Costing the Earth Cycle City Radio 4

[Pete Owens]

Farcilities will feature on Costing the Earth (R4 15:30 this afternoon):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05qgch5

[maxcherry]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05qgch5

On Air Now Programmes Start Time 15:30 - End Time 16:00
Costing the EarthCycle City

Tom Heap saddles up to find out if Britain is really about to become a nation of cyclists.


I don't view cycle as a 'middle class white male' experience. Wish they would stop using that term. I do agree that Birmingham
is blooming dangerous although i wouldn't class it as more dangerous than London.

[mjr]

Now available as easy MP3 download at http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/costearth

On a similar note http://thebikeshow.net/bike-boom-what-bike-boom/ which I think concluded that basically it's an uneven boom and wait and see if it becomes a real boom.

[reohn2]

Thanks for your input on the program Pete.
I fear cycling provision is being concentrated on the capital and sooner or later the rest of the country's cyclists will be shepherded onto 3rd rate farcilities by law at some point .

[mjr]

Cycleways must always be optional, else it further reduces the already-apparently-often-insufficient incentives for designers to make good ones. (Edited to remove administrivia)

[mjr]

Listened to it while at lunch. I was very disappointed by Pete Owens taking cheap shots at cycleways and misdescribing what he opposes. Is it really likely that the new cycling superhighways will look like a badly-designed broken red paint surface in Warrington after a few years? That was a silly, very cheap shot, as was the bus stop one. Floating bus stops basically solved the bus queue problem ages ago, but most designers still aren't using them - is it partly because some people want to use it on the radio as an amusing argument against cycleways rather than mention a solution? And I said a very rude word when Poynton was visited - is there objective evidence about that place yet, or just marketing and anecdotes?

Then there was the usual big misrepresentation of "the whole philosophy of segregation is that roads are for cars so let's design them exclusively for cars" which is wrong in at least two ways - most importantly, the philsophy of adding demotorised spaces to roads is that roads are for everyone but motorists have shown themselves untrustworthy so we must not just leave motor vehicles to roam Poynton-style else they will soon take the whole road in most places.

However, I do agree that citywide 20mph limits are the biggest, quickest gain and that places outside London aren't willing to tackle the root causes yet.

[blackbike]

I don't view cycle as a 'middle class white male' experience.

[/quote]

From 30 odd years of work and membership of various cycling clubs and groups, I do.

But even the vast majority of white, middle class males in the country have no interest in cycling.

The government has a dismal record of success when it comes to persuading people to take exercise or play sports. Levels of physical activity are falling year on year despite all the initiatives they can dream up. For example, the olympic legacy has been non-existent in encouraging more people to take up a sport.

I see no reason why even well designed and constructed cycling facilities would cause a real increase in cycling as a form of everyday transport. Like the Cycle to Work scheme they'd just make things better for those of us who do cycle.

[bovlomov]

I see no reason why even well designed and constructed cycling facilities would cause a real increase in cycling as a form of everyday transport. Like the Cycle to Work scheme they'd just make things better for those of us who do cycle.

I'm not quite so pessimistic. I can see why well designed and constructed cycling facilities would cause a real increase in cycling as a form of everyday transport, but I think those facilities won't be designed or built. Changing people's habits takes time, and politicians usually can't see that far ahead. ...Unless there are lucrative directorships in the offing, of course. Whatever social benefits cycling might bring, it's unlikely to line anyone's pockets. Not the designers' pockets; not the construction companies', and not the leasing companies' or franchise holders' (mainly because there aren't such things for cycle facilities).

[mjr]

I see no reason why even well designed and constructed cycling facilities would cause a real increase in cycling as a form of everyday transport.

A common factor in many places where people do cycle seems to be that cycling is obvious and easily discoverable. Sometimes that's achieved by visible facilities and routes, and sometimes it's achieved by sheer numbers of riders.

I'm not quite so pessimistic. I can see why well designed and constructed cycling facilities would cause a real increase in cycling as a form of everyday transport, but I think those facilities won't be designed or built.

And that's not pessimistic? There's a big challenge, especially outside of current cycling hotspots, where designers and their bosses seem a bit backwards or uncaring about designing for cyclists and politicians don't really hold them to account for daft cycleways (because the largest effects are years down the line and it's easier to victimise the cycling minority for not using bad infrastructure). But it's possible for us to organise ourselves, keep giving the ever-changing carousel of designers guides like www.makingspaceforcycling.org, learn how to monitor the council works so we can try to change bad designs before they get approved and publicly challenge politicians with the real reasons people aren't using their expensively-provided mistakes.

In time, cycling may line some people's pockets and make some people's names, by reinvigorating struggling high streets and reconnecting disintegrating communities: after all, you see a shop or a friend on a bike, you can pull in and buy or say hi; if you see one in a car (and you probably should be looking at the road too closely to see in through car/shop windows), you usually can't stop without obstructing the highway.

[pjclinch]

The shared space bit...

The thing about it is it does work in some places, but that it doesn't scale to others. This was illustrated to me again last week visiting The Smoke when I walked down Exhibition Road. Down near the South Ken tube it works well... but there's hardly any motor traffic there. Up nearer the museums it's pretty much a standard road and pavements with ever so slightly fuzzier boundaries than normal.

But with a cherry-picking perspective, that it works somewhere "means" it works everywhere, and is The Perfect Solution. Well, up to a point, Lord Copper.

Pete.

[TonyR]

Listened to it while at lunch. I was very disappointed by Pete Owens taking cheap shots at cycleways and misdescribing what he opposes. Is it really likely that the new cycling superhighways will look like a badly-designed broken red paint surface in Warrington after a few years?

From what I've seen of the existing bits of the cycling superhighways, yes, it is very likely. I posted a couple of photos of CS3 in a thread a few days ago. The paint will break up as shown below on CS7 and in many places is painted on top of a poor surface in the first place. My ride along the yet to be converted Embankment that followed was a far better experience.

That was a silly, very cheap shot, as was the bus stop one. Floating bus stops basically solved the bus queue problem ages ago, but most designers still aren't using them - is it partly because some people want to use it on the radio as an amusing argument against cycleways rather than mention a solution?

The bus stop might solve the bus queue problem, although the way buses stack up at bus stops it will probably just put the queue in the bike lane at least some of the time. But it doesn't solve the running for the bus problem - people who are so focussed on catching their bus that they completely forget they have to cross a cycle track to get to it.

Then there was the usual big misrepresentation of "the whole philosophy of segregation is that roads are for cars so let's design them exclusively for cars" which is wrong in at least two ways - most importantly, the philsophy of adding demotorised spaces to roads is that roads are for everyone but motorists have shown themselves untrustworthy so we must not just leave motor vehicles to roam Poynton-style else they will soon take the whole road in most places.

I can't believe if you've tried to ride on the road next to a cycle facility that you haven't experienced the "get on the cycle track" and punishment pass treatment. What I do know is that the increased cyclists on the roads of London has produced a change in driving behaviour - most at least now know to expect cyclists to be there rather than being taken by surprise by one.

[mjr]

Listened to it while at lunch. I was very disappointed by Pete Owens taking cheap shots at cycleways and misdescribing what he opposes. Is it really likely that the new cycling superhighways will look like a badly-designed broken red paint surface in Warrington after a few years?

From what I've seen of the existing bits of the cycling superhighways, yes, it is very likely.

Hang on. Most of the existing ones are superhighways in name only. I'd agree that paint on roads is even worse than paint on paths, with motor traffic eroding it. Cycleways should use coloured asphalt if they're going to be coloured, not paint on top. But Pete Owens is talking against segregation all the way through and the likes of the section you photographed is not segregation in practice, which is why motorists erode it. I thought he was talking about the new ones, but listening to it again, it may have been quoted out of context.

The bus stop might solve the bus queue problem, although the way buses stack up at bus stops it will probably just put the queue in the bike lane at least some of the time. But it doesn't solve the running for the bus problem - people who are so focussed on catching their bus that they completely forget they have to cross a cycle track to get to it.

Like they completely forget if they have to cross a carriageway to get to it? Even so, that'll be less common than the current alternative problem of buses pulling out into cycles on the carriageway, won't it?

I can't believe if you've tried to ride on the road next to a cycle facility that you haven't experienced the "get on the cycle track" and punishment pass treatment.

Of course I have, but I have also experienced similar behaviour where there is no cycle facility at all. Bad drivers don't exactly check whether there's a cycle facility before they abuse a person on a bike.

What I do know is that the increased cyclists on the roads of London has produced a change in driving behaviour - most at least now know to expect cyclists to be there rather than being taken by surprise by one.

Great, but I don't think town-wide pledges to all suddenly Reclaim The Streets or do a daily Critical Mass are likely to happen, so how do we get there in more towns? 20mph is great for contiguous urban areas, as are London-style turn-up-and-ride bike hire schemes, but infrastructure of all sorts can be useful tools too, in the right places.

[blackbike]

If there was a significant number of people willing to take up cycling but just waiting for good facilities then I think we'd have heard a bit more grumbling about the dreadful facilities that have been provided so far.

I have contacted my council a few times over the years about some really bad examples of cycle lanes, lack of enforcement of solid white line cycle lanes and the lack of maintenance of cycle lanes.

It is obvious the council has had few complaints about such matters, and that the highways staff are often unaware that the facilities even exist, never mind aware of the need for enforcement or maintenance.

It seems to me that the government is paying lip service to the green lobby by allotting money to encourage cycling, but are not checking how the money is spent, probably because the general public doesn't really care. In my area the hottest, road related topic is parking costs and anger about parking wardens who give out tickets to people who park illegally. The other hot topic is speed cameras which people object to because they feel it is wrong to be fined for breaking the law.

Some recent cycle lanes and other facilities in my area are at least as bad if not worse than the original lot that suddenly appeared about 15 to 20 years ago, so it is obvious that no lessons are being learned.

[RickH]

If there was a significant number of people willing to take up cycling but just waiting for good facilities then I think we'd have heard a bit more grumbling about the dreadful facilities that have been provided so far.

CTC's latest round up of statistics (a link was posted today on Facebook) includes the following

19. How risky is cycling?

Around 67% of non-cyclists in Britain feel that it is too dangerous for them to cycle on the roads; and very nearly half (48%) of those who do cycle share this view. (ATT Fig. 2.4 PDF)

CTC believes that, unfortunately, the behaviour and attitudes of some road users, sub-standard highway layout and motor traffic volume and speed all conspire to make cycling feel and look more dangerous than it actually is.

Is cycling really that dangerous?

No. In general, cycling in Britain is a relatively safe activity...(link)

I think that people who don't cycle, by and large, have a tendency to think it is too dangerous to cycle so don't and that is the end of the consideration, rather than thinking that if facilities were provided they might do so.

Would decent facilities persuade people in significant numbers to do so? I've really no idea. People need to see some advantage in cycling (speed/convenience/healthy) over other forms of transport and less of the negative ("I'm going to die!!" - even if they aren't very likely to really).

Rick.

[TonyR]

Its worth reading Fear of Cycling by David Horton of Lancaster University. It is an interesting insight into the psychology of why people don't cycle. There is no evidence that building cycle facilities has increased cycling anywhere and University of Leeds research concluded that even if you could have a segregated cycle facility that went everywhere it would only increase cycling by 50% i.e. from 2% to 3% in the UK.

Paying people to cycle had a bigger effect. Which tends to indicate that safety and facilities are an excuse, not a reason, and used to justify a decision already made.