moderatprs help through here.

I think Chris has it right. What was the question you wanted to ask?

When I was in Zurich I was amazed and amused to see pedestrians waiting for the "little green man" to light up before crossing the road even though there were no vehicles in sight! Imagine that happening here.

In Switzerland it is an offence to cross before the green light (you get a spot fine) and the Police do not have so much paperwork taking up their time.

Former I.P.A. member.

I've just read this thread for the first time.

I for one would leave CTC if it didn't operate in the political world. I'm a motorist, pedestrian and cyclist not necessarily in that order.
For me:
Driving is a chore to be endured in order to move me a long way or a lot of shopping a short way
Walking is painful after only a short distance due to arthritis.
Cycling gives me exercise, fresh air and many miles of pleasure.

If CTC didn't exist roads would be far more dangerous for cyclists, we would have to use cycle paths no matter how dangerous they are! This is a fact and you can look up the 'political' moves made by CTC on our behalf during the recent Highway Code consultation.