Places for People

I came across this earlier today in Macclesfield. It's nothing out of the ordinary, a van parked illegally, partially on double yellow lines and at the intersection with a minor road, blocking the route for pedestrians and making it less safe when they do try and cross. The sort of thing you might see hundreds of times in a typical week in the UK. What tickled me was the company branding, the van belongs to a company called Places for People.

Metrolink: (Further) Degrading Floop accessibility

A few weeks ago, during my tandem test weekend, I noticed that the already irritating barriers installed prior to the tram crossing at the Chorlton end of the Floop had been re-positioned to provide a serious (possibly impenetrable) barrier to access for anyone riding a cargo bike, tandem, tag-along, bike trailer, modified disability cycle or anyone using a mobility scooter or other mobility aid.

The irritating and unnecessary barriers to access which already existed on the Floop have been well documented. Whilst these barriers should be ripped out as a matter of priority, it is worse still to introduce new barriers, and then to re-position them so as to produce maximum inconvenience to users of the Floop.

Facing towards Fallowfield

Other side of the tracks, facing towards Chorlton

The fact that this work was done recently (and shoddily) combined with the fact that the barriers had already been installed once previously, makes me wonder what consultative processes Metrolink’s barrier redesign went through before being approved by the local authority, cycling campaigns, disability groups, pedestrian groups, Sustrans, Friends of the Fallowfield Loop and so on. My guess is that the work was done without any consultation whatsover, and that the issue of the degradation of access to one of the only cycle facilities in Greater Manchester must therefore be raised at the next Manchester Cycle Forum.

Users of cargo bikes (particularly when loaded) face great difficulties when trying to pass the poorly re-designed barriers.

The tandem, being approximately 20 cm longer than a Yuba Mundo, presented its own problems when attempting to pass this barrier

This barrier re-design, whist only a small local issue, embodies everything which is wring with provision for cycling in the UK; the assumption that making cycling inconvenient isn’t a problem because anyone on a cycle is obviously only doing so for leisure. They couldn’t possibly be trying to conveniently get somewhere in a timely manner, or they’d have gone by car, right?

The propaganda deemed acceptable to show in schools

Years ago, when I was in high school, I remember that we were given numerous safety presentations. Sometimes these were about the railways (dare to step on the tracks and you WILL certainly be killed), sometimes about not flying kites near pylons and sometimes about the roads (such as the green cross code). The issue of responsibility was never discussed, interviews with children who had been maimed by cars were shown, although we were never told what happened to the motorist in the aftermath. The takeaway message from these videos was that when crossing the roads, the onus was very much on us to look out for cars and only cross when it was safe to do so. The wider issues of government-enshrined inequality between transport modes were never discussed, and the implication from the road safety propaganda we watched was that if we were hit by an adult in a car, it was our own stupid fault.

I have a little sister, who is currently in high school. In order to assess the state of "Road Safety" propaganda shown in schools nowadays, I decided to ask her what were the sort of things they showed her in school on the issue. I don't really talk to my sister about the issues I discuss here, she is quite young, like most people she doesn't cycle, and she doesn't generally give much thought to the issue of transport. By being careful in how I asked about it, this presented me with an opportunity to find out what the take-home message she (and by extension the average pupil in her age group) got from the propaganda. The conversation went something like this:

Me: Do they still show you those road safety videos in school nowadays?

Sis: Well, there was this one about a boy who got paralysed when crossing the road.

Me: Oh. Did they tell you what happened to the adult in the car who hit the boy?

Sis: No. It was the boy's fault because he was wearing dark clothes



So-called "Road safety" education programmes are generally funded by the fake road safety charities such as the Road Safety Foundation, RAC Foundation and the Road Safety Fund set-up by the AA, RAC and FIA. These education programmes have a very poor success record worldwide. Their main purpose is to counter the bad press the motoring lobby were receiving at the time they were founded due to the death-toll (particularly of children) caused by the actions of their members. It seems odd to me that this propaganda is welcomed by schools, but for example the tobacco and alcohol industries are not similarly indulged. At the very least the obvious conflict of interests should be recognised by the governments. Allowing the motoring lobby to set the agenda for how road safety is perceived by school children is a bit like allowing Anheuser-Busch InBev or British American tobacco to set the agenda for health education in schools. Perhaps all they need to do is set-up a cynical faux-charity foundation and they will be welcomed with open arms. 

The benefits afforded to the motor lobby and those whom it represents as a result of such education programmes are many. Firstly, it creates the image that the motoring lobbies care about, and are actively trying to reduce casualties. Secondly, by targeting the young and vulnerable, they are able to plant two very powerful ideas into the minds of the next generation; if a motorist hits a pedestrian (or any vulnerable road user, such as a cyclist), it is the victim who is at fault and that these activities are intrinsically dangerous compared to the perceived safety of the car.

Motorists benefit from this propaganda by the creation of a culture in which drivers are blameless for collisions involving their vehicle with more vulnerable road users. Additionally, this helps to prevent governments from reversing the creation of a road network favouring the use of the car for almost all journeys, high volumes of motor traffic and the high speeds attained by these vehicles.


The "Decade of Action on Road Safety" is a fine example of this. Fronted by Lewis Hamilton (Booked for speeding in UK, reckless driving in Australia) and Jenson Button (Booked for speeding in UK multiple times) and funded by the FIA, one of the biggest motoring lobbies and the world governing body of motorsport, it embodies our arse-about-face approach to road safety. It saddens me that an institution such as the United Nations would degrade itself by choosing to be associated with this pish. 


Those of you who have reproduced may wish to prevent your own children from being exposed to this blatant propaganda, or at least get through to them ahead of time. It might be fun for them to have an understanding of the forces at work behind the scenes of these campaigns, at least then they will be able to ask some awkward and disruptive questions in class.

Twats

One of the more serious downsides to cycling in the UK is, "The twat factor." I think we will all have a story about a motorist who has consciously made the decision to attempt to intimidate a cyclist with their vehicle, verbally abused a cyclist or threatened them with violence, typically attempting using the car itself as a weapon (although this is not always the case). It is a markedly different experience from the constant stream of bad behaviour from motorists which we as cyclists endure on a regular basis, such as unsafe overtakes, left hooks, cutting in and ASL/cycle lane obstruction and intrusion, to name a few. The less cynical amongst us can dismiss this kind of behaviour as a symptom of ignorance or selfishness, rather than outright bigotry or malice.

I encounter similar behaviour sometimes in a non-transport context, after all, the person who tries to assault a cyclist with his car will still be a twat when he is away from his vehicle. However, in this context this kind of behaviour is much more easy to deal with, as the playing field is much more level. When an aggressor is armoured with a few tonnes of car which can accelerate to a high speed very quickly, and the victim is, well, not, such behaviour can be particularly intimidating.

It made me think of that quote attributed to Gary Fisher;


"Anybody who rides a bike is a friend of mine."


Whilst this particular statement is a bit too rosy to sit well with my own slightly more misanthropic world-view, it got me thinking. Whilst the man who tries to assault a cyclist with his car will still be a twat when he is away from his vehicle, his ability to harm is severely reduced. If he were to ride a bike instead of drive, I'm sure it wouldn't make him the sort of person I'd want to call a, "Friend," but his very existence would suddenly become less of a detriment to the lives of others. So, I have decided to modify Gary Fishers quote to fit my own view of the world;


"Anybody who rides a bike, is less of a twat than they would be if they were driving a car."


It perhaps doesn't have the same ring to it, but I think the sentiment is similar enough. Feel free to share your stories of these sorts of encounters in the comments.

Cyclecraft is Killing Cycling

A state of emergency is declared, the country's infrastructure is in a terrible state and its people are struggling to survive. A copy of the SAS survival manual would be a good purchase. Your government consulting its author (an expert in the field of survival) for advice to help its citizens survive the crisis would be welcome news.

Years later, the situation has barely improved, it turns out your government has continued to accept advice of the same author, rather than consulting with experts on rebuilding our society. He has been advocating that the citizens are better off being equipped with the skills to survive in this hostile environment than they would be if we started to rebuild houses, railways and other infrastructure. Some even start to believe it with a powerful conviction, challenging anyone who dares to question the philosophy.

Sounds crazy, right? Well this is effectively the situation cycling is stuck in with John Franklin and Cyclecraft. Cyclecraft is a great survival guide to help cyclists cope with the cycling-hostile road network of the UK, and our many fast-driving and skill-deficient motorists. The problem is that John Franklin is also a "Cycle safety" consultant and one of the strongest voices against separate cycle infrastructure which would improve the lives of cyclists immensely and help to vastly increase the rates of cycling. Local authorities and government accept consultation about cyclist safety from the man whose career is based on writing the survival manual for cyclists who wish to cycle in our current abysmal conditions, whose work forms the basis of the cycle training which is offered to help cyclists cope with our inherently cycling-hostile road network. The problem here seems obvious to me, but not to local authorities or even the vast majority of cycling campaigners in the UK.

As a consultant on "Cycle safety," John Franklin has a vested interest in maintaining the atrocious conditions which led to the need for a manual and training courses for riding a bike. Maybe he is deluded and genuinely loves cycling along dual carriageways, laughing maniacally with cars screaming past at 60 mph, unable to understand why the vast majority of people don't want to be out there with him. Maybe he actively wants to maintain the status quo which has underpinned his career as a "Cycle safety" consultant and author. Looking through the literature on his website, I see a homeopathy-like penchant for cherry-picking research which agrees with his message on the alleged safety issues of separate cycle facilities, whilst ignoring the wider body of work showing they improve cyclists' safety and promote higher cycling rates when implemented well. Reading through his published work, it seems disconnected from reality. The issue has been eloquently discussed elsewhere, but I shall repeat it here too. From his book Basic Cycling Skills:

Cadence and sprint speed

Cadence is the number of times a cycling turns the pedals in one minute. A steady, comfortable pedalling rhythm is essential for efficient cycling, while increasing one’s cadence strengthens the leg muscles and enables more rapid acceleration. Increasing cadence also makes it easier to increase your sprint speed – the maximum speed that you can attain over a short distance, such as through a roundabout.

Racing cyclists know well the benefits of having a high cadence, but there can also be important safety advantages for everyone. Generally speaking, you are at your safest in traffic if you can move at a speed comparable to that of the other vehicles. Increasing your cadence and sprint speed will allow you to achieve this more often, particularly at those places where it matters most – junctions with complex manoeuvring. It will also be easier to restart quickly in a low gear at traffic signals and roundabouts, and to get yourself out of trouble if you are on a potential collision course.

Increasing cadence and sprint speed are two of the most positive steps a cyclist can take to enhance safety.

A good cadence to aim for is about 80, while a sprint speed of 32 km/h (20 mph) will enable you to tackle most traffic situations with ease. To increase your cadence, select a gear lower than you would normally use for a given road and simply force yourself to pedal faster in order to maintain your usual speed. Gradually, your leg muscles will become accustomed to the higher rate and your cadence and strength will increase.

What is not addressed here is that if Cyclecraft is the correct way to cycle, and cycles are to be kept on the roads at the expense of any separate infrastructure, is that everyone other than a small elite of particularly fit riders are excluded from cycling. If you are too young, too old, too unfit or otherwise physically incapable of a sprint speed of 20 mph, you have no business cycling on the road, or at least you should have little expectation of doing so safely.

As a survival guide, Cyclecraft is an excellent resource to help cyclists survive on our roads. Taken as a guide for best practise, it is a dangerously elitist philosophy which excludes all but the bravest and fittest from cycling in the UK. John Franklin's influence on much of the cycle campaigning establishment is a major barrier to mass cycling in the UK.

Who asks for this crap?

Anyone who cycles in the UK will have encountered our unique cycling infrastructure, which is truly in a class of its own. I, like many other have often wondered who asks for this useless, inconvenient and dangerous infrastructure? How does it come to be?

Warrington Cycle Campaign’s Facility of the Month, January 2011

The answer to this became clear to me whilst I was reviewing the report on the Greater Manchester LTP3, a consultation with the public and relevant organisations on the future of transport in Greater Manchester. These kinds of consultations are relatively common activities run by local authorities all over the UK.

When I was reviewing the LTP3 report, I noticed an interesting disparity between the organisations’ responses and the individuals’ responses. Individuals frequently asked for cycle lanes, but understandably they did not go into detail with respect to design standards of these lanes (except for me in my individual response). Organisations claiming to represent cyclists, such as the CTC and British Cycling asked for things such as 20 mph zones*, workplace showers, cycle parking and cycle training, but not separate infrastructure.

By ignoring cycle infrastructure, or ranking them as the “less preferable” options as the CTC’s Hierarchy of Provision does, councils are left with individual respondents asking for cycle lanes with this request not being mirrored by cyclists’ organisations and no guidance or lobbying on the standards of lanes** forthcoming from these organisations. The DfT does offer some reasonable guidance for cycle facilities, but because historically the national cyclists’ organisations have focussed their energy doggedly on vehicular cycling, these remain advisory and are treated as unattainable ideal standards rather than as the absolute bare minimum.

There is a definite disconnect between cyclists’ organisations such as the CTC and the needs and wishes of everyday cyclists and the millions of potential cyclists, who are put off by having to cycle in close proximity to huge volumes of fast traffic. Individuals continue to ask government for cycle lanes in consultations and cyclists’ organisations continue to ignore the elephant in the room. The result is Facility of the Month.

* 20 mph zones are a great idea in residential and dense urban areas. They are not going to achieve any meaningful rise in cycling alone though. As long at they are surrounded by fast A and B-roads without any separate infrastructure for cyclists, they are little more than isolated islands of safety.

** Hopefully this will change at a national level with the launch of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, offering a voice for separate infrastructure, technical guidance and an umbrella for local cycling campaigns whose goals are the same.

Crap Cycling Infrastructure in Waltham Forest

Yesterday I took a trip through Waltham Forest in outer London on the 56 bus. It was interesting to see some of the places previously featured on Crap Walking & Cycling in Waltham Forest. 

The cycling infrastructure I saw wasn't a unique feature of Waltham Forest, practically every town in the UK has a few cycling facilities tacked onto the road somewhere, many of them terrible. What seemed to make Waltham Forest special was the sheer quantity of disastrous cycle infrastructure, combined with busy roads featuring an unusually huge level of on-street parking. The main road we travelled down could easily accommodate Dutch-style bicycle infrastructure if the space wasn't being wasted on free parking for pimps. Even the vehicular cycling environment could be improved no end by removing the on-street parking.

A view from the bus, which I believe many have been legally travelling in the advisory cycle lane at the time

A legally parked car obstructing the cycle lane. Interestingly this is positioned just a few short metres away from the corner of the main road

 There is a reasonably good quality piece of segregated infrastructure here, which ends at a set of lights, without providing any cyclist using it with any way of safely rejoining the rest of the traffic.

There must be a whole 0.7 m width of high-quality cycle lane right there.

Another on-road cycle lane well below the absolute minimum width, conveniently situated next to those pedestrian cattle fences which facilitate the crushing to death of cyclists by HGV drivers. Floral memorials have been provided by the council in advance

There is a lot of attempts at infrastructure for cyclists to use in Waltham Forest. I chose that wording carefully, because I don't feel that any of it is actually for cyclists themselves, more that it is for the benefit of motorists who want to get cyclists out of the way. None of the infrastructure I saw could have honestly been designed by anyone who ever actually rides a bike. The sad thing is, that the small pockets-like structure of the community and commercial centres which exist in many of the outer London boroughs are structured in a way that cycling really should be the easiest and best way to get around in them. As things are, I can see why as few as 0.8% of journeys in Waltham Forest are actually made by bike.

UPDATE:

On Saturday I was able to experience the crap cycling infrastructure of Waltham Forest first hand, as I passed through on my way to Paddington. The poor quality cycle-specific infrastructure was confusing at points, but at least largely ignorable. The factor which I felt endangered me the most was that not only are the bus/bike/taxi lanes here time-limited, during their off hours, parking is allowed in the bus lane. The net result of this is that cyclists are forced into the door-zone of these parked cars by the sheer volume of private motor traffic in the remaining lane. It would improve cycling conditions if the time restriction on the bus/bike/taxi lanes was scrapped altogether, or at least if they were in line with the bus lanes I have seen elsewhere in the UK and had double-yellow lines to prevent legal parking in them during off-peak hours.

The ride also took me through the Borough of Hackney, which whilst still very far from ideal for cycling was still a marked improvement in most respects.

Thoughtless Obstruction

A Sainsbury's delivery driver decided to park his van here, at the entrance to Whitworth Lane on Moseley Road. Whitworth Lane is closed to motor traffic but is well used by cyclists and pedestrians. The van was parked illegally on double yellow lines and on the pavement, blocking access to a side road and covering a dropped kerb.

Those familiar with the area may find it puzzling that someone living here in Owen's Park halls of residence would want to get groceries delivered by Sainsbury's. I feel that the level of contempt displayed by the driver for pedestrians, cyclists, pram users and wheelchair users reflects badly on J Sainsbury's as a whole. I have emailed Sainsbury's about this incident and I will post an update if and when they reply.

Crap Walking in Rochdale

Last night, due to train cancellation I found myself at a loose end in Rochdale. To pass the time and keep warm I decided to walk to the next railway station along the line, Castleton a distance of 3.5 km away. The trip was practically a guide to the routine mistreatment of pedestrians which goes on everywhere in the UK.

The pavement was completely covered in ice the whole way, next to roads which had been gritted days ago. At one point the ice turned back to snow and I realised that I was walking on a grass verge rather than a pavement, which had ended abruptly a few meters prior for no obvious reason. When I got the the first of the junctions I was to traverse I was confronted with this:

View Larger Map

Four pedestrian crossings required to cross one side of a the junction. Naturally pedestrians have the absolute lowest priority in this layout, so I was forced to jump the red. I hope the motorists didn't lose respect for me and other pedestrians in the process. Having tackled that junction, when I came up to the next, I noticed that someone had seen fit to block my way with an unnecessary fence.

View Larger Map

Luckily, being able bodied and reasonably fit I was able to traverse this pointless obstacle. The pavement became slightly less icy after this point:

Eventually I passed a bus stop as a budget JPT bus was letting a passenger off. I saw the fairly low price of a ticket advertised on the window of the bus and decided to end my misery there. Thanks Rochdale MBC for making choosing to walk in Rochdale even less appealing.

Plug-in Car Grant

In the 2009 budget, the then-chancellor Alistair Darling announced that like Germany, France and Italy, the government of the UK was to introduce a car scrappage scheme. Under this scheme, if you owned a car which was 10 or more years old (and you had owned it for at least 12 months), the government would put £1,000 towards the cost of a new car on the condition that your old one was scrapped. This done in the hope of boosting the economy. The scheme was essentially government-subsidising of car-dependency with dubious economic benefits (unlike Germany, France and Italy, the UK is not a major manufacturer of motor vehicles).

The worst part of the scheme was the fact that the government could have used this initiative to give people a nudge in the right direction when it comes to their transport choices. Imagine if instead of subsiding the purchase of a new car (which was likely manufactured elsewhere), the government gave those scrapping an old car a rail season ticket between their home and a place of work for a year or two, or if the scheme had allowed the money to be used for a bicycle and accessories, or even if it had just given those scrapping the car some money on the agreement that they do not buy another car for specific number of years.

The environmental benefits of any of these schemes would have been clearer than they were with the car-scrappage scheme. The environmental cost of manufacturing a new car and shipping it is greater than any benefit of increased fuel efficiency of the newer model. The scrappage scheme also caused social problems as these new cars were generally driven more than the cars they replaced. Economically speaking, with comparatively few cars being made here in the UK, the benefit to the UK economy would have been fairly minimal. There is also added downside of the fact that several car manufacturers may have been saved from going bust; whilst I am obviously not pro job-loss, it would have been better for the government to put money into creating new jobs requiring similar skills such as train, bus or bike manufacturing, rather than keeping car manufacturing capacity at its current level.

The government is now subsidising the purchase of electric cars, which at present come with all the downsides of petrol-fuelled cars, most of which stem from each individual person using a 5/7-person vehicle to travel everywhere alone. The government is throwing £5,000 away per new car, subsidising those wealthy enough to afford an electric car at the same time as allowing massive increases in public transport fares, scrapping Cycling England and generally reducing funding available for cycling projects. Electric cars are not the future (at least not in towns and cities), there are plenty of places which government money could provide society with a much greater benefit; particularly cycling and rail projects.

How I wish this were a parody

I managed to stumble across this Department For Transport website, “Be Bright, Be Seen.” It is aimed at young children and after studying the site and playing the game, the main messages of the site seem to be:

• Cycling and walking are very, very, very dangerous and abnormal activities
• If you choose to engage in this kind of reckless behaviour, it is you, the child, the victim who is responsible for ensuring you do not become the victim of a negligent motorist
• To do this you must dress up like an Xmas tree whenever you dare to have the audacity to want to cross a road
• If you do somehow manage to live long enough to become an adult, it will be one of your basic human rights to drive a heavy & fast vehicle inattentively in the presence of children, without the terrible burden of any responsibility if you hit one, unless they are wearing the Xmas tree outfit that is. Then you might be partly to blame.

Taken from the DFT’s victim-blaming website Flash game.

Obviously the bitch had it coming. Taken from the same site.

I also found links to some “Educational material,” for children, again provided by the government. This included Amir’s story:

“After I'd opened up all they presents – they wanted to get the birthday cake ready – so I decided to go over to Jordan's to show him the bike. I was sorted. I had my helmet, my trainers with the reflective strips and I even clipped on the lights and made sure the batteries worked before I set off. Well, it'd be dark by the time I was coming back, you see. You need to be seen by other road users. That's really important. Be Bright, Be Seen. They're always saying that in school. I was only going to Jordan's so I didn't bother with the pads or the gloves.

The road was quite quiet but there were loads and loads cars parked all the way along. Anyway, I'm going up and down gears, testing the brakes.

Then, just as I looked up, this car door suddenly opened - right in front of me. I tried to brake but it was too late. It knocked the wind right out of me. Banged my chin, broke my nose and cut all my hands up too. Good job I had my new helmet on.”

This is a great way to promote healthy, ethical and socially responsible transport to the next generation. Pads and gloves as a safety measure? No mention of the fact that the motorist who doored him was responsible for checking that there was no oncoming traffic at the time. By the sound of it, the helmet didn’t do a thing to help him, as you’d expect.

“It's not put me off my bike though. No chance. But I'll be a lot more careful in the future. Deffo. Just as soon as I'm better... Two weeks and counting.”

I bet you will, it was your own fault that an adult opened a car door right in front of you after all. Being a kid is full of responsibility, I bet he can’t wait to grow up and get his driving license so he can do away with being responsible once and for all.

EDIT: Email the DfT about this awful site if you feel as I do. Hopefully a bigger blog which specialises in this kind of disgrace will help spread awareness of this DfT crap.

A case for direct action?

A new piece from Crap Cycling and Walking in Waltham Forest makes direct action look like an appealing option.  Sadly, we already have a similar situation here in Manchester along the route following the river from Salford Quays into the city centre.  The path closes where it meets a wide road bridge near Old Trafford football ground, presumably Salford Council are worried about the troll threat.

Safety, cycling and sharing the road: qualitative research with cyclists and other road users

This is a very long post (rant), it might be worth making yourself a drink before you settle in to read this.

This is the latest output on the issue from the Department for Transport, which I discovered thanks to both @Spinneyhead and Crap Waltham Forest.  The report is interesting in the fact that it acknowledges the failure of the policy of road sharing in the UK.  Whilst I am happy enough cycling on the roads as they are (not that I don’t feel a lot needs to be done to improve things), the vast majority of people (~98% based on cycling’s 2% average modal share in the UK) are not.  To get the average person onto a bike we need to either massively restrict the use of private automobiles or provide Dutch-style segregated infrastructure.  What we actually have is excessively busy roads populated by many lawless motorists, excessively high speed limits in urban areas, confusing, useless or dangerous existing cycling infrastructure and a focus on “education” for potential victims in the form of, “Stay out of the way of the big dangerous things which might kill you.”

I skimmed the full report to pull out some interesting quotes.  The adult groups interviewed for the report were generally non-cycling motorists and cyclists who also drive.  They chose to omit non-driving cyclists, which is the group I would fall into.  Read into this what you will.

A stereotype of cyclists in general does appear to exist among ORUs [Other Road Users]. This stereotype is characterised by:
• serious failures of attitude, including a generalised disregard for the law and a more specific lack of concern for the needs of other drivers; and
• serious failures of competence and knowledge of the rules of the road.

Interestingly, I would probably describe a significant number of motorists in these terms. There appeared to be a view amongst the motorists that cyclists were an anomaly on the road, and as a lot of people have little sympathy for people they see as different for themselves (see racism, sexism, homophobia and many more), this is perhaps the root of the aggression and lack of care which will be so familiar to so many cyclists.

This stereotype of cyclists is also linked to the fact that cyclists do not need to undertake training, are unlicensed and uninsured, and do not pay road taxes (at least not by virtue of the fact that they cycle).

I am quite impressed that this made it into the report.  One of the easiest ways the government could make the lives of people on bikes easier is to finally put the myth of road tax to rest (I think the Winston Churchill quote could help with that).

There is evidence of a deeper failure in the culture of road sharing on English roads, which may have important implications for different road-users’ interpretations of, and responses to, each other’s behaviour and, hence, for road safety:
• Whatever the law may say on the matter, the norms of road sharing, on roads with lane widths and speeds designed around cars, mean that cyclists are treated as anomalies.
• There is a lack of consensus, even among cyclists, about whether and how cycling should be accommodated on the roads.
• Some ORUs question whether cyclists belong on the roads at all.

This is another major problem with the policy of road sharing, the widely held belief amongst motorists that roads are for cars, and bikes should get out of the way. 

From the perspective of ORUs, the principle benefit of cycling lanes is that they get cyclists out of their way. When cycle lanes are provided, then there is an expectation that cyclists should not be on the road.

This belief, the government does little to help dispel, with cycling infrastructure largely focussed on getting bikes “out of the way” of motorised traffic, rather than infrastructure designed to make cycling safer or more convenient.

There is concern among some ORUs about cycle facilities which make life harder for ORUs, for example by ‘taking away’ some of their space, or allowing cyclists already passed to get back in front again.

Interesting lack of quotes around the phrase, “Their space.”  Its almost as if the roads really are for the exclusive use of the private motorcar.

From the cyclist’s perspective, inadequate cycle facilities can diminish the legitimacy of bicycles on the road even further without actually providing a viable alternative.
Cycling facilities can also make the road-sharing problem worse if they create additional confusion about where cyclists and drivers are meant to go. The key issues are:
• Infrastructure that is too complex and needs to be decoded by the user;
• A failure to communicate to people how to use innovative infrastructure; and
• A lack of consistency from one place to the next.

Also noted are the failures of infrastructure, including having to dismount and having to give way at every side road.

There was widespread agreement that cyclists should do more to make themselves visible on the road – though this may not be reflected in actual behaviour.

High-visibility clothing was seen as important by many cyclists, though very few actually wore it. Promoting better visibility would be easier than promoting helmets. Moreover, it could be incorporated into a wider programme to promote better road sharing, since making yourself visible was widely conceived, by cyclists and ORUs, as something that cyclists can do for ORUs.

This is quite worrying reading, the cyclist group appear largely convinced that it is their responsibility to ensure they are so excessively conspicuous that even the dullest, most inattentive operator of a fast-moving tonne+ of metal will notice them even as they hurtle down the urban streets at 50 mph, texting and changing the radio station.  There was a disturbing lack of awareness of victim blaming culture and the safety treadmill effect, whereby the most cautious riders make another defensive move (such as helmets, high visibility clothing, reflective strips etc) which becomes mainstream.  Once this has happened, its effect is lessened as it eventually allows motorists to become more numb to their surroundings, forcing some new ridiculous, “Safety,” intervention (I predict sirens next).

For example, the CTC initially lobbied against compulsory lights for cyclists, citing that it would be a license for motorists to become less attentive when driving at night.  Their preferred solution at the time was for motorists to drive more slowly and with increased caution at night.  It may sound ridiculous now, but in the end we all got lights, and those without them are viewed as idiots.  Even I use lights at night, party to see by, partly to be seen.  Sadly it did end up giving motorists a license to not pay as much attention as they should, so we have got to the stage where it is not unusual to see a pedestrian walking on the pavement after dark, wearing a high-visibility vest, or even flashing LEDs to avoid being hit by a motorist.  If someone is killed by a motorist on a zebra crossing in the evening and they were wearing dark clothing, they are regarded as at least partially to blame.  The non-motorist has made so many concessions to the motorist over the years that pedestrians are now allowed to be blamed for being hit whilst using a zebra crossing.  Sadly, almost no-one is even aware of the subtle erosion of the duty of care a motorist should have when operating a vehicle.

The DfT report acknowledges the failure of the policy of road sharing, but there is not the political will needed to improve the situation markedly.  A few options I would suggest to politicians which would not also be political suicide are:

• Dispel the myth of “Road Tax,” and the concept of motorists owning the road.
• Dispel the myth of the motorist being in some way hard-done by.
• Make cycling a compulsory part of the process of learning to drive.

The last idea I think would be politically doable, although in principle I am against age discriminatory legislation, sometimes you have to be pragmatic; increase the driving age to ~25.  The reason I suggest this is because 18-25 year olds are perhaps the least likely of all age groups to vote, meaning it would be politically doable.  The shit-munchers would definitely be onboard, because all young people are awful people, and all young people are awful drivers.  It could be passed into law because it wouldn’t affect anyone who is already old enough to vote, and people don’t usually care about things which don’t affect them.  More practically, younger people are less likely to have dependents, are usually healthier and usually more generally adaptable.  The increase in the numbers of non-driving working-age people would hopefully fuel an increase in public transport, walking and cycling investment.  In the long term, a generation of adults who spent the first 7 years of their adult lives not being able to use a car would hopefully remain more open to the idea of continuing to use whatever means of transport they used before turning 25.  As I said, discriminatory legislation is wrong, but being cynical and pragmatic, it could also work.

Living with a Broken System

The road network in the UK is a broken system which has slowly been almost totally misappropriated by motorists to serve their interests.  Whilst I am comfortable riding on the roads, I can see why they are unattractive to new and potential cyclists.  This is why despite my own comfort with road-cycling I would support the wide scale construction of segregated cycle facilities on the Dutch model.  I believe this will be more effective in getting people out of their cars than other initiatives.  Subjective safety is important in encouraging cycling, but is overlooked often.  After all, most humans aren’t rational creatures, how else would we end up with a society where it is seen as normal to drive a mile to get two bags of food from a supermarket.

On the other side, I understand why existing cyclists can be opposed to such facilities.  The existing cycle infrastructure in the UK is largely worthless, the logical fear being that extension of cycling infrastructure would be along the lines of what we already have, and that a large investment in this kind of infrastructure would lead to cyclists being legally compelled to use it.  I would prefer not to have any cycling infrastructure than the dangerous and idiotically designed facilities we currently have being expanded on a large scale.  It is also worth noting that if we moved away from having one car for almost every adult, the reduction in traffic would make the roads safer and more inviting for other types of traffic.

However, none of these things is happening right now and so all that remains for us to do is to try and make do with the broken system we already have.  The best way I have found to do this is with vehicular cycling.

If you are new to cycling, think about where you position yourself on the road.  Do you ride as close to the kerb as is practicable?  Do you find yourself wary of entering the traffic flow?  Do you worry a lot about being hit from behind whilst cycling along the road?  Do you find that you are often overtaken with very little clearance?  I think most new cyclists would answer yes to most of these questions, and the more experienced of you may remember a time when those concerns weighed heavily on your mind.  I know I do.  There are a few simple tips and techniques which can make riding on the road feel a lot safer (and be a lot safer).

1) You are traffic.  Traffic does not equal cars, you have as much right to use the road as anyone.  You pay for the roads just as much as anyone else.  You are entitled to use the whole of the lane if you feel it is necessary.

2) Don’t ride in the gutter.  If you do, motorists will treat you like you belong in the gutter.  Most gutter-cycling is a response to the fear of being hit from behind.  In practice this is extremely rare.  When cycling in the gutter motorists will try to squeeze through a gap about as wide as you plus the car plus 5 cm.  These small but apparently passable gaps come up fairly frequently, and being hit whilst being unsafely overtaken is a fairly common form of motorist negligence.  Try to ride at least a metre out from the kerb.  You can start small and slowly increase the distance when your confidence grows.  This will stop unsafe overtaking because there will be fewer opportunities for motorists to overtake when it is not safe to do so.  There is an interesting psychological effect which comes with this technique; motorists are much more likely to overtake using the proper technique prescribed by rule 163 of the highway code:

To further decrease your risk of being unsafely overtaken,  be sure to not wear a helmet.

This is a common occurrence when gutter-riding, the near-death overtake.

By taking control of your part of the lane, you can prevent this kind of behaviour.

It is also useful to stay at least a meter or so out from parked cars, due to the risk of “dooring.”  It is a sad state of affairs that a great deal of the existing cycle lanes in the UK are placed in the door-zone of parking bays.

3) Look behind you, a lot.  It is important that if you are going to be a part of the traffic, you need to know when is coming from behind.  I tend to check behind whenever I can hear a car approach, except in slow moving “rush” hour traffic where it is not feasible and the cars are not moving fast anyway.  Even when you can’t hear anything it is worth checking behind once a minute or less.  The benefits of doing this are threefold; You know what is coming from behind you, making you more confident to ride further from the left, secondly the person in the car sees you look at them, you cease to be a bicycle in their mind and become a person and thirdly motorists are told during their “training” that they should look out for cyclists who are looking behind them as they may be wishing to pull out shortly.  This helps in making sure you are overtaken safely.

4) Traffic islands and other narrowing road sections.  When the road ahead of you does not allow adequate space for anyone to overtake you, ride in the centre of the lane to stop them trying.  Don’t feel bad about adding 10 seconds onto someone else’s journey in the interests of safety.  Remember you have as much right to the road as anyone else.

5) Right Turns (or left in most of the rest of the world).  Right turns can be problematic when you are being overtaken by a heavy traffic stream.  The key is signal that you want to make a right turn.  Sadly most motorists will ignore their obligation to let you merge, the key is to make it look like you are going to turn anyway, whilst being aware that most motorists will still happily overtake you.  A bit of a scare will make one of the overtaking cars slow down enough to make a merge and then right turn feasible.  This takes practice.

6) Just because cycling infrastructure is there doesn’t mean you have to use it.  Some cycling infrastructure is truly awful, and by not using it you are sending a message that this needs to be sorted, or at least that we don’t want any more crap infrastructure.

7) Roundabouts.  These can be a problem for cyclists, as can the infrastructure designed to provide an alternative for cyclists due to they sheer impracticality of it.  Many busy roundabouts are being replaced with traffic lights, I would like to hope that cyclists’ needs played a part in this decision to move away from them.  They probably didn’t though.  Most people, regardless of conveyance are bad at using roundabouts.  The skills of not gutter riding and looking behind frequently will help on roundabouts, as will being able to accelerate and ride quite fast.  The alternative is to dismount and cross it as a pedestrian.

These are just some of the tips and techniques I use to make the best out of a bad situation.  If you have any more to share please feel free to comment.

Alternative Route Into Manchester

I wanted to pop into the city centre today but I wasn’t in a rush.  I ended up at the Whalley Range High School, with the intention to go onto the Fallowfield Loop to Chorlton, take Seymore Grove to Old Trafford and use the Ship Canal to get into the centre.  At the school I decided instead to follow a sign indicating a Sustrans route to Manchester.  I rode down a residential street for a while with no indication to turn off and eventually ended up in Alexandra Park. 

I saw another sign and followed it, and a series of subsequent signs around an odd and indirect route through the park which led me out onto a side street parallel to Princess Road (not the most bike friendly road around).  There was another sign which led me onto Moss Lane West, I followed.  This was the last sign I saw.  Eventually I ended up in Chorlton, at Seymore Grove as i had originally planned.  These signs are a good idea in theory; directing cyclists who want an alternative to the main routes to lesser-known back-street routes.  They always seem to fall apart by only being partially signed, which is even worse when you consider that the signs’ main target market are newer cyclists.

Still, I found a park I didn’t know about, and managed to add about 12 km onto the direct route.  I’ll let the pictures tell the rest of the story:

Hydes Brewery on Moss Lane West.  I would recommend the brewery tour here, at the end they teach you how to pull a pint of cask ale and then leave you to it for an hour or so.

Classically bad cycle infrastructure at Old Trafford, cycle lane ends at a pinch point caused by a traffic island.

A lovely folding Raleigh Twenty “Stowaway,” locked by its front wheel only, due to badly-conceived bike parking facilities at The Lowry Outlet Mall.

Next to it a Pashley Princess and another less elegant bike locked-up together.  Could this be LC and PB visiting the Lowry Mall?

Smashed bottle in segregated cycle lane near Castlefield.  Oddly it is a Strathmore water bottle, rather than booze.

More motorised carnage on the roads just off the A57(M).  Hope everyone is alright.

Parked up outside the railway arches at UMIST.  Good spot to park up if getting a train at Piccadilly due to CCTV and university security staff nearby.

Interesting single-speed Kona I have seen around town a few times.

Another bicycle route signpost on Whitworth Street showing Piccadilly station to the left of the sign, with Piccadilly Station itself visible at the end of the street.

In the end I managed to extend the 4 km round trip into town to 23 km, partly with the help of Sustrans signposting, partly because sometimes its just nice to have a wander around on the bike.

HGV “safety”

I just found out about the new Transport for London poster warning cyclists about the dangers or left turning HGVs over at the Crap Waltham Forest blog.  While I am not against teaching people whereabouts on the road they should avoid in order to not become a victim of negligent HGV operation per se it does appear to be more of the symptom-treating approach which we are all familiar with.  If not crushing someone to death in a dense urban area is hard for a lorry driver to do, maybe TFL would be better considering restricting the times of day these vehicles can enter the centre of London so that they pose a risk to fewer people.   Once again part of the problem is badly thought-out infrastructure which encourages people to get into bad positions at junctions:

Road “Safety”

“Many people are unaware that the number of fatalities amongst young people caused by road accidents is higher than deaths from other external causes, including those that receive much more publicity from the media. In 2008, 73 children aged 0 - 11 years were killed on Britain's roads. Another 1,436 were seriously injured. There is a need for all those involved with children to teach clear road safety messages effectively and consistently, working together to help children understand and manage risk.”

Sounds like the sort of crap you’d expect from the AA or RAC or some other motorist lobby, doesn’t it?  Its actually taken from The Department for Transport’s guidance to teachers.  I’m not trying to argue that children should not be taught how to be safe when crossing the road, merely that it is completely missing the point.  The risk is that by extension you absolve the person actually causing the harm, the motorist of their responsibility by placing the idea that it is up to the victim to prevent becoming a victim.

“Be seen at all times, wear bright clothing when during the day & encourage the use of florescent clothing in poor lighting conditions - armbands or reflective strips on school bags.”

This was taken from the Glasgow Council website.

This is the Walking Bus (image taken from site) in the London Borough of Havering.  In order to maintain the prioritising of traffic speed above all else, and to free road users from nuisances like having to take care when driving the council (and many others) have started pushing the idea that this is what kids need in order to safely walk to school.  Surely it would be healthier to look at the cause of their desire to do this rather than merely treat the symptoms?

The problem with this kind of thing is that eventually the news reports change.  Where once you would have read something like this; “The child was crossing the road outside his primary school when he was hit by a Land Rover Discovery,” to this, “The child, who was dressed in dark clothing, was crossing the road outside his primary school when he was hit by a Land Rover Discovery.”  It is a small change but it is placing some of the blame onto the victim (or his parents) for not “being visible,” whilst glossing over the fact that the motorist was negligent by driving such a vehicle outside of a primary school in a manner which left them unable to stop the vehicle in an appropriate amount of time.  Soon maybe half of the kids are dressed up like Christmas trees, they are easier to see from the windscreen perspective and so the average traffic speed increases because the motorists are safe in the knowledge that the kids are easier to see, (so less care needs to be taken) and the kids without the Christmas tree outfit are practically asking to be run over, so they are at least partially responsible, right? 

This is a dangerous way to think, and it has already happened to cyclists with respect to helmets, and partially with respect to bright/fluorescent clothing.  The media will now use the phrase, “who was not wearing a helmet,” quite happily in a report about a cyclist who was clearly the victim of motorist negligence and nothing else.  This perpetuates the myth that the cyclist is partially responsible for the incident by choosing not to wear a helmet (even though it wouldn’t have helped in the slightest) and facilitates further dangerous and negligent behaviour by motorists by suggesting that they are less responsible for the safety of those they may kill with their vehicle.

If you are still not persuaded, compare the pushing of bicycle helmets and high visibility clothing for pedestrians and cyclists to solve the problem of road safety to a problem which kills far fewer in the UK but receives far more media coverage and Police resources; knife crime.  Lets take the Road Safety approach to knife crime; firstly we need knife awareness training in primary schools so that the kids can learn to avoid those areas where knife crime exists.  This could be backed up with a poster campaign or a post-watershed advert series aimed at adults, raining awareness of knife crime and where not to go to avoid being stabbed.  The bad areas where knife crime is rife continue to grow, so the campaign starts to push the idea of stab-vests for all.  Perhaps a catchy “Don’t forget your stab-vest,” advert campaign showing a typical suburban family.  Eventually enough time passes so that when someone without a stab-vest is stabbed to death the phrase, “who was not wearing a stab vest,” would appear in the news stories and the myth that the victim is at least partially responsible for being stabbed for not taking the prescribed precautions begins to gain traction.  Luckily this isn’t the case (yet) although to make the analogy more comparable to the helmet debacle I suppose the stab-vest should be substituted for a set of special magical underpants or something else which would provide no protection in the event of being stabbed.

This is taken from Wigan Council’s website today.  If we keep attacking our social problems like this then maybe we’ll be seeing this tomorrow:

Taken from here.  No its a real thing.  I really think it should also be high-visibility too, and that kippah doesn’t look like it’ll protect his head much when he inevitably gets hit by a motorist.

Crap Cycling & Walking in Manchester #2

Don’t worry, I’m not planning on turning this blog into a Manchester version of the Crap Waltham Forest blog, but yesterday after posting about it I had to walk from work to the city centre (a grand total of about 3 km) and I decided to see how many illegal or inconsiderate things I saw along the way affecting either cyclists, pedestrians or both.  Anyone who reads the Grauniad’s Bike Blog (or any article in the Daily Fail mentioning cyclists) will recognise the phrase “lawless cyclists” from the comments section as it is trolled by non-cycling motorists and the like, so I decided to focus largely on that much more harmful and prolific group; lawless motorists

Footway Obstruction (sucks to be blind).

Gone through red, ASL and cycle lane obstructed.  I saw this happen after the light turned red.

Convenient seating provided outside the BBC building.

Walking obstruction, illegal parking.  Guy is asleep in car with engine running.

More pavement parking outside EastZEast restaurant.

This guy chose to blow through the red and through most of the ASL too.

Another person parked across the footway at a side-road.

More ASL abuse.

Contractor has abandoned a road sign on the pavement on Princess Street.

 

Pavement and double yellow line parking on Princess Street

Footpath commandeered by business for advertising.

Illegal and inconsiderate motor-scooter parking.

Parked on double yellows and pavement.

And again, the same pavement and double yellow line parking.

The purpose of this walk into town was to meet someone for a lift.  As I arrived in town I realised that this would be the first time I had travelled in a car in about 3 months.  I decided to note my outsider perspectives of car travel during the journey.

Firstly, I felt extremely low down whilst going along the road, which made me feel less safe than when on a bike.  I also didn’t like how the car itself severely restricted my view, especially to the sides and rear of me.  I also noticed how many people would change lane without any indication, but other drivers seemed ok with this.  I don’t imagine being so happily accommodated on a bike, or motorcycle.  All these things made me feel less safe than when on a bike, but  the caged-off nature of being in a car and the fact that I only had a windscreen view of the world around me made me feel a lot more detached from the danger around me, as if I was watching TV or playing a video game.  I think the people who don’t cycle because they feel it is dangerous only feel that way because they are used to driving, and that their safety concerns are largely subjective.  I felt a lot less safe in the car than I do on my bike and I think next time I will take the bike.