-
I agree but why is so little money or time spent training kids in schools to ride. ?
-
Good question. About 60% of children get cycle training and do learn the skills to ride. We don't see that many riding perhaps because of the perception that riding a bike is riskier than it really is. 'Danger campaigning' doesn't help, nor does the media and nor do some cyclists who dress as if they are going into battle
-
I am going into battle. #nothelping
-
Such a pity that kids who are perfectly capable of riding ten miles (aged 6 or so) have basically nowhere to do so in London. And then we wonder why they get fat. The years between being physically capable of riding 10 miles, and mentally capable of doing Bikeability 2, might pass in the blink of an eye for an adult, but they're a lifetime for the kid - a lifetime in which habits are established, and patterns set for life.
While some skills are certainly needed to use a separate bike network, a lot of it comes down to how much tolerance/expectation other users have towards the least able. On the Dutch networks for example you see very young kids cycling alongside grown ups, and everyone appears to make allowances for them. On quiet roads, cul de saces etc. it is possible to, at least temporarily, establish a high tolerance for the least able.
This an argument for tolerance as much as, if not more, for infrastructure - I have a feeling that in London, even if a segregated bike network were to be built, there'd be some parts of it where the other cyclists at certain times of day would display poor tolerance towards young kids using it. Pedestrians in London can be dicks too, for that matter (try taking the tube with a 3yo at rush hour), but the amount of damage a fat man in a suit can do at walking pace is thankfully limited (although the amount of damage I'll do to him if he knocks my kid over is rather less so).
Tolerance can be achieved by education, engineering or both - I'm more in favour of the latter, filtered permeability used to forcibly establish zones where tolerance for the weak becomes the norm. But it's still an argument for infrastructure in those places where no amount of education can breed the degree of tolerance needed to accommodate the sort of mistakes under-9s will make on a bike.
-
Good take on this issue. Encouraging tolerance through education or design is a good way of putting this.
I suppose we are stuck in a chicken/egg situation since i suspect that were children to take to the roads, drivers would (have to) tolerate them, just like they tolerate wobbly tourists on hire bikes. However there is so much shouting about how dangerous everything is and we couldn't possibly allow children (and grannies?!) to cycle
-
looking at the discussions on twitter, i think the issue is not that anyone thinks that training is contrary to improving infrastructure - i think, in fact, everyone agrees that training is a good idea, whatever the infrastructure - but that some politicians (umm, particularly in hackney..) are claiming that training can be used as a substitute for good infrastructure on main roads. and there we strongly disagree.
training may allow some percentage of the people who wouldn't cycle on the A10, say, to cycle there confidently. but there will still be a big majority who, training or no training, will still feel too scared or uncomfortable to cycle there. the only way to allow them equal access to this road is safe infrastructure.
my sense, also, is you over-emphasise the problem of 'dangerising'. the unfortunate fact is, that if you go out cycling on the streets, however skilfully you cycle, you are inevitably (and swiftly) involved in interactions with aggressive or incompetent drivers that feel dangerous. in most of these an actual collision is avoidable, with skill, but they're unpleasant, and stressful. this is what puts people off, not dangerising. walking, taking the bus, taking the tube, you're never subject to this level of stress. and the best way to help cyclists avoid these kind of incidents is to give them safe, high quality infrastructure. which won't happen if politicians can use training as a fig-leaf for doing nothing...
I was asked this question on twitter which needs more than 139 characters to answer. (This was part of a discussion around the #space4cycling campaign where some people seem to suggest cycle training goes against the idea of creating better infrastructure.)
In an ideal world it would be great if anyone with a low level of riding (or walking) skills could wobble (meander) about anywhere without harm, where people using more harmful modes took responsibility to move in a way that could accommodate low skilled people. This isn't the case of course.
Off road and on a separate cycle network
A degree of skill is required even off-road or on a completely separate cycle system. You/your daughter would need to know how to balance on a bike and to control the bike (starting, stopping, looking around, use gears etc). You would also need to know how to interact with other people in that environment, how to pass them and communicate a change of direction. You and your daughter would have to know some basic rules such as which side of the path to use and to understand who has priority at junctions where the path intersects with another path or a road.Riding on road
Once you have the control skills described above and you/your daughter has the skills to read the speed/distance of vehicles (about age 9/10) you both have the skills to begin riding on the road.You will need to understand priority in various situations from the outset such as when beginning a journey your both will need to know who goes first, you or someone already moving along the road. You will also need to understand where to ride to get seen and how to communicate your intentions to others. Once you both have grasped these principles and have had more experience and gained confidence you should be able to ride on the road. (In current situations you both may need to consider that some other road users may be impatient/distracted and will need to compensate for them)
Riding with your daughter on road
Even if your daughter is too young to read the speed and distance of other road users you may be able to ride with her if you have the skill. If she has good bike control, will follow your instructions you could ride behind her, slightly to her right ensuring other road users pass her wide. Tell her to stop at junctions where you can pull up next to her and ride with her through junctions.Using such techniques could enable you to ride with your daughter even on A-roads riding in bus lanes. Were you (and others) to do this and people got used to seeing kids and parents riding together it would become more acceptable (and reduce the hysterical cries of 'how can people consider riding on roads with buses and lorries') and would become another way of claiming #space4cycling.
The more skills all road users have (up-skilling drivers is even more important that up-skilling cyclists/pedestrians since drivers cause the most harm), the better. Training cyclists gives a rider (you and your daughter) more options to make trips in the current environment and is in no way contrary to improving the infrastructure in our towns.
-
^ Hmmm I suspect advance road skills would help in a lot of conflicts on the road. There are so many clueless and mannerless riders not helping matters or themselves. Yeah there are absolute knuckle draggers with the potential to kill but I see so much stupidity on bikes....
I agree but why is so little money or time spent training kids in schools to ride. ?
I think the question should be: Why has the mayor decided to ignore the scheme he funds. Why has he declined taking up the course himself? Why has he failed to push it in the media?
It's bonkers how few people know instruction exists...
I always strongly advise parents to do [strike] cycle training[/strike] advance road riding* alongside their kids. They'll be able to remind their kids of things they naturally forget in a few days, weeks, months. This way the parent will know when they've 'got it' and will be able to let them cycle on roads with their blessing and faith as opposed to sitting in ignorance, praying they return alive.
It also stops parent giving conflicting information from the course about where and how to ride.- cycle training isn't strictly the correct title for what the course is and hence is potentially off putting to cyclists with some experience.
- cycle training isn't strictly the correct title for what the course is and hence is potentially off putting to cyclists with some experience.
-
Hmmm I suspect advance road skills would help in a lot of conflicts on the road. There are so many clueless and mannerless riders not helping matters or themselves. Yeah there are absolute knuckle draggers with the potential to kill but I see so much stupidity on bikes....
Agree wholeheartedly - and yet, when it comes to people on foot and on bikes, our default position towards stupidity in the public realm - except in those places where, by necessity, movement has to take absolute priority over place (i.e. A-roads) - should be one of accommodation and tolerance. Make room for the weak and the stupid, unless there's a really good reason not to - or unless they're endangering the comfort and safety of others (fast pavement cyclists, I'm looking at you).
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for education and as much of it as possible, but (as a general principle extending far beyond cycle campaigning), it shouldn't be used as an excuse to deny the uneducated reasonably equitable access to public life.
-
no amount of training can prevent this. but kerbs and signals can.
-
I think that car could mount a kerb, and lights won't stop it unless you plan on firing a massive laser at the car.
-
no amount of training can prevent this. but kerbs and signals can.
Don't forget that we're talking about better driver training, too.
-
If wishes were horses, Oliver. Seems like half the drivers I encounter don't have a clue what an ASL box is, most don't know what primary position is or why a cyclist would need to ride in the middle of the road where there's a pinch point or obstruction, plenty haven't got a clue about local speed limits.. you are talking about 40M people, the majority of whom are basically ignorant (not willfully so, just as a matter of fact).
Even if the driving test were massively improved tomorrow (which it won't be - much of society is car-dependent & therefore it is a requirement that the bar to be set low enough for the village idiot and his half-blind, half-senile uncle to get over it), it'd still take 50 years to re-educate the population -- maybe as little as 25 if backed by the massive enforcement and media blitzes that were rolled out to tackle seatbelt non-use and drink driving, but those are simple binary actions - do or do not - behaving considerately around vulnerable road users is more nuanced and complex.
Much better, in my view, to educate through engineering - every last minor road in our towns and cities converted a half-mile-long dead end. Cars have directly caused, what, a quarter-million deaths in this country since 1945 - before you factor in inactivity and air pollution. Take away the through routes in our neighbourhoods for five or ten years - all of them - maybe they can have some back when they've learned to behave.
-
If wishes were horses, Oliver. Seems like half the drivers I encounter don't have a clue what an ASL box is, most don't know what primary position is or why a cyclist would need to ride in the middle of the road where there's a pinch point or obstruction, plenty haven't got a clue about local speed limits.. you are talking about 40M people, the majority of whom are basically ignorant (not willfully so, just as a matter of fact).
Oh, I'm completely with you on that, although you're rather over-estimating the number of drivers in the country. According to this, there were around 35m registered drivers in the country in 2009. Of these, there will be a certain percentage who are not active drivers, although it is impossible to tell how many. Interestingly, only 2.35m drivers living in London hold a license. Many of these drive rarely, as many Londoners only move their car every couple of weeks. (I think at least once per week is recommended, but I don't know very much about cars.) Lack of driving practice is obviously (a strange kind of) problem in itself.
However, I'm not as pessimistic as you are about education.
Even if the driving test were massively improved tomorrow (which it won't be - much of society is car-dependent & therefore it is a requirement that the bar to be set low enough for the village idiot and his half-blind, half-senile uncle to get over it), it'd still take 50 years to re-educate the population -- maybe as little as 25 if backed by the massive enforcement and media blitzes that were rolled out to tackle seatbelt non-use and drink driving, but those are simple binary actions - do or do not - behaving considerately around vulnerable road users is more nuanced and complex.
It certainly needs the right kind of legislative support to get it done, but it would by no means be quite such an arduous task. We do large-scale things all the time; we educate a whole generation at any given time. Educational structures on that scale exist, it's just that the funding isn't there. As a simple possibility, people used to have to renew their driving licences every few years; that they don't have to do this any more is part of the problem. If drivers regularly had to attend refresher courses, driving standards would improve pretty quickly--e.g., you'd be able to remind them of things they regularly get wrong, such as the rules for driving at mini-roundabouts, which are not known to many drivers.
I certainly think that you could make drivers pass a higher quality of driving test, like, for instance, the German test, which wouldn't be rocket science. Yes, you'd get political resistance, but there would be a better educational outcome. It certainly hasn't done levels of driving in Germany any harm to have a better driving test.
It's key to understand just why the driving test in Britain is poor; it's not that the bar is set low (there is still a large amount of stuff to learn), but the problem lies in the way it is examined. Crucially, the British test sets people up to fail through its poor educational methodology. It shouldn't be permitted for candidates to take the test so early on, after so few lessons, as this causes many people cram for it, which is a sure-fire way to forget all the exam content again shortly after passing the exam. Instead, people should spend a longer time at quality learning, so that by the time the exams approach, there is no need for cramming, and they are well-prepared. I'm obviously aware that the British approach to examining is quite deeply ingrained, but it should be changed. Setting people up to fail only causes anxiety and erratic driver behaviour resulting partly from that anxiety. It's baffling that it's considered 'normal' to fail your driving test a couple of times. Some people seem to think that this shows how thorough it is, but all it shows is that candidates are often not adequately prepared.
Much better, in my view, to educate through engineering - every last minor road in our towns and cities converted a half-mile-long dead end. Cars have directly caused, what, a quarter-million deaths in this country since 1945 - before you factor in inactivity and air pollution. Take away the through routes in our neighbourhoods for five or ten years - all of them - maybe they can have some back when they've learned to behave.
Completely with you here, too, I fully support modal filtering, but I'm curious as to why you seem to think that this would somehow be easier than keeping drivers' knowledge up-to-date? While filtering is a pretty cost-effective solution, and cuts out most of the problems, it would still be a mammoth undertaking to do this, and crucially it would (still) lack public support in many places.
Anyway, we obviously have to use different horses for different courses. Both kinds of measures are very worthwhile.
-
As a simple possibility, people used to have to renew their driving licences every few years; that they don't have to do this any more is part of the problem. If drivers regularly had to attend refresher courses, driving standards would improve pretty quickly--e.g., you'd be able to remind them of things they regularly get wrong, such as the rules for driving at mini-roundabouts, which are not known to many drivers.
Not to mention ASZs.. but I think there's a bigger problem here, which is that at the national, as opposed to London, context, car-dependency is at a level where it's politically unacceptable to deny obviously incompetent people access to their own vehicle. On an individual scale, you have people driving despite 12 and in some cases 20+ points on their license, and on a population-wide scale, the DVLA turning a blind eye to the fact that many elderly people are no longer fit to be behind the wheel. It's easier for government to ignore the problem than to provide real alternatives - rural bus services have seen cut after cut.
It's key to understand just why the driving test in Britain is poor; it's not that the bar is set low (there is still a large amount of stuff to learn), but the problem lies in the way it is examined.
This extends to the practical test. Much emphasis on procedural stuff like 3-point turns, reverse parking, emergency stops under clear conditions etc., very little on reading the road, driving psychology or vulnerable road users.
I'm curious as to why you seem to think that this would somehow be easier than keeping drivers' knowledge up-to-date?
Modally filtering every last residential street in Zones 1-4 would cost in the low hundreds of millions - bollards don't cost any more than the ineffective variety of traffic calming (in which category I'd place most speed humps and chicanes). Money isn't the issue.
While filtering is a pretty cost-effective solution, and cuts out most of the problems, it would still be a mammoth undertaking to do this, and crucially it would (still) lack public support in many places.
Then do it where it's popular, and develop the argument elsewhere to make it popular (or at least, popular enough to be implementable - there's no statutory requirement for a majority of residents in favour). It's a good enough idea that it ought to be able to spread - once installed, very few people have ever asked for it to be removed. Even motorists like to live on cul-de-sacs.
I'd like to see the argument for it advanced in terms of mobility rights - along similar lines to the case made for disabled-accessible public transport and workplaces. Public support should not be the deciding factor - a kid who wants to go to the park independently - or a grandmother who'd like to cycle to the shops - has no network where rat-running is left uncontrolled, in the same way that a man in a wheelchair has no network when faced with a flight of steps to catch his train. Yes, removing rat runs makes the motor vehicle network slightly less optimal - but for many people, the other modes have no network at all right now. That's plainly an unjust situation, regardless of whether or not the residents of Street A want a bollard at one end.
I also feel that, in training / education terms, it's right that kids on bikes should mix with cars to some extent - but it's absolutely vital that the traffic be neutered to a point where they can do so with adequate margin for error. That's simply not possible with through-traffic - it's against the driver's own immediate interests to behave calmly and considerately, and all the education in the world isn't going to make the kind of dimwitted, selfish scum who do 40 in a 30 while on their mobile change on that front.
-
I should stress that we pretty much agree on this. In Hackney, where I campaign, we are advancing proposals for quite a lot of modal filtering. I, too, hope that it'll be as popular as you say it is, but years of campaigning experience advise me to be cautious. We'll see.
As for cost, I thought you were advancing this for the whole country. It's certainly easier in London's Zone 1-4, but apart from the actual bollarding or gating (which would cost far less than 'in the low hundreds of millions'), there are other challenges to overcome. The key question is whether it can be achieved without generating more pressure for new road-building.
-
If wishes were horses, Oliver. Seems like half the drivers I encounter don't have a clue what an ASL box is, most don't know what primary position is or why a cyclist would need to ride in the middle of the road where there's a pinch point or obstruction, plenty haven't got a clue about local speed limits.. you are talking about 40M people, the majority of whom are basically ignorant (not willfully so, just as a matter of fact).
Even if the driving test were massively improved tomorrow (which it won't be - much of society is car-dependent & therefore it is a requirement that the bar to be set low enough for the village idiot and his half-blind, half-senile uncle to get over it), it'd still take 50 years to re-educate the population -- maybe as little as 25 if backed by the massive enforcement and media blitzes that were rolled out to tackle seatbelt non-use and drink driving, but those are simple binary actions - do or do not - behaving considerately around vulnerable road users is more nuanced and complex.
Much better, in my view, to educate through engineering - every last minor road in our towns and cities converted a half-mile-long dead end. Cars have directly caused, what, a quarter-million deaths in this country since 1945 - before you factor in inactivity and air pollution. Take away the through routes in our neighbourhoods for five or ten years - all of them - maybe they can have some back when they've learned to behave.
Not sure where you;'re based but after last years tragedy where 6 people lost their lives cycling, the police were cynically out in force (having said for the previous 6 months there was no money for policing). The roads were a lot calmer.
-
Oliver, yes, I'm familiar with how Hackney has gone about things (used to live there some years ago) & I admire what's been achieved already. Here's hoping for a bright future - I think with modal filtering it tends to be more popular after it's built than before? As in, even though people may oppose it in the first place, once it's gone in few ever campaign to have it removed -- I'd be really interested if you have some before/after numbers for any of the Hackney schemes.
Interesting point re road building - typically with rat runs, they don't actually take that much volume, perhaps 10-20% of what's on the "A" roads in many cases, so I don't think there's necessarily much of a capacity issue.. however, it does mean that some of the time drivers will have to spend more time on those A-roads, and that in turn may create pressure to widen them.
On the other hand - at least where I'm campaigning (Croydon), there are so very many car journeys which could be transferred to cycling or other non car modes - TfL's own rather conservative stats suggest 30%+ - that any congestion produced as a result of improved cycling facilities is probably self-limiting. Whether that's true in parts of central London where there seem to be more vans and taxis than cars, I wouldn't like to say.
The numbers I mentioned come from needing a handful of bollards per square mile over a couple of hundred square miles. The actual hardware is cheap, but the design work and legal process not so much.. this all, of course, rather depends on how much of that the authorities deem necessary. It's all too easy for a cynical, incompetent or unwilling LA to blow £20k consulting on a scheme whose actual build cost is a tenth as much, or gold-plate it with expensive and fancy public realm upgrades when a few metres of girder would be just as effective from a cycling point of view.
Not sure where you;'re based but after last years tragedy where 6 people lost their lives cycling, the police were cynically out in force (having said for the previous 6 months there was no money for policing). The roads were a lot calmer.
Yes - was certainly noticeable in central London, but didn't have to go far out for the old bad habits to continue as normal. In Peckham you'd not notice anything had changed.
-
"It's all too easy for a cynical, incompetent or unwilling LA to blow £20k consulting on a scheme whose actual build cost is a tenth as much, or gold-plate it with expensive and fancy public realm upgrades when a few metres of girder would be just as effective from a cycling point of view."
this, repeatedly, this year -
Incidentally, that's not to say I'm anti public realm improvement - there's much to be said for it - but it's far too easy for an LA to claim they've "spent £200k on cycling" delivering one gold-plated scheme, when the same cycling benefit could have been delivered with a handful of cheap bollards & 95% of the money's going on attractive granite paving stones or some such.
-
Oliver, yes, I'm familiar with how Hackney has gone about things (used to live there some years ago) & I admire what's been achieved already. Here's hoping for a bright future - I think with modal filtering it tends to be more popular after it's built than before? As in, even though people may oppose it in the first place, once it's gone in few ever campaign to have it removed -- I'd be really interested if you have some before/after numbers for any of the Hackney schemes.
We don't really have numbers for older schemes, I think. There might be some for Goldsmith's Row, the latest one to go in, but older schemes were done when Hackney was still in the grips of its financial crisis and I don't think monitoring had money spent on it. Hopefully, some monitoring will be done with any new schemes.
As with CPZs, I don't think there's ever been a campaign to get such measures out again after they've been implemented. People sometimes just need to see how good it is after the fact.
Experience of modal filtering elsewhere shows typical reductions of 15-30% of motor traffic. I don't know exact reduction stats for Sevilla, but apparently they got rid of about two thirds of the motor traffic in the old town (inside the ring road) by means of a soft modal filtering scheme (residents, businesses only permissions, no bollards). I don't really read Spanish yet, though, so haven't delved too deeply into what's been written about it.
Interesting point re road building - typically with rat runs, they don't actually take that much volume, perhaps 10-20% of what's on the "A" roads in many cases, so I don't think there's necessarily much of a capacity issue.. however, it does mean that some of the time drivers will have to spend more time on those A-roads, and that in turn may create pressure to widen them.
London-wide, the split of traffic distribution is, very roughly, about 30% TLRN, 30% SRN, 30% local streets. Obviously, it'll vary from area to area. It'll be interesting to see how motor traffic evaporation works out in different cases. Using this crude rule of thumb, I would expect a maximum of 30% motor traffic capacity reduction and accordingly 30% motor traffic evaporation. Needless to say, there would be considerable increases in walking and cycling, and as in some areas filtering must still let buses through, on public transport, too.
On the other hand - at least where I'm campaigning (Croydon), there are so very many car journeys which could be transferred to cycling or other non car modes - TfL's own rather conservative stats suggest 30%+ - that any congestion produced as a result of improved cycling facilities is probably self-limiting. Whether that's true in parts of central London where there seem to be more vans and taxis than cars, I wouldn't like to say.
It's a difficult one. In Inner London, the 'under two miles' figure for car trips is around 40%, whereas in Outer London it is higher at 50%, but much more embedded in the culture there, and I also assume that the 50% may include more 'multi-stop' trips in which someone drives a mile, stops at a shop, drives two miles, stops at a shop, etc. It's all hard to measure.
In Inner London, there is virtually no potential for increasing motor traffic capacity any further, and in fact in some locations it is due to be reduced. In most of Outer London, there's still plenty of potential for motor traffic capacity increases, so wins from filtering might be lost elsewhere (although that is, of course, an abstract measure and the amenity gains in filtered streets would be there to stay).
The numbers I mentioned come from needing a handful of bollards per square mile over a couple of hundred square miles. The actual hardware is cheap, but the design work and legal process not so much.. this all, of course, rather depends on how much of that the authorities deem necessary. It's all too easy for a cynical, incompetent or unwilling LA to blow £20k consulting on a scheme whose actual build cost is a tenth as much, or gold-plate it with expensive and fancy public realm upgrades when a few metres of girder would be just as effective from a cycling point of view.
Well, yes, but it still wouldn't go into 'hundreds of millions' for Zones 1-4. If we assume that filtered cells are on average about as large as a typical electoral ward (although initially some will be smaller), we can assume about 450-500 filtered cells in Zones 1-4 (it would be interesting, but a lot of work, to do a proper count). The usual all-in cost of such schemes would not be more than £100-£150k. I'd say the maximum required would be about £75m, but that most likely it would be a lot less (costs rise all the time, though, for obvious reasons). Firstly, it'll be patchwork implementation just like CPZs, and gradually more people would see the benefits in those patchworked areas and demand them for their areas, too.
I'd definitely be in favour of accounting for attendant public realm upgrades separately. :) In De Beauvoir, they simply dug up the tarmac back in the day and stuck trees and shrubs in. There wasn't even any consideration of cycling then, i.e. no cycle gaps. Better public realm can come later, what's important is the basic function being fulfilled in managing motor traffic. The problem is never motor traffic as such, it's always through motor traffic in inappropriate environments.
Incidentally, that's not to say I'm anti public realm improvement - there's much to be said for it - but it's far too easy for an LA to claim they've "spent £200k on cycling" delivering one gold-plated scheme, when the same cycling benefit could have been delivered with a handful of cheap bollards & 95% of the money's going on attractive granite paving stones or some such.
Absolutely.
-
In Inner London, there is virtually no potential for increasing motor traffic capacity any further, and in fact in some locations it is due to be reduced.
Someone tell Boris...
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/mayor-sets-out-plan-for-22mile-ringroad-tunnel-under-london-9354896.html -
I know ...
falconvitesse
hippy
afh
chameleon
Multi_Grooves
_Leon
dancing james
Oliver Schick-
Post a reply
About
What skill level do I need to ride a bike? Or for my daughter to be safe on the road?
Posted by
@skydancer
I was asked this question on twitter which needs more than 139 characters to answer. (This was part of a discussion around the #space4cycling campaign where some people seem to suggest cycle training goes against the idea of creating better infrastructure.)
In an ideal world it would be great if anyone with a low level of riding (or walking) skills could wobble (meander) about anywhere without harm, where people using more harmful modes took responsibility to move in a way that could accommodate low skilled people. This isn't the case of course.
Off road and on a separate cycle network
A degree of skill is required even off-road or on a completely separate cycle system. You/your daughter would need to know how to balance on a bike and to control the bike (starting, stopping, looking around, use gears etc). You would also need to know how to interact with other people in that environment, how to pass them and communicate a change of direction. You and your daughter would have to know some basic rules such as which side of the path to use and to understand who has priority at junctions where the path intersects with another path or a road.
Riding on road
Once you have the control skills described above and you/your daughter has the skills to read the speed/distance of vehicles (about age 9/10) you both have the skills to begin riding on the road.
You will need to understand priority in various situations from the outset such as when beginning a journey your both will need to know who goes first, you or someone already moving along the road. You will also need to understand where to ride to get seen and how to communicate your intentions to others. Once you both have grasped these principles and have had more experience and gained confidence you should be able to ride on the road. (In current situations you both may need to consider that some other road users may be impatient/distracted and will need to compensate for them)
Riding with your daughter on road
Even if your daughter is too young to read the speed and distance of other road users you may be able to ride with her if you have the skill. If she has good bike control, will follow your instructions you could ride behind her, slightly to her right ensuring other road users pass her wide. Tell her to stop at junctions where you can pull up next to her and ride with her through junctions.
Using such techniques could enable you to ride with your daughter even on A-roads riding in bus lanes. Were you (and others) to do this and people got used to seeing kids and parents riding together it would become more acceptable (and reduce the hysterical cries of 'how can people consider riding on roads with buses and lorries') and would become another way of claiming #space4cycling.
The more skills all road users have (up-skilling drivers is even more important that up-skilling cyclists/pedestrians since drivers cause the most harm), the better. Training cyclists gives a rider (you and your daughter) more options to make trips in the current environment and is in no way contrary to improving the infrastructure in our towns.