Space for Cycling - the nationwide campaign

[Bill Reynolds]

Oh Dear , yet another campaign coming out of the 'Bright Idea's' department at the club headquarters.... When a local politician shows interest in 'cycling' or whatever he/she wants to appear 'green' but most of all he/she wants your vote! Once the voting is done 'cycling' and 'green' go straight into the bin!...... Need I go on?

[mjr]

Except that this isn't coming from club HQ. It started with local campaigners in one area and has been quite rightly backed by national bodies and other local groups.

Yes, making it stick on the long term will be a challenge but that's always the same.

[reohn2]

Oh Dear , yet another campaign coming out of the 'Bright Idea's' department at the club headquarters.... When a local politician shows interest in 'cycling' or whatever he/she wants to appear 'green' but most of all he/she wants your vote! Once the voting is done 'cycling' and 'green' go straight into the bin!...... Need I go on?

No you don't,you hit the nail squarely on the head.
Who outside of the CTC and some minor minister somewhere knows anything about this 'campaign'?
The CTC was hijacked some time ago and now snuggles up to government for 'quietening money' a toothless dog that's even forgotten how to bark let alone bite!

[mjr]

Who outside of the CTC and some minor minister somewhere knows anything about this 'campaign'?
The CTC was hijacked some time ago and now snuggles up to government for 'quietening money' a toothless dog that's even forgotten how to bark let alone bite!

Well, thousands have already used http://www.space4cycling.org.uk to email their councillors. This isn't going to be a quick win, but I think it's got more legs than most.

This campaign started with London Cycle Campaign and has been supported by other parts of CycleNation and it's good that CTC are backing it too... As I understand it, CTC's involvement is funded by the Bicycle Association's Bike Hub, while CycleNation's is mostly funded by its local commercial partners. This is riders and industry doing it for ourselves... I would be shocked if any of CTC's DfT or Lottery grants were paying for this. I don't think you could get much less "snuggles" than this, so why raise that in this context?

[reohn2]

Who outside of the CTC and some minor minister somewhere knows anything about this 'campaign'?
The CTC was hijacked some time ago and now snuggles up to government for 'quietening money' a toothless dog that's even forgotten how to bark let alone bite!

Well, thousands have already used http://www.space4cycling.org.uk to email their councillors. This isn't going to be a quick win, but I think it's got more legs than most.

This campaign started with London Cycle Campaign and has been supported by other parts of CycleNation and it's good that CTC are backing it too... As I understand it, CTC's involvement is funded by the Bicycle Association's Bike Hub, while CycleNation's is mostly funded by its local commercial partners. This is riders and industry doing it for ourselves... I would be shocked if any of CTC's DfT or Lottery grants were paying for this. I don't think you could get much less "snuggles" than this, so why raise that in this context?

Because I remember the Bedford fiasco,the latest in a long line of well,err long line of.............nothingness without any results.
Which reminds me have the membership been consulted?
And will it be trumpeted as yet another success whatever the outcome?

[Psamathe]

Who outside of the CTC and some minor minister somewhere knows anything about this 'campaign'? :?
The CTC was hijacked some time ago and now snuggles up to government for 'quietening money' a toothless dog that's even forgotten how to bark let alone bite!

Well, thousands have already used http://www.space4cycling.org.uk to email their councillors. This isn't going to be a quick win, but I think it's got more legs than most.

What is needed is real improvements to cycle infrastructure. Getting 1000's of e-mail means nothing (some unfortunates get that much SPAM every day). I think the potential is summed up in the quote from earlier in this thread:

I've just had a response from our Cllr in charge of Highways ...
I'm not sure whether he quite realises what he's declared support for, but I'm happy to hold him to account on that basis ;-)

So he might spill a bit on blue paint on a road and claim success (and thus your votes) and cyclists will be disappointed or even angry about "how he just 'doesn't get it'". But vioforla says "I'm not sure whether he quite realises what he's declared support for". So what can be gained from getting him to "sign-up" other than helping his electioneering PR and angry cycling community. So what do CTC hope to achieve getting Councillors to "sign-up" for vague indeterminate things that neither side is clear about? What does such an agreement achieve ? A better designed, specific campaign that has realistic achievable targets where politicians can know what they are agreeing to (and thus arguing for) and can actually be held to account on a unambiguous achievement/failure.

When a local politician shows interest in 'cycling' or whatever he/she wants to appear 'green' but most of all he/she wants your vote! Once the voting is done 'cycling' and 'green' go straight into the bin!...... Need I go on?

And this campaign provides a fantastic route for Councillors to do what is being asked of them (at least as far as they understand it) but because what is being asked is so vague who can tell if they have done what they may have agreed to or not.

And that's probably why the national campaign is a bit vague... it's got to cope with all the local choices that may be made and the full range of political systems and election timetables. You may see a local version of the campaign if you're somewhere like Newcastle, Manchester or London but other areas like mine aren't ready yet because we're at a different point in the election cycle. Contact your local cyclenation group or CTC campaigner to find out what's happening closer to you.

So if I had joined-in, I would have send my Councillor the generic letter and just say he had got back to me saying "great plan, but what do I do ..." I could have asked for this road to be decently re-surfacesd and maybe a dedicated cycle path there ...", whilst other could have asked for different things and poor willing councillor would have had to just give-up.

And as to what the campaign is for:

...now, let's look at those 6 demands again...

. Whereas the CTC Magazine list only 5 "demands" and the http://space4cycling.ctc.org.uk doesn't list any !!

National campaigns need to have simple, clear, explicit aims to everybody knows have is being campaigned for. How can a national campaign be effective when different areas are using it to campaign for different things, at different times, many areas not wanting to start for a couple of years ...

As a new member (here and of CTC) I was initially surprised at some of the criticism of the CTC on the forum. Seemed justified but still surprising. But this campaign has me asking major questions about the CTC. I strongly believe in joining and contributing to the organisations for your sports/interests, but with this campaign I really am beginning to wonder if I will still be a member of the CTC next year. Which is daft because cycling infrastructure, education, training, etc. needs campaigning for but all explanations of this campaign have made it seem even vaguer and thus dafter than I initially thought.

Ian

[reohn2]

As a new member (here and of CTC) I was initially surprised at some of the criticism of the CTC on the forum. Seemed justified but still surprising. But this campaign has me asking major questions about the CTC. I strongly believe in joining and contributing to the organisations for your sports/interests, but with this campaign I really am beginning to wonder if I will still be a member of the CTC next year. Which is daft because cycling infrastructure, education, training, etc. needs campaigning for but all explanations of this campaign have made it seem even vaguer and thus dafter than I initially thought.

Ian

Some of us long standing members opted out when the CTC went corporate and became a ''charity'' realising the club we knew was no longer.In other word we saw CTC become a ''fund attractor'' and not a cycling club!
But hey ho,at least some are happy with it the way it is

[mjr]

Because I remember the Bedford fiasco,the latest in a long line of well,err long line of.............nothingness without any results.
Which reminds me have the membership been consulted?
And will it be trumpeted as yet another success whatever the outcome?

Now I'm great at looking on the dark side but even I think you're being a bit harsh about results. It's not good enough, but there have been some small good results along the way. Bedford was a fiasco, I understand CycleNation has learned a bit from it and I'm sure they'll feel some warm and firey reminders at next month's AGM.

Speaking for my local group, yes, the membership has been consulted and no, we won't redefine failure as success.

Who outside of the CTC and some minor minister somewhere knows anything about this 'campaign'?
The CTC was hijacked some time ago and now snuggles up to government for 'quietening money' a toothless dog that's even forgotten how to bark let alone bite!

Well, thousands have already used http://www.space4cycling.org.uk to email their councillors. This isn't going to be a quick win, but I think it's got more legs than most.

What is needed is real improvements to cycle infrastructure. Getting 1000's of e-mail means nothing (some unfortunates get that much SPAM every day).

Whoa whoa whoa. I agree that people knowing about the campaign isn't the end result, but I was answering reohn2 asking who knows about the campaign.

I think the potential is summed up in the quote from earlier in this thread:

I've just had a response from our Cllr in charge of Highways ...
I'm not sure whether he quite realises what he's declared support for, but I'm happy to hold him to account on that basis

So he might spill a bit on blue paint on a road and claim success (and thus your votes) and cyclists will be disappointed or even angry about "how he just 'doesn't get it'". But vioforla says "I'm not sure whether he quite realises what he's declared support for". So what can be gained from getting him to "sign-up" other than helping his electioneering PR and angry cycling community. So what do CTC hope to achieve getting Councillors to "sign-up" for vague indeterminate things that neither side is clear about? What does such an agreement achieve ? A better designed, specific campaign that has realistic achievable targets where politicians can know what they are agreeing to (and thus arguing for) and can actually be held to account on a unambiguous achievement/failure.

You'll have to ask CTC or Leeds Cycle Campaign about those particular aspects. My local group is being quite clear that space4cycling is protected space on major roads and junctions; lower speed limits (20+40); more no-through-motors roads; school routes; liveable High Streets; park routes.

It is a balancing act though. If you go too large but specific, you'll get almost no good councillors agreeing to it because they'll see it as a hostage to fortune... if we're not specific enough, we'll hit the problem you describe.

So if I had joined-in, I would have send my Councillor the generic letter and just say he had got back to me saying "great plan, but what do I do ..." I could have asked for this road to be decently re-surfacesd and maybe a dedicated cycle path there ...", whilst other could have asked for different things and poor willing councillor would have had to just give-up.

Well I think the local groups prioritising and delivering the demands one at a time is a key tool in this campaign... in theory a good highways authority would be doing that anyway but nowhere I've seen is... but then as a local group worker, I would say that wouldn't I?

And as to what the campaign is for:

...now, let's look at those 6 demands again...

. Whereas the CTC Magazine list only 5 "demands" and the http://space4cycling.ctc.org.uk doesn't list any !!

Yeah, I feel the CTC Magazine going off-message and dropping one was a mistake. I'd love CTC members to get involved and help make that happen less. http://www.space4cycling.org.uk does list them, but in video form. I'll suggest writing them when I point out another problem I've just noticed, but all my nitpicking seems to be making me about as popular as the plague

National campaigns need to have simple, clear, explicit aims to everybody knows have is being campaigned for. How can a national campaign be effective when different areas are using it to campaign for different things, at different times, many areas not wanting to start for a couple of years ...

Maybe I've been unclear: we're still all campaigning for the same thing at the same time! It's just that the current disgraceful patchwork government approach to cycling infrastructure is reflected in the campaign by different local groups using different tactics at different times. If we try to do a One Size Fits All then we'd hit some of the other more serious problems pointed out above.

[Psamathe]

If we try to do a One Size Fits All then we'd hit some of the other more serious problems pointed out above.

But it is a "one size fits all" campaign. One web site, one video about Jon Snow in London, a one page web site that says nothing. An template letter that does not reflect local campaigns. I have received several e-mails encouraging me to join-in and e-mail my councillor - and had I done so (from the "one-size-fits-all" national web site) then he would not have even been told what the local campaigns were despite being asked to sign-up to them.

Or from a Councillors perspective, (s)he gets my e-mail saying(s)he should sign-up for "Space4Cycling". So (s)he goes to the web sites included in the e-mail and learns about the importance of local bike shops, and other good stuff and says "yep. I can support all that", but (s)he has not even been told what the local real demands are. what would happen if you signed-up for an e.g. mobile phone contract and only got told the important stuff after you had committed and signed - you might be a bit "disappointed".

Maybe a national campaign can accommodate every locality having different "demands" but if it is possible then this campaign is not it.

My local group is being quite clear that space4cycling is protected space on major roads and junctions; lower speed limits (20+40); more no-through-motors roads; school routes; liveable High Streets; park routes.

Whilst I am not involved in my local cycle campaign groups (which may be the same ones as you), I am not convinced about the above list. Very very city centric - something those of living outside cities find a lot these days. But that is probably not relevant to this thread.

Ian

[mjr]

But it is a "one size fits all" campaign. One web site, one video about Jon Snow in London, a one page web site that says nothing. An template letter that does not reflect local campaigns. I have received several e-mails encouraging me to join-in and e-mail my councillor - and had I done so (from the "one-size-fits-all" national web site) then he would not have even been told what the local campaigns were despite being asked to sign-up to them.

Local groups are replacing the template letters as fast as we can and I'm glad you think there's one website because we were rather worried that the joins between all the different areas would show!

I take what you say about the national fallback things being a bit vague and bland. I'll tell CTC but maybe you could too, if you're a member?

My local group is being quite clear that space4cycling is protected space on major roads and junctions; lower speed limits (20+40); more no-through-motors roads; school routes; liveable High Streets; park routes.

Whilst I am not involved in my local cycle campaign groups (which may be the same ones as you), I am not convinced about the above list. Very very city centric - something those of living outside cities find a lot these days. But that is probably not relevant to this thread.

I'm a villager working for a mostly-rural campaign group (only 34% of West Norfolk lives in its three larger towns and I've only one village on the horizon from my window - well actually none today because it's raining) and I feel that list which started in London is still very relevant here: especially protected space on the major road and through its junctions, 40mph on more country lanes (there's grass growing up a single-track road but people are still allowed to hurtle along 60mph unpunished? (well, unless Darwin kicks in) That's madness!) and better routes to the schools serving my village.

This has been questioned before, so I did consult some other group members and they agreed that the list of six still applies generally across our area.

I almost feel that urban areas have it worse. Our rural road layout is basically decades old (from a time when cycling was more popular) with minimal improvements to let motor traffic use it, whereas the towns have been repeatedly changed to increase traffic flow, capacity and average speed, usually to the detriment of anyone not in a motor vehicle. Some of those changes were expensive and there's a bit of reluctance to admit any mistakes...

[stewartpratt]

But it is a "one size fits all" campaign … Maybe a national campaign can accommodate every locality having different "demands" but if it is possible then this campaign is not it.

Thing is, a "one size fits all" campaign is - in many ways - exactly what is needed, for - IMO - two key reasons:

1. By all accounts, one of the main problems in terms of talking to politicians has been one of inconsistent messages. This group, that group, the people who think X/Y/Z are brilliant facilities, the people who think X/Y/Z are dangerous, and so on. A large motive behind Space4Cycling is to have one conversation, one vision which can be explained, one manifesto (if you like) which politicians can mutually understand and discuss. There's a balance to be struck between the specificity of the overall message and the at-the-coalface implementations of it. The application of the overriding principles is for local consideration, but that doesn't diminish the need for those principles.

2. One size can actually fit all. Look at the Netherlands, where the same safe infrastructure is used - voluntarily - by the young, the old, the shopper, the racing cyclist alike. It works. It's safe. And it's good enough that people choose it. If one size didn't fit all, we'd get what we have now: a few hardened enthusiasts mixing it with cars and lorries, and everyone else thrown a sop in the form of useless cycle tracks and shared paths that constantly give way and never really go anywhere. And, as evidenced by the poor rate of cycling in the UK, that doesn't work.

Whilst I am not involved in my local cycle campaign groups (which may be the same ones as you), I am not convinced about the above list. Very very city centric.

Ok, let's take a look at them:

1. Protected space on main roads

The first thing to say here is that I think the CTC have got this one hugely wrong. One word: "on". It should be "alongside". If you say "on", you'll get paint. And paint isn't protected space. Actually, a second word: "main". Should be "". Why exclude minor roads?

Anyway, to your point. Here's an example of a main road and a total lack of protected space on it (there is allocated space on it, but it's a clear example if any were needed that space on the road is inherently not protected).



There are very, very few people who regularly commute by bike on this road. From years of commuting by car on it, I think there are three regular users that I spot over a ~20 mile stretch. However, go a few miles south and there is a stretch alongside which - although sadly not physically protected as such, in that there's no Armco between it and the carriageway - is separated from the carriageway. And that route is popular.

So this one's not city-centric at all. And, if we get the wording right (please, CTC?) then it's really the lion's share of the message.

2. Removing through motor traffic in residential areas

Well, there are more residential areas in cities, of course - but this is hardly inapplicable to smaller towns and villages.

3. Lower speed limits

Surely very relevant to rural areas? Many villages still have 40 or 60 limits along main roads through them, and the roads leading out of them. Surely the dyed-in-the-wool CTCer would love reduced rural limits?

4. Cycle-friendly town centres

Obviously applicable to towns. Not wishing to get hung up on village/town/city semantics, I'd suggest it's clearly not city-centric. (Though it is remarkably vague.)

5. Safe routes to school

We have lots of schools in villages near us. And more in the town. Again, not at all city-centric.

6. Routes through green spaces

Again, I think generally applicable.

Which bit do you see as "very, very city centric" exactly?

Anyway - I'm heartily glad to see CTC supporting Space4Cycling. I would really, really like them to improve the wording, though, to make it crystal clear that paint on the carriage way is not what SPace4Cycling means. I don't believe it's what LCC ever intended the campaign to support and I don't believe paint has been shown to be anything other than redundant at best - and a trap at worst.

[Psamathe]

1. By all accounts, one of the main problems in terms of talking to politicians has been one of inconsistent messages.

So, were I a Councillor who "signed-up" for this, would I be signing-up for your 6 points, the CTC's 5 points or the "demands" still be be issued by a local group? Because, as a politician who needs votes I will be doing the minimum to claim outstanding success whilst ensuring that no motorist votes will be jeopardised by anything.

Which bit do you see as "very, very city centric" exactly?

We also have rural village schools (pretty much in every village and despite quite empty roads, parents who live very locally still drive their kids to school (and drive to collect them). Ignore cycling when they wont even walk.

One of the major issues on the lanes near me is road maintenance. Not only do you have to avoid the potholes but when you report them you end-up having to avoid the repairs as well!. Some roads are no longer practical for cycling the surface has got so bad. So, you can create "Space for Cycling" by maintaining our rural infrastructure to a standard where you don't need an engine to use them. In my cycling on lanes, the speed of cars is really not an issue. What is an issue is driver impatience and lack of understanding about the space bikes take (i.e. more than 2"). No through roads is generally not very practical on rural roads. I'm not saying I disagree with your 6 points (and I'm meaning your 6 points not the CTC's 5 nor the West Norfolk "demands", etc.), rather that there are broader issues many only relevant to specific localities - but the needs of the local areas are not integrated into the national campaign.

Were the campaign just a bit of a waste of time it would not concern me (as I doubt much money is being spent on it). What worries me is that you can only have a limited number of campaigns running at any time. Those supporting this campaign say how it has to be a long term thing. and given you can't have loads of campaigns so this campaign is effectively blocking other more effecting things.

Again, my point, had I e-mailed my Councillor when encouraged to do so from CTC e-mails I got, then he might have done some research to find out about it and had he done the obvious (followed links from the template letter) he would have no idea what it was about, what he was being asked to sign-up to so (if he had any sense) would have said no and ignored subsequent e-mails from others because he had already considered the scheme. So the "national" drivers behind what is actually a lot of local schemes is just not going to work (given the level of organisation, campaign design, whatever) and could even be counter productive e.g. had I used the campaign to lobby my Councillor.

Ian

[mjr]

One of the major issues on the lanes near me is road maintenance. Not only do you have to avoid the potholes but when you report them you end-up having to avoid the repairs as well!. Some roads are no longer practical for cycling the surface has got so bad. So, you can create "Space for Cycling" by maintaining our rural infrastructure to a standard where you don't need an engine to use them.

That's necessary but not sufficient. You can make a country road as smooth as you like, but without the other measures like lower speed limits or discouraging through motor traffic, then you are not creating much space for cycling. It might be very popular with the stereotypical CTC vehicular cyclist but they are a dying breed (sadly) and it won't lead to a cycling resurgence.

In my cycling on lanes, the speed of cars is really not an issue. What is an issue is driver impatience and lack of understanding about the space bikes take (i.e. more than 2"). No through roads is generally not very practical on rural roads. I'm not saying I disagree with your 6 points (and I'm meaning your 6 points not the CTC's 5 nor the West Norfolk "demands", etc.), rather that there are broader issues many only relevant to specific localities - but the needs of the local areas are not integrated into the national campaign.

Let me try to clear this one up: the six points being used in West Norfolk are the same as the ones stewart posted except I think we have "on major routes and junctions" as the end of the first one. I just sometimes phrase them slightly differently when typing, or sometimes I paste from the wrong draft.

I'm not convinced by the phrasing of that first one. I don't think "on" necessarily means paint on the road rather than a lane or track inside the route corridor, plus being alongside wouldn't be appropriate in some cases so that would be equally unhelpful... but if that's the fine detail we're disagreeing about, that's almost a good sign.

Other issues, such as driver behaviour, are for other campaigns. We cannot make one campaign cover everything and that's not really a good idea anyway because different bodies are responsible for different things. We'll continue to support multiple campaigns, such as we're also running a Road Justice one currently pressing police commissioners, MPs and others; plus we have a local Safer Cycling campaign run with a local Safer Neighbourhood Action Partnership. I feel that space4cycling is the best infrastructure campaign we can do right now and I'm disappointed if a CTC member isn't willing to help with it.

[Psamathe]

... and I'm disappointed if a CTC member isn't willing to help with it.

My problem is that, knowing my Councillor, I know that if I support the campaign now it will kill it from his perspective. He will look (and not find) what he is being asked to "sign-up" to. Whilst I would not say I know him, I have dealt with him on a couple of occasions and we seemed to get along well (even though I am not at his end of the political spectrum). Mostly spoken to him (sometimes at length and in person) about planning issues. And he would actually be somebody who really should get on-board with such a campaign (given he is also Chairman of one of the Transport committees for Norfolk County Council as well).

But, given the web stuff for Space4Cycling I would not e-mail him but telephone him for a chat (and there are tricks there as well - like knowing when he will be out and calling then so he will call you back when really convenient (and he does). On the phone, people will often say "Now is fine", hoping you will be gone in 1 min. When somebody calls you back they are more prepared to listen than think about their supper getting cold.

I would love to support the campaign (as I don't disagree with it's aims). But for me (who is concerned about cycle infrastructure) it has taken a reasonable amount of work to find out what the campaign is about (and we've now got to 6 points). You have to think how it is going to look to a politician.

Ian

[PRL]

The first thing to say here is that I think the CTC have got this one hugely wrong. One word: "on". It should be "alongside". If you say "on", you'll get paint. And paint isn't protected space. Actually, a second word: "main". Should be "". Why exclude minor roads?

The generic asks have been devised by LCC. I reckon protected means by more than paint. (Hedgehogs have been used in Seville ) . In Lundun there isn't anywhere to put a cycle track alongside a road without encroaching on footways - and we are trying to make common cause with pedestrians.


Minor roads are assumed to have low speeds / low traffic volume and frankly no space for separate space for cycling. A few bollards in the middle ensures the low traffic volume.