Cities fit for Cycling

I am extremely pleased to see that a national newspaper has given the safety of cyclists (and the inherent hostility of our present road network to them) the attention it so sorely deserves. I was even more amazed that it was none other than The Times who were behind this movement. The Cities fit for Cyclists campaign shows an understanding of the underlying issues, where it could have been all too easy to start talking about helmets or other such easy but ineffective measures. Needless to say, I encourage you all to sign up.

However, my joy at the issue of cyclist safety and the importance of infrastructure receiving such attention was dampened somewhat when I tried to encourage friends outside of cycling circles to sign up too. Surprisingly to me, the issue of 20 mph in residential areas appeared to be a bit of contentious one. The issue of children's freedom to play outside without motor traffic being a threat did not seem to be a significant persuader either, with the long history of children playing on the streets seeming to have been quickly forgotten by some. Inevitably, the issue that cycling, walking or public transport are not viable for every journey made by every person came up. Whilst true, it is my experience that this argument is often used to justify car use which, at least in the right road environment, could easily be made through walking or cycling. Walking, cycling and public transport are unlikely to be viable for every single journey made by every single person in the UK. This does not change the fact that they could be made viable for the vast majority of journeys made by the vast majority of people. To me, raising the limitations of our current public transport system is merely an acknowledgement of the need to invest in the expansion of our rail and bus services.

It didn't take long for the issue of the law-breaking behaviour of some cyclists to come up, despite its dubious relevance to the topic at hand. As a member of a vilified minority group, I am often expected to justify the behaviour of others within the same minority group, despite the fact that I have nothing to do with them. I acknowledged the bad behaviour of a minority of cyclists and gently pointed out the bad behaviour of (what I generously described as) a minority of motorists, including the red light jumping and pavement driving (both of which are regarded as reprehensible behaviour when cyclists do it but largely tolerated when motorists do it). The issue of motorist behaviour was mostly ignored.

The Times' Cities fit for Cyclists campaign is an enormous and welcome step in the right direction. However, the responses to my attempts at promoting of the campaign show that we need to keep plugging away at this issue to bring in further into the mainstream.

Recurring Themes

Once again we find ourselves in January, and once again I find myself writing about an incident where someone has attempted, without provocation, to use a motor vehicle as a weapon to either intimidate or assault me. Once again, the sole reason behind this appears to be something as innocuous as my choice of transport mode. Once again the driver and occupants of the vehicle were around 17-19 years of age and once again they were exclusively male.

The sad thing is that most regular cyclists have similar stories of unprovoked aggression from motorists. Most regular cyclists I have spoken to have at least one story of a motorist attempting to intimidate them or cause actual bodily harm for no other reason that they had the sheer audacity to choose to get around on a bike. 

A significant minority of the general population seem to have the capacity to behave like this. When using public transport or on foot they might be a nuisance to others. On a bicycle they may risk causing injury to others and themselves in the process. In a car, they are able to kill and maim without any risk of coming to harm themselves. Interestingly, the behaviour of this fraction of the general public receives by far the most attention from the mainstream press when they also happen to ride bicycles.

Perhaps it is time to seriously examine the idea of including a thorough psychological examination in the process of licensing drivers. In addition to weeding out those who clearly are not able to behave appropriately when operating a dangerous machine in a public place, it will also help put people off driving in general by increasing the costs and hassle associated with learning and continuing to drive. This can only be a good thing for everyone.

Thoughts on Cycling & the Political Spectrum

Cycling is not an inherently political thing. However, like many other things it is often framed in terms of the left-right political spectrum. In those who are more right-leaning, there is a tendency to frame things in terms of individualism and to look inwards to find the source of social problems, often suggesting they are a result of  a character flaw or behaviour. In those who are more left-leaning, there is a tendency to frame things in terms of collectivity and centralisation and to look outwards to find the source of social problems, often seeing behaviours as a result of environmental factors or a shortcoming of a society itself. As with most things, reality probably lies somewhere between the two extremes.

But what does all this mean for cycling? From a right-leaning perspective the bicycle fits nicely with individualism, an individual mode of transport which has no negative impact on the lives of others and offers the user complete freedom of movement. In a small way it allows its users to directly act against concerns such as climate change without the need to restrict the freedom of others. The economic benefits of cycling are also particularly desirable from a right-leaning perspective. From a left-leaning perspective the bicycle fits well with collectivism by producing wide-ranging societal and environmental benefits, especially in a country like the UK where the cost of healthcare is paid for through the government. Cycling (and affordable public transport) in place of catering primarily for more expensive environmentally and socially destructive forms of transport make mobility accessible to all members of society whilst increasing the health and safety of citizens, which is extremely desirable from a left-leaning perspective.

There are downsides too. There is a tendency towards xenophobia towards the right-end of the political spectrum; where cyclists are seen as a minority group they may be assaulted, threatened & intimidated by those who see cyclists as a group being 'different' somehow from themselves. The focus on social problems being a result of character flaws means that measures to promote cycling may end up being restricted to 'awareness' and 'training,' with infrastructural changes to the built environment to benefit cyclists (and other vulnerable road users) being shunned in favour of encouraging behavioural change indirectly, which is less successful. At the left-end of the spectrum there is a tendency towards over-regulation of the behaviour of the population, with measures such as compulsory cycle helmet legislation considered despite the damage these laws are already known to do to cycling rates.

As stated at the start, cycling is not inherently a political thing. The perception of the activity and those participating is largely due to existing personal experiences or prejudices, although how these experiences or prejudices manifest themselves may be framed depending on the political persuasion of the individual. However, when talking cycling with those in power, it is worth considering how to frame cycling as a 'good thing' in terms of the political mindset of the person whom you are addressing. For example, some might consider cycle infrastructure to be an inherently left-wing means of encouraging cycling, but it could just as easily be considered in more individualistic terms as a means of extending the freedom of movement for the individual, or as a means to produce an economic benefit. It's all a matter of spin.

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.

2011 Budget Special

George Osborne announced today in the budget the the planned rises in fuel duty was to be scrapped, and the price of fuel lowered. The move was welcomed by the motoring lobby, who felt that asking motorists to pay a bit more towards the wider costs of mass motoring was a step too far. One source close to one of the large motoring lobbies said “This increase would have been a step too far,” adding, “What’s next, some sort of excise duty levied on cars based on their emissions? It’s bad enough that we have to shoulder the entire cost of  the building and upkeep of the roads.”

Image courtesy of The Guardian

Pain

The move was particularly welcomed by owners of particularly inefficient cars, such as 4X4 (also known as SUV) vehicles, who had been worried that the planned increase in fuel duty might have forced them to reduce their vehicle use. One Land Rover Discovery owner spoke to us about her concerns; “I was worried that with the planned fuel duty rise I might have to start walking the kids to school. It must be a good half a mile’s hoof. It wouldn’t be safe walking the kids anyway, what with all those 4X4s parked and driving on the pavements near the school. It’s a disgrace.”

Fairness

Osborne also announced the new “Fair fuel stabiliser,” which had been anticipated by some commentators. One source close to the treasury said “Motoring is important for our economic growth, it is widely known that only people in cars contribute to our nation’s economic prosperity. It is important in these difficult economic times that we continue to shield motorists from the wider economic, health, environmental and social costs associated with private car use.” He went on to add, “ It makes sense to go one step further and shield them from the actual price of oil too.”

We spoke to one man who was very pleased with the news, “I had been getting the bus to work due to the current price of petrol. I’ll be glad to be able to drive again, the buses were every few minutes and they got me to work quicker because of the bus lanes, but who wants to have to mix with those filthy proles?” He went on to add, “I hear a lot of noise about cycling, but I work almost 2 and a half miles away. I can’t be expected to travel that kind of distance on a bike, I’m no Lance Armstrong.”

Budget Concerns

Osborne was challenged by opposition MPs as to how the country can afford this new measure when public spending cuts are so prevalent in other government departments. A source claimed that Osborne re-assured them that we had the money to spare thanks to “The removal of subsidies for rural bus services, library closures, tuition fee increases, increases in rail fares, reductions in benefits and scrapping Cycling England,” adding, “As a conservative-led government, we aim to help those who already have the means to help themselves.”

Anecdotes and Evidence

The petition to block the proposed Cyclists (Protective Headgear) Bill in Northern Ireland has finally attracted some attention from the larger press outlets. With wider exposure comes the usual heated discussions over helmets in the comment threads. Many of you know my own stance on helmets, but I would not want to force anyone who wishes to cycle with a helmet to do so without one.

A helmet slpit along the vents, a common mode of failure. Image courtesy of cyclehelmets.org

One type of comment which comes up frequently on these comment threads follows the general form of “A helmet saved my/a friend's life.” This is not particularly surprising, during my own school days I remember being shown emotive video footage of an interview with a teenager who had survived being hit by a motorist whilst he was on his bike. He proudly showed the camera his helmet, split in two and with an unshakable conviction he stated that it had saved his life. In the years since this experience, the arse-about-face approach to road safety has continued to gain traction and find its way into online materials aimed at school-age children.

When listening to stories claiming a helmet saved someone’s life, it is important to remember that anecdotes aren’t the same as evidence. Consider the following:

With no control experiment, where all variables other than whether or not the rider was wearing a helmet left unchanged, it is impossible to state with any confidence whether or not the helmet had made a difference, or to appropriately quantify any difference it may have made.

The effects of risk compensation also need to be considered. For those who have been told and accepted the idea that a helmet will save their life, there will be an increase in their perceived safety which will have an effect on their behaviour. This also goes for the operators of motor vehicles, who will perceive a helmet-wearing cyclist as being less at risk from their vehicle. It is possible that the change in behaviour both on the part of the cyclist and the motorist caused by the effects of risk compensation were instrumental in leading to the collision. This effect has been studied with ABS in the Munich taxi experiment, and can also be seen in the increase in the severity and number of pedestrian and cyclist casualties following the introduction of compulsory seat-belt legislation, drivers felt safer with seat-belts and adjusted their behaviour to compensate for the reduced risk to them by driving faster and braking later. This resulted in decreased safety for those not travelling inside a car.

There are safety concerns attached to wearing a helmet, including increased risk of rotational brain injury which can be further exacerbated by the interaction between the air vents on a helmet and irregularities in the road surface leading to an increased risk of neck injuries. These effects are often dismissed due to the acceptance even amongst helmet advocates that there are limits to the protection a helmet can provide; if a helmet-wearing cyclist is injured in a collision, the injuries they sustain are uncritically regarded as being “less substantial than if they had been without a helmet,” when in fact they may have been exacerbated or even caused by the wearing of a helmet.

Plenty of cyclists survive collisions, accidents and other incidents despite not wearing a helmet. Unlike the sensational “Life-saving helmet,” stories we all see whenever there is a discussion regarding helmets, people who survive collisions, accidents and other incidents whilst not wearing a helmet rarely link their survival to the fact that they were not wearing a helmet.

It is human nature to find causal links between events which may in fact be unrelated. This is how we end up with things like lucky pants and ritualistic behaviour of athletes and sports-fans; people struggle to separate correlation from causality. For example, I have been involved in several minor incidents due to motorists over the years and survived each one of them. On every occasion I was wearing boxer shorts, but it would be foolish to state that my survival was definitely caused by the fact that I was wearing boxer shorts. At the very least I’d want to see the results from a control experiment where I was wearing budgie-smugglers in the same situations.

Census: Shape the Future of Transport

These are the two questions relating to transport in the census.

H14) In total, how many cars or vans are owned, or available for use, by
members of this household?

• None
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4 or more, write in number

41)  How do you usually travel to work?

• Work mainly at or from home
• Underground, metro, light rail, tram
• Train
• Bus, minibus or coach
• Taxi
• Motorcycle, scooter or moped
• Driving a car or van
• Passenger in a car or van
• Bicycle
• On foot

Somehow, after seeing the posters, I was expecting transport to be a bigger part of the census. It is at least nice that bicycle is an option on question 41.

Greater Manchester LPT3 Consultation

I have been reviewing the preliminary information coming out of the Greater Manchester LTP3 consultation. It lists the specific responses given to the proposal by various organisation, in addition to the broad trends seen in individual's responses:

Comments on Cycling & Walking Issues


Amongst the 163 comments received on cycling and walking issues, the following comments were made with significant frequency:
 
39 comments were made encouraging the development of cycle
lanes/paths.

23 comments highlighted the importance of cycle promotion activities.

22 comments revisited the call for cycle carriage on Metrolink

Whilst I am not sure about the promotion of cycling being particularly important in relation to the actual provision of infrastructure, it is nice to see a reasonable number of people asked for more cycle infrastructure. I hope enough of them added the condition that it should at least meet existing minimum design standards, or be based on best practise from The Netherlands etc. It does seem a shame however, that there is little attention from those who read the proposal on the issues affecting walking.

Further along the document comes the aforementioned organisational responses:

British Cycling highlighted:


The link between health and the economy

The potential for 20mph enforcement in residential areas

British Cycling is mainly the regulatory body for cycling sport, but it is nice to see them weighing in on the LTP3. Oddly however, there is no mention of dedicated cycle infrastructure based on best practise from The Netherlands and Denmark, those similarly developed countries where cycling has a much higher modal share than the UK.

Cyclists Touring Club (CTC) highlighted: 

The need to specifically include cycling in the LTP ‘Vision’

The impact of ‘safety in numbers’ in promoting cycling

Potential greater emphasis on the carbon benefits of cycling

The importance of consistent safety levels across the whole road network

The potential for 20 mph as default speed in residential areas

The need to provide parking at other major (non public transport) destinations

The potential for the carriage of bikes on trams

The need to increase capacity on trains

A general call for more resources for cycling

Unlike British Cycling, the CTC describes itself as “As the UK’s National Cyclists’ Organisation,” and is not focussed as strongly on sport cycling as British Cycling is. Most of the points raised are completely valid. Oddly however, there is no mention of dedicated cycle infrastructure based on best practise from The Netherlands and Denmark, those similarly developed countries where cycling has a much higher modal share than the UK.

GM Cycling Campaign highlighted:



The potential for more focus on reducing need to travel
The potential for further commitment on alternative fuel sources for buses

The potential for cycle carriage on buses and Metrolink

A request for more detail on cycle parking at stations

The potential to charge for car park & ride

The potential for 20mph as a default position in residential area

From the GMCC site; “The Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign is a voluntary group working to make cycling in Greater Manchester quicker, safer, easier and more enjoyable. The group wants more people to use bicycles - or other kinds of human powered vehicle - for transport and leisure. And it represents and empowers people who do this.” Oddly however, there is no mention of dedicated cycle infrastructure based on best practise from The Netherlands and Denmark, those similarly developed countries where cycling has a much higher modal share than the UK.

Collective input from a convened group of deaf/hard of hearing representatives highlighted: 

Training areas for bus drivers

The importance of segregating spaces for cycles and pedestrians
A request for further accessibility both on trams and at tram stops.

Specific  views  on  the orientation  and  regulation  of  pedestrian  (green  man)
crossing signals

The importance of addressing deaf people’s information requirement

The only definitive reference to segregation of cycles comes not from one of the three cyclists’ organisations who responded, but for a groups of representatives for the deaf or heard of hearing. Even then, understandably their focus is segregating cyclists from pedestrians rather than other traffic, due to the inevitable problems caused by “shared use” to those who are deaf/hard of hearing (and presumably also the blind too).

Trafford Youth Cabinet highlighted: 

A suggestion for reduced fares on short bus journeys / school bus services and a
general need for more simplified fares across the system

The need for more double tram units

Support for more cycle lanes needed and later cycling proficiency

I had not heard of Trafford Youth Cabinet before, but their site described them as “Representatives of the children and young people of Trafford.”  Its members are aged 11-19. They are also not a dedicated cyclists’ organisation, but they can see the need for dedicated cycle infrastructure and they correctly see this as being more important than cycle training

University of Salford highlighted:

The need for links to Mediacity/Salford Quays from the Salford Crescent area

The potential for safe cycle routes from the university area

Whilst “safe” is open to interpretation, I would interpret this is alluding to segregated away from motor traffic.

These are the main organisational responses which relate to cycling. British Cycling, the CTC and the GMCC all failed to mention the only thing which has been shown to be successful in promoting mass cycling in similarly developed parts of the world; dedicated, segregated where needed cycle infrastructure.

Personally, as a cyclist, I feel that my needs and the needs of the wider community of existing (and importantly the many more potential) cyclists has been utterly failed by the fact that these organisations, which claim to represent cyclists’ interests, have chosen to ignore the successes of other great cycling nations. Instead they have chosen to stick to the same basic strategies which have failed to deliver mass cycling in the UK for decades.

And yes, I am aware of how much I sound like Freewheeler right now.

A Modern Clement Attlee

Winston Churchill is widely regarded to be a national hero, and rightly so. Through his leadership the UK survived the biggest threat to its very existence for centuries, and years earlier he abolished road tax too. During those dark and dangerous times, he called for unity, and set up a coalition government, with the Labour party leader Clement Attlee as Deputy Prime Minister. Most people, of all political persuasions, were grateful for his leadership during the Second World War and the service he did his country.

After the War in Europe was over in 1945, elections were held again, and the people voted not for the man who had defended them so well during the time of war, but for the man they hoped would lead them differently during the new time of peace; Clement Attlee. The war was over, and so was the need for unity in the House of Commons. I write this because Clement Attlee is one of my favourite politicians (just read the Wikipedia article on him), but also because I was reminded of this bit of history when reading several posts by Carlton Reid.

Amongst the other points made in his posts; the issues with which are largely discussed in the comments, there is a theme that he believes it is more important for cycle campaigning to be unified than it is for a new organisation; such as The Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, to exist to represent the beliefs of its members. His argument is that we are stronger as a unified force (even if many of us no longer feel adequately represented by existing campaigns such as the CTC) than we are if divided.

Cycling in the UK has seen some dark days, with modal share plummeting with the rise of mass car ownership and the simultaneous lack of investment in cycle infrastructure. The CTC and other existing organisations defended cycling through some of its darkest days, and I and many others truly appreciate this. If this were 1985, I might find myself agreeing with Carlton and saying that we need to remain unified. However, it is not 1985, times have changed and cycling in the UK has been through its darkest days and is coming out of the other side. We are starting to see the very beginnings of a recovery in our towns and cities, and a desire from the population to use the bicycle for transportation, with fear of traffic being the number one factor deterring them, a real desire for Dutch-style infrastructure and the organisation which is supposed to speak for cyclists listing this option amongst the least desirable in their Hierarchy of Provision.

Just as the man who got us through the biggest threat to our existence in centuries isn’t necessarily the man we want to lead us into a hopeful new era of peace, the campaign which protected cycling during its decline doesn’t necessarily represent the needs of those who cycle and those who want to cycle now we are presented with a real chance for a resurgence. In the end, Churchill lost the 1945 election to Clement Attlee, but this does not diminish his achievements in the eyes of the British public, just as the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain does not diminish those achievements of the CTC. There may have been a time for unity within the cycle campaign community, but that time is coming to an end. Many of us feel that the time is right for a change.

This, Carlton, is why I feel we need The Cycling Embassy of Great Britain.

Attempted Assault Follow-up

As I discussed in a previous post, a group of men in a white Nissan Micra (V688 KWW, just so you know who to look out for) deliberately drove at me and later got out of the car and attempted to assault me. I gave a statement to the Greater Manchester Police and gave them the registration. I was informed that even though I had managed to avoid their attempts to harm me, the incident was still classified as assault, that they would investigate further and keep me informed. After a week or so I was told that they had submitted an order to the registered owner of the vehicle to inform them within a certain period of time who was driving the vehicle at the time of the assault, with a standard fine being given for not replying. A few days ago I received a letter from the Police informing me that all lines of enquiry have been exhausted and the case is being closed.

So, in conclusion a group of men, including one who is traceable by his vehicle registration, go unpunished for an unprovoked assault, whilst a fairly large amount of my time has been wasted in an attempt to get something done about it. If the situation were to arise again I think I might take a different approach in dealing with it.

Integration vs Segregation

If you are new to cycling (or at least to the politics surrounding cycling in the UK), you may be unaware of the two major schools of thought regarding cycling’s place as part of the wider transport spectrum; integration and segregation.

Integration is more commonly referred to as vehicular cycling. The ideal behind vehicular cycling is that bicycles are vehicles like any other, and that they belong on the road (with the exception of motorways). Segregation sees bicycle users as more vulnerable than other road users such as cars and buses, and strives for separate infrastructure to be provided for them (to varying degrees depending on the road environment). Most existing cycling campaigns focus on a vehicular approach to encouraging the uptake of cycling (CTC, LCC etc). Fewer campaigns focus on a segregation approach (The Cycling Embassy of Great Britain is the only one I can think of on a national level, Sustrans also believe in providing off-road facilities, but with a primarily recreational focus). I genuinely believe that campaigners from both schools of thought want to make conditions for cyclists better, and wish to encourage the uptake of cycling by more people.

Integration:

The main focus of vehicular (integration) cycling campaigns are as follows:

1. Reducing (non-cycle) traffic volume
2. Reducing traffic speed
3. Improving driver behaviour through educational campaigns
4. Vehicular cycling training for cyclists

Reducing traffic volume is commonly done by either reducing road capacity, increasing the cost of driving or making driving less convenient. Reducing road capacity whilst maintaining the current vehicular cycling approach means reducing the capacity for cycles as well as cars, HGS and buses. This approach is not really feasible for a vehicular cycling approach because it will inevitably lead to greater conflict between cyclists and other road users. Making driving less convenient by instigating circuitous routes in dense urban locations is also going to make vehicular cycling less convenient. Increasing the cost of driving would reduce motor vehicle traffic and improve conditions for cyclists, but it is politically difficult to achieve any meaningful results from this policy.

Reducing traffic speed is commonly done by narrowing the carriageway (either with kerbs or with white lines). The white lines method of reducing traffic speed is how many of the UK’s existing awful cycle lanes were actually created; their primary purpose is traffic calming, the bicycle lane aspect is more of an afterthought. In a vehicular cycling approach, reducing the width of the carriageway is undesirable because it brings cyclists into conflict with other road users. Another option is to keep the road width but reduce the existing speed limit. The problem with this is that the width of the road has a psychological effect on drivers’ perceptions, making them feel safe to travel at higher speeds. Enforcement through speed cameras can help keep drivers in line with the lower speed limit, but they are costly, politically unpopular and drivers commonly flout the law during the stretches between speed cameras.

Improving driver behaviour through educational campaigns is difficult. New drivers can have their behaviour modified during the examination and licensing procedure. Existing drivers are hard to reach, due to the lack of regular re-examination of existing drivers at present. The main problem with this kind of educational campaign is that it requires the driver to consciously modify their behaviour, and to do so solely for the benefit of someone else (the cyclist), someone they don’t know.

Vehicular cycling training is beneficial to many, helping to equip them with the skills they need to survive on the roads as they presently are. It does seem like a counter-intuitive way to encourage cycling though, riding a bike is something which should be as easy as riding a bike. The very fact that vehicular cycling campaigns feel there is a need to train cyclists how to survive on the roads seems to underscore the fact that there is something very wrong with our roads as they are.

Segregation:

The main focus of segregation cycling campaigns are as follows:

1. Providing cyclists with dedicated safe, convenient and direct infrastructure
2. Reducing (non-cycle) traffic volume
3. Improving driver behaviour (such as speed) through infrastructure

Dedicated cycle infrastructure consisting of lanes separated from other traffic, providing direct and convenient routes has been shown to encourage mass uptake of cycling in other countries with a similar level of development to the UK (including The Netherlands and Denmark), including places with  similar old town/city layouts as seen in the UK. The infrastructure is provided by re-allocating road space away from motorised traffic, which also has the benefit of encouraging cycling indirectly by deterring driving.

On smaller roads, or roads where separate cycle infrastructure cannot feasibly be provided, traffic volumes are reduced through the use of one-way streets with exemptions for cyclists, sending motorised traffic along inconvenient circuitous routes whilst still providing cyclists with a direct and convenient route through.

Driver behaviour is modified on an unconscious level through infrastructural changes. Narrow roads do not bring cyclists into conflict with other road users when they are provided with a separate lane, but still have the effect of slowing other traffic. This allows conditions for those on foot to be improved (by reducing motor traffic speed) without making cycling inconvenient or undesirable at the same time. Narrowing the width of the connections between side roads and main roads makes drivers turn into and out of side roads at a lower speed, reducing the possibility of conflict with cycle lanes as they cross side roads (with right of way given to the cycle road). There are many other small infrastructural tricks like this used in segregated cycling cultures.

Conclusions:

Vehicular cycling used to be a successful strategy in the UK in the era before mass car ownership, because the conditions vehicular cycling campaigners now strive for were largely intact at the time. In the time since the era of mass car ownership began, only segregation has been demonstrated to be able to bring about mass cycling, as demonstrated in The Netherlands and Denmark.

If ideal vehicular cycling conditions could be  produced, I do believe that many more people could be encouraged to cycle. However, I do not see any viable way that these conditions could be brought about; pricing people out of their cars without the subjective safety of cycling infrastructure as an alternative is not going to be at all popular politically. Generally, people don’t like feeling like they are being forced to do something.

Without being able to use inconvenient, circuitous routes or road capacity reduction to bring down (non-cycle) traffic volumes, and you can’t use carriageway width reduction to reduce speed, if you somehow still did manage to produce ideal conditions for vehicular cycling, you’d have also created ideal conditions for driving too.

And as has already been demonstrated by history, if you create ideal conditions for driving, you end up in the sort of mess we’re in now.

Northern Ireland Cycling Ban

Or as you may have heard it reported, Northern Ireland compulsory helmet law proposal. Referring to it as a cycling ban may seem a bit melodramatic, but all you need to do is look to other countries where similar laws have been enacted. All of them suffered a massive drop in the rates of cycling as people chose other modes of transport where their freedom was less impinged accompanied by no change in head injury rates.

Cycling rates in Northern Ireland will drop if the law is enacted, and those who used to cycle will move to other forms of transport, mainly the car. More cars will degrade the living standards for everyone in Northern Ireland, through pollution, congestion and increased risk of injury on the roads.

Many of you may think, “That’s Northern Ireland, it doesn’t affect me here in England/Scotland/Wales.” Sadly however, it does affect everyone in the UK. Most simply put, if you want to visit Northern Ireland or are sent there for work, you can not longer cycle there without wearing a plastic hat. All of the wider benefits to society which come from increasing cycling rates work in reverse when you actively decrease cycling rates. For example, the healthcare costs will increase in Northern Ireland, both through sedentary health conditions due to the reduction in cycling, and increases in road casualties and air pollution illnesses. Everyone in the UK pays towards that.

The cycling ban is a terrifying step backwards for the revival of the bicycle as transport in the UK, placing responsibility for road safety squarely on the shoulders of the victims whilst cheerfully ignoring the root cause. It is an assault on the freedom of the people of Northern Ireland (and Great Britain too)  and the embodiment of everything which is wrong with policymaking in the UK as a whole.

Dear Government

Whilst I am a firm believer in cycling being an ideal way for ordinary people to get from A to B, the various governments of the UK have either neglected or suppressed cycling over the past few decades. Promoting cycling to individuals as “green,” or “healthy,” is of limited value, most people simply choose the path of least resistance when deciding how to get from A to B. The various governments I have mentioned have gone to extraordinary lengths and spent extraordinary amounts of tax money on making the car the path of least resistance for most people. Promoting cycling rather than ignoring or suppressing it is good for the government.

1) Congestion: Every British government spends billions on increasing road capacity for motorists, either by building new roads, widening existing roads or implementing ridiculous computerised “traffic smoothing” programs into traffic light systems. The end result is always just a greater volume of congestion. Transport demand is a fluid thing, if you don’t increase road capacity then people will choose another method of getting around. If you increase rail capacity, more people will travel by rail, if you build Dutch-style segregated infrastructure more people will travel by bike. All the road widening and “traffic smoothing” in the world won’t solve the issue of congestion when people are encouraged to travel everywhere in a single-occupant living-room-on-wheels. Cycle infrastructure and rail investment will.

2) Health care: Whilst transport isn’t paid for out of the NHS pot of gold, the current transport system takes a huge amount out of it. Around 3,000 people a year are killed by motorised transport and another 27,000 are maimed. The cost of their care is paid by the NHS which is paid for by the same taxes which pay for transport infrastructure. A further 50,000 premature deaths a year are caused by air pollution, chiefly produced by personal motor vehicles, which costs even more money. Most British citizens do not get as much exercise as their bodies need, leading to expensive medical complications later in life. By making it easier and more pleasant to cycle and walk, fewer British citizens will choose to drive. Fewer drivers means fewer road deaths, injuries and lower air pollution. More walking and cycling will increase the amount of exercise each citizen gets on average. This is an ideal way to exercise because it forms an ordinary part of peoples’ lives rather than being a conscious decision like using a gym. Regular exercise will also reduce the average spend per citizen on conditions such as depression and reduce their economic burden. The reduction in congestion will reduce ambulance (and fire/police) response times. All of these things will reduce the cost of the NHS in the long run and save money.

3) Foreign Policy: The rate of consumption of oil by the UK is staggeringly high, yet we produce almost none domestically. Purchasing oil from overseas is costly, requiring the government to deal with and support undesirable governments who commit human rights abuses or are corrupt. The military cost of propping up these regimes, or replacing them with more friendly ones is huge, and politically damaging for governments. Purchasing oil from overseas creates economic problems with trade deficits as well. Encouraging walking and cycling through infrastructure will reduce our consumption of oil and reduce our dependency on undesirable governments and the political fallout of doing so, whilst also reducing our trade deficits.

4) Environment: In order to minimise the effects of man-made climate change, we need to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. Transport is a major source of these emissions, and reducing personal car usage will make a much bigger impact than electrifying the current fleet will. Electric cars are not environmentally friendly. Electrified railways and bicycles are.

5) Miscellaneous: Cars are expensive, most are produced overseas. Reducing our consumption of cars with pro-cycling, walking and rail investment will help balance our trade with car-manufacturing countries. The same infrastructural investment is a viable alternative to spending £5,000 per car in subsidy on electric vehicles. Reducing the volume and speed of motorised traffic will bring numerous social benefits, including parents feeling safe allowing their children to play outside and travel on their own as previous generations did. Building, maintaining and staffing new cycling, walking and rail infrastructure will create jobs. Bicycle traffic is much less destructive to road surfaces, swapping a lot of car journeys for bike journeys will reduce the road maintenance bill.

Most of what is written here may seem very obvious. I write it because despite the obviousness of it all, successive governments continue to ignore or suppress cycling whilst subsidising private car travel. The list of benefits to investing in cycle infrastructure are too many and too significant to be ignored.

Cycling Embassy of Great Britain

As many of you may remember, Cycling England is to be axed in the bonfire of the Quangos. Cycling England was not particularly effective at what it was supposed to do (obviously), but its closure means that the existing meagre cycling funding will be reduced further by being made into a “Sustainable Travel” fund whose use is allocated by local authorities. I expect that much of this money will be used for things like road widening and pot-hole filling justified by some ridiculous environmental spin.

Some expect that the CTC will move in to fill the void left by Cycling England. This comes with problems too, the CTC is committed to vehicular cycling and promotion of a sport-centric view of cycling which is destructive to mass cycling. Thankfully, Jim from the Lo Fidelity Bicycle Club is championing a new organisation:

“An Embassy, free from the burden of history, legacy and ties, created to work in partnership with fellow organisations and charities in Great Britain, mainland Europe and around the World trading ideas and experiences in how to promote cycling and make cycling infrastructure work in urban and rural contexts.”

Unlike the existing cycling organisations, The Cycling Embassy of Great Britain is not committed to vehicular cycling, sport-cycling and the status quo but aims to represent the interests of everyday citizen cyclists like many of you who read this blog, including Dutch-style infrastructure. The site is currently very new but I urge all of you to sign up and spread the word.

Britain Bike

This is an idea which has been forming for a while, hopefully by putting it on here it might find its way to someone with the power and resources to implement it (in one form or another).

In Britain most people never cycle, cycling isn’t treated as a viable means of transport, the law doesn’t take the maiming and killing of cyclists by motorists seriously, cycling infrastructure is either absent or dangerously badly designed and the car is king. Naturally this situation needs to change and there are countless other articles describing how mass cycling could be achieved in the UK (the answer is Dutch-style segregated infrastructure), this is an idea for a scheme which could form part of a wider cultural shift away from the car.

The Scheme:

Standardise the bicycle. Personally I like tinkering with my bikes, buying specific parts and installing them myself. Some people even feel the same way about their cars. The overwhelming majority couldn’t care less about this kind of thing. They just want something which works, when it doesn’t work they want to be able to take it somewhere nearby to be fixed and they want a replacement one to use whilst it is being repaired. This is the experience a car provides its user in the UK. You don’t get that experience with a bike in this country, most people who own bikes know how to do a reasonable amount of the mechanical work themselves (or have a close friend/partner to do it for them).

The government should subsidise the cost of the bicycles, the money they spend will be returned many times over by the reduced cost of healthcare, congestion and air quality fines from the EU. To make this easier politically, these bicycles should be made by a British company, for example Pashley. Having a British manufacturer would increase public support, seeing as it is supporting British manufacturing (not to mention the good quality). The bike could be sold by any number of retailers, but at least one would need to be a major national chain, such as Tesco.

The bike could be purchased at Tesco (or another similarly prolific national chain) and any other suppliers who signed up. Because the bike would be standardised, any problems with flat tyres, brakes, wheel bearings or gearing could be solved with a simple wheel-swap. This could be done in-store by someone with minimal training. The defective wheel could be sent to a central repair facility using the supplier’s distribution network, refurbished and sent to where it is needed next. This would cover the majority of common mechanical issues on bikes, anything else could be covered by replacing the whole bike and sending the defective unit back to the repair centre for refurbishment. A courtesy bike would be provided whilst the repairs were being conducted. The cost of these repairs could be covered by a simple monthly subscription (tack on third party insurance too). This would mean that for a small monthly fee you would always have a bike ready to use. A higher rate tariff could be included to cover theft too.

The Bike:

The bike itself would be a practical utilitarian machine, suitable for men and women and available in a few frame sizes. Thing along the lines of the Pashley Princess Sovereign and make it red (like other British icons such as the old phone boxes, London buses and post boxes). This would help give it a chance to become a British style icon, helping the popularity of the scheme. In terms of specification the bike would have standard utilitarian components; drum brakes, dynamo hub powered lights, 5 or 8 speed internal hub gearing, full mudguards, full chaincase, puncture-resistant tyres, a rear rack with a briefcase clip, an adjustable bottle holder, a frame lock, a quality U-lock and a kickstand. As much as I love my Brooks saddle, they do require some looking after which would make them unsuitable for this kind of machine. Ideally when purchasing the bike, it would be possible to select a saddle from a standard range of widths and padding.

All this would require the bike to be kept roughly in its stock configuration. This doesn’t mean the more adventurous couldn’t do their own maintenance and modifications, just that they would not be able to use the maintenance subscription. The subsidy would make these bikes attractively cheap, the standardisation and subscription model would remove any concerns about theft, maintenance and the offer of a courtesy bike would alleviate any concerns about being able to depend on a bike as a serious means of transport.

Opening cycling up to more people this way would make it politically easier to get all the other stuff we current cyclists want to see, such as infrastructure which doesn’t suck, better enforcement of laws protecting cyclists and acceptance of the EU fifth motoring directive.

What do you think? If you have any suggestions for refinement, different component choices or pitfalls, please leave a comment below.

This is actually the ladies’ version of the Raleigh Tourist De Luxe, but is a good starting point.

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.

Canadian Road “Justice”

Another gem has been brought to my attention today via Copenhagenize.  Today is it the site Road ‘Justice’ a Canadian site which is almost a parody of the type of motorist we all encounter from time to time, the type of motorist who is often pandered to by foolish politicians such as Philip Hammond and by articles written in the Carnival of Indignant Windy Bell-Ends.  Rather than just write about it here, I decided to write to the site owner and congratulate them for their painfully accurate lampooning of this particular viewpoint:

Dear Sir,

This site is a brilliant, painfully spot on parody of the sort indignant and self-righteous motorist we have all encountered from time to time.  I love the standard clichés about "More bicycle trails and fewer bicycle lanes," which this kind of ill-informed motor-centric person often spouts.  I mean it is obvious that these "cycle trails" will either never be built or will not serve any useful transportation need if they are.  I also love the standard line about how bike lanes are "taking away road space from motor vehicles," as if motorised vehicles have exclusive rights to the road. It is depressing how many people believe this is the case, isn't it? I also love the standard fallacy that increasing road capacity will reduce congestion. Sadly we have politicians who end up implementing doomed road widening and traffic flow "improvements," which inevitably just lead to a greater volume of congestion. I mean, nowadays we know that by reducing the capacity for private motor traffic in dense urban areas we can decrease congestion, as it makes more realistic, ethical options such as walking, cycling and public transport become viable, right?

Very clever to cash in on the anti-ethical, anti-environmental sentiment which often runs through the minds of the right-wing, self-centred motorist you parody here.  Some people seem to really resent that others may have made a transport choice which is better for everyone, in a multitude of ways, almost to the point of seeing it as a personal attack on them and their lifestyle choice. 

The whole helmet thing is pure gold too, after all most careless drivers don't believe that they should have any duty of care to not kill people when driving their fast, dangerous, heavy vehicles around inappropriate, dense urban locations.  They often believe it is the cyclists' duty to be as defensive as possible, making every concession to their wholly inappropriate choice of city transport.  The captions of the photographs capture this ignorant sentiment perfectly.

You seem to have the whole angry, self-important, militant and simple-minded motorists' viewpoint satirised here very well. I can't help but worry that some people might take the site at face value, maybe you should be even less subtle in your clever lampooning of this viewpoint.

Yours Sincerely,

[Douchebag]

I wonder if I will get a reply…

Democracy fails in Toronto

Brought to my attention courtesy of Copenhagenize. This idiot is the new mayor of Toronto. In this video he makes his ignorance obvious to all. Luckily we aren't yet at this stage here in the UK, but worryingly we aren't that far away from it either. I have heard of similar comments being made by Conservative councillors.

Cambridge Trip

As many of you may have noticed from an earlier post of mine, I have recently been to visit a friend in Cambridge. Whilst I was there I was shocked at how prevalent the bicycle was as a means of transport. Based on what I saw I'd guess a modal share of 10-12% which is unprecedented in the UK of the 21st century. This is despite a lack of any real pro-cycling intervention, sure there are painted cycle lanes and ASLs as in Manchester, but there is no proper infrastructure. The main differences are that everyone cycles, so motorists expect to see cyclists more and there is more cycle parking around because of the demand. The popularity of cycling in Cambridge could be due to the affluent university culture, or perhaps due to the number of historical buildings which have prevented the spread of car-centric traffic planning such as the wide, fast modern roads you see in Manchester.

Pairs of bicycles locked together in gardens and outside terraced houses are a common sight in Cambridge.

Traditional English roadsters from the era of rod-brakes are a very common sight.

Every available object is covered with locked bikes. Bikes left leaning against walls and locked through their frame were also a very common sight.

Pashley bicycles are very popular in Cambridge, although the Princess outnumbers the Roadster by around ten-to-one.



The Raleigh Twenty is also very popular here. Cambridge definitely has the highest usage of internal hub hears and mudguards I have seen in the UK, which is odd considering the reputation the UK has for its lack of rainfall.

Obligatory touristy photographs.

Re-assuringly, Cambridge isn't all picturesque.

What I have learned from looking around Cambridge is that you don't necessarily need to invest in cycle infrastructure to get people cycling. It can also be done by not increasing the capacity of motorised traffic the roads can accommodate, making it a pain to drive. people will see that there are better options and take them. People always say that cycling could be a lot bigger if there was the political will to build things such as segregated Dutch-style infrastructure. The political will to do this is always absent. Cycling can also be encouraged by doing nothing to increase road capacity or traffic flow, letting motorists create gridlock and subsequently finding a better way to get around. There isn't the political will to do a lot of things which would make life better, but I genuinely believe that there might just be the political will out there to do nothing to make it better.

Egalitarian Bicycles

In 1896 Susan B. Anthony said, “The bicycle has done more for the emancipation of women than anything else in the world.”  She was most likely referring to the pneumatic-tyred,“Safety bicycle,” the design of which is the template for almost all modern bikes.  The “Ordinary,” bicycle now commonly referred to as a penny-farthing, was considered too dangerous for ladies to ride at the time.  Large-wheeled tricycles existed before the safety bicycle designed for women, but these were not practical utilitarian machines and at the time bicycles in general were used as toys by the affluent, or as an example of conspicuous consumption nowadays more commonly expressed through expensive cars.

Unwieldy women’s tricycle (above) and amongst penny-farthings (Below).

With the advent of the safety bicycle and the continued fall in the price of bicycles, women could ride a much more practical and utilitarian machine whilst still keeping their legs covered by a skirt.  The popularity of the safety bicycle with women brought in a new era of practical attire, a newfound level of personal mobility and the freedom it provided.  The men of the time were not all happy about this, it was feared that the bicycle “Would disrupt the delicate sphere of the family unit by allowing the woman to travel beyond her previous limits without the surveillance of a knowing husband nearby.” 

Nowadays it is hard to imagine that this was still going on as recently as the time the safety bicycle was introduced.  It is definitely worth remembering the egalitarian effect the safety bicycle had.