What does LCC think about Bikeability and cycle training?

It is strange why they are so extremely against trainers helping people skill up and gain confidence to ride bikes

People just try to make things simple for themselves when they're new to something, so over the years many have set up a supposed opposition between training and 'infrastructure'. This is exaggerated. Partly, it is because people think that either are 'options' for 'increasing cycling'/reducing crashes, i.e. the more you do of the one, the less you can have of the other, and people have different ideas about what increases cycling/reduces crashes.

You have to distinguish more carefully, though. Training is, simply, training--it gives people better skills. To the best of my knowledge, John Forester has never claimed that cycle training necessarily increases cycling levels, although it can of course conceivably be part of a drive towards increasing cycling levels. (You usually find that where tangible changes occurred, they were the result of multiple different measures working together.) The basic idea is just to give people better skills. I think I used to think that cycle training increases cycling, too, so it's something that you just go through at some point.

Part of the history of the controversy is that in his time as a campaigner in California in the 1970s, Forester campaigned against cycle lanes. This was because the idea back then was to introduce legislation to prohibit cycling in the carriageway alongside the cycle lanes where they were built. (In the US, legislation/ordinances can be enacted at federal, state and local level, although I think it varies from state to state.) Forester was primarily concerned with maintaining the freedom to cycle in the carriageway, but the two things were only offered together. His drive for higher skill levels was not in direct opposition to cycle lanes or concomitant to his interest in preventing facility compulsion, it was just a drive for higher skill levels. He's a problematic writer, though, and he often communicates poorly, is heavily polemic, and gets people's goat(s). For instance, he often uses dichotomies like 'competent cycling' vs. 'incompetent cycling on bikeways' and thinks that introduction of 'bikeways' can de-skill people. The real dichotomy is between 'competent' and 'incompetent cycling', so let's not lose sight of that.

I don't think that there's data available on whether 'bikeways' de-skill people or not, and I don't think that this is the primary thing that gets the debate about the drive towards 'better skills' heated. Rather, it's because of the questions of what reduces road danger for cyclists, and because some people fear that somehow a wider take-up of better skills training might create a high 'entry requirement' for cycling, which they in turn fear would reduce cycling levels. More specifically, some people want street use by bike to be more de-skilled. They see this as a virtue, as they think that it reduces the 'entry requirement'.

I suppose this is a little like the Brompton-cycle carriage argument--the existence of Bromptons (and, later, other, similar folders) enabled train companies to cut back space for cycle carriage on trains, as passengers were able to purchase Bromptons and store them in luggage racks. Similarly, you might think, that if skill levels were generally expected to be high, streets would continue to look like they do today, i.e. quite hostile, or get worse, because, to quote an example provided by the Mayor of London, the Elephant and Castle northern roundabout is fine because it's easy to negotiate if you 'keep your wits about you'. (This is actually true, but it's also incredibly unhelpful to the many victims of crashes there and those people who genuinely fear riding through it. It certainly doesn't provide a reason not to re-design the junction, which is horrid.) Later edit: It must be stressed that the Mayor wasn't necessarily talking about better skills here, as he himself has not (to the best of my knowledge) taken cycle training himself and is widely reported to have poor cycling skills. (I've never seen him cycle.)

There's quite a lot wrong with that type of argument. Firstly, there is no evidence that Bromptons in particular contributed to a loss of cycle carriage spaces--rather, it was the gradual loss of guard vans, which used to provide the main cycle carriage space (but only once guards stopped guarding goods in their vans), as old rolling stock was replaced. Secondly, most modern rolling stock contains cycle spaces in passenger areas, whereas rolling stock that was built while there were still guard vans typically doesn't. Likewise, it doesn't follow from advocating training that people suddenly stop caring about good infrastructure. Not only are there many other factors (urban liveability, walking, public transport use) to consider, but cycle campaigners who might also advocate training probably do more work on infrastructure than other areas of campaigning. (The analogy between the two arguments probably doesn't quite work, but perhaps you can see roughly what I mean. We don't want E&Cs and we still want people to have good cycling skills.)

(As a footnote, the existence of folding bikes has undoubtedly contributed to the more recent peak-hour restrictions on carrying full-size bikes on trains.)

There are, of course, debates about what training should be recommended. One of Forester's points (but few read his books--they're hard going) is simply that people, especially adults, should be trained to a level exceeding the competence that has traditionally been taught to children. Some think that the training portrayed in the Dutch videos linked to above is adequate, others don't, and it's certainly interesting to have a debate about the finer points of that.

One key misunderstanding of cycle training is that it's only set up to deal with a problem, i.e. is a bit of a stopgap and only there to correct a negative without being positive in itself. This is wrong. Cycle training essentially aims at increasing people's enjoyment of cycling. It is, of course, not the only way of increasing enjoyment--well-designed streets can greatly help with that, too. To use an image, cycle training aims to increase your enjoyment both by showing you how to avoid falling off your bike when performing an emergency stop (correcting a problem), and by showing you how not to have to perform an emergency stop in the first place (being positive and proactive).

To use another image, there's no opposition between apples and oranges, which both taste good. (Apologies to any apple-haters or orange-haters.) I suppose another objection is that there is only so much funding, and you can only buy so many apples or oranges, but again I'd argue that you need both to achieve progress.

Another thing that some get their knickers in a twist about is that cycle training is for 'vehicular cycling'. Training certainly contains vehicular techniques, but it's actually training for 'effective cycling' (this may not be your word of choice, but it's Forester's), which is a much wider concept that includes a lot more than just 'vehicular' techniques--they're actually only a small subset. As they (especially 'taking the primary position') are partly counter-intuitive, they are the most eye-catching, which probably explains the disproportionate amount of attention they receive and their use as pars/partes pro toto.

'Effective cycling' also includes such simple things as understanding your bike's mechanics and being able to effect repairs. Again, not too many people would probably object to teaching kids how to fix bikes, as many kids obviously love being taught that. Cycle training organisations, by the way, do a lot of work on mechanics, because, once again, they teach much more than just 'vehicular cycling'. Many things identified by Forester as part of 'effective cycling' are simply key life skills.

We also shouldn't forget that vehicular cycling (which means 'riding a bicycle in accordance with the rules for drivers of vehicles'--that is, where you're allowed to and where separate rules for cycle users don't apply or exist) includes such simple and commonsensical things like observing traffic regulations that apply to all vehicles, such as stopping at red traffic signals or giving way to pedestrians at zebra crossings. Naturally, these are things that are taught to Dutch children, too, so they, too, learn 'vehicular cycling' to an extent. As the use of segregated cycle tracks is mandatory in the Netherlands, you can only apply vehicular techniques when you're riding where they don't exist, but one of the first things that just about every Dutch person whom I've met in London in the last two years or so (about two dozen, I think) has been at pains to stress is that so much Dutch cycling takes place in the carriageway, so vehicular cycling skills are clearly important there.

I guess people enjoy a bit of controversy, but at the end of the day, we all want the same--more cycling and fewer crashes involving people on bikes, and all of it done with more enjoyment.

Nice one oliver and may help me understand the why some view me as a cycling facist but what is their beef with you when you focus on infrastructure?

I do maintain tha 1000s of people ride and ride more often and further due to training and definately have more fun and less stress because they claim more space4cycling

Thanks Oliver, very informative, and you made me google pars/partes pro too so all good learning.

The pro segregation lobby must admit its not possible for everyone in London to have a completely segregated route from their home, work and everywhere they want to go. So mingling with motor traffic is inevitable so I don't see why there seems so much focus on either/or instead of both.Oliver points out the two are not mutually exclusive but it appears as though both sides are arguing against each other.

In relation to funding, in the big scheme of things Bikeability funding is but a drop in the ocean, and I don't have any figures but I'm sure the Bikeability funding is dwarfed by the funding needed to deliver the segregation proposals. I don't work in this area but its understandable that those that do may be defensive and protective over their job, and in this penny pinching era its hard not to equate the segregation costs into numbers of cycle trainers, teachers, nurses, whatever. But even the costs of segregation represent a tiny proportion of the overall road budget. And I bet those numbers are tiny when compared to the crazy numbers banded around for other current transport proposals such as HS2 and extra runwaysa/terminals at Heathrow, so its definately possible to fund segregation and training.

Oliver quoted Boris as saying that E&C is fine if you 'keep your wits about you', but the 'or have higher skills' bit was'nt in the quotations so I assume he did'nt say that bit. Is he prepared to do a 'Gummer' and have his love child cycle unattended round E&C? I cycle around E&C roundabout rather than use the E&C CS7 bypass, where I've had more near misses with cyclists coming the other way cutting across at that 90 degree turn than I have with 3 lanes of traffic going in the same direction. But the point is thats me, I cycle quite fast round E&C so the variation in speed between me and the traffic on the roundabout is minimal and by keeping up with traffic its much safer. (Ha! a cyclist using the maintaining traffic flow argument instead of slating it, hell hath frozen over) But we don't all, me inlcuded, cycle like Tony Martin so I totally understand why slower cyclists feels threatened and if we are to encourage people to take up cycling there needs to be an alternative.

Has Boris nailed his colours to the mast in terms of supporting cycle training? Or rather is he prepared to continue to fund cycle training? I'm guessing the tory stance is they'd prefer the 'big society' to pick up the tab for free and rely on the goodwill of volunteers to provide it? If cycling to school uptake has not increased I think its a bit of a stretch to deem Bikability a failure, I've just had a brief look on the website and it does'nt appear to have a stated aim of increasing cycling to school, but rather to increase cycling skills and confidence on todays roads. Also do all schools even have facilities for cyclists? And if the numbers cycling to school are so low, then from a cost perspective the schools may deem investment in bike sheds a low priority and not the best use of their limited funds. If cycle training alone is not enough to coax the masses onto their bikes then other options need looking at and should be welcomed, in addition to, and not instead of sklls training. If large sections of the population are crying out for some segregated roads and it gets them on bikes when they otherwise would'nt consider it, why not?.

While I think its impotant to address competent cycling v incompetent cycling, I don't think the de-skilling argument should be kicked into the long grass, but I look at it from the drivers perspective too, so include competent driving v incompetent driving. Things are being done, when I passed my driving test over 20 years ago there was no mention of other vulnerable road users at all, not that remember anyway, and bus and lorry drivers had no training regarding cyclists, there is clearly much more to be done.
We may not realise it but by loads of us cycling we are training drivers to be better drivers around cyclists. The main thing that gets me annoyed, and would help speed up this 'training' is more drivers actually got appropriate punishment in those horrible instances when cyclists are killed by drivers. Despite all the threads and moans on here about bad driving in London, I think on the whole London drivers are very good around cyclists, simply due to exposure to them in increasing numbers. Similarly I think our country cousins are much better drivers in condtions such as snow, again simply due to greater experience driving in these conditions. Major generalisations I know but they are my observations.

It seems a bit hypocritical for some politicians to bang on about cycle training creating 'high entry requirement for cycling' and to argue about helmet compulsion in the same breath, but lets not get into the helmet debate......but I feel the same for segregation as I do for helmets, pro choice but anti compulsion. I did'nt know that cycling on cycle ways is mandatory in Holland if there is one available. I understand that is not the proposal here, but that makes a big differnce to my support of them, and I think this is a very important point and there needs to be wider awareness of this to avoid the 'get in the cycle lane, thats for you, the road if for us' claims that will inevitably follow unless this is made very clear.

Unfortunately these days having short term deliverable outcomes mirrors the politcial system we have, and Bikability is being judged on its short term deliverables rather than the long term benefits of Bikeability that Skydancer mentions upthread. Unfortunately this country is shite at considering the long game, we get sick of the prevailing Govt, vote next time for 'not this lot' and there's numerous changes and nothing is followed through, as any public sector worker in post for more than a few years experiences with these cyclical 'restructures'.

Despite my cynicism I came to London 20 years ago and there's been a massive increase in cycling here in that time, so the shift is happening, even if it not as quickly as some would like. It may seem an impossible task to redesign all London junctions with better consideration for cyclists. I recall a consultation asking for feedback on London's worst ones like E&C and the one at Oval, so there seems a commitment at least to try and improve things, even if its done in small baby steps. But more than this there is an ongoing struggle to embed cycling into all aspects of future planning and policy, I don't know what Olivers job is exactly but I guess he spends a lot of time trying to make this a reality. We need to see cycling move beyond more than just an activity that ticks a few boxes for politicians.

Jeeeesus sorry I've rambled on, anyway I find the debate interesting and will rage for a while it seems.

Oliver quoted Boris as saying that E&C is fine if you 'keep your wits about you', but the 'or have higher skills' bit was'nt in the quotations so I assume he did'nt say that bit.

Good point, I should edit to make that clearer. The Mayor, of course, has never taken cycle training (and apparently refuses to do so). Wouldn't want to put words into his mouth.

But we don't all, me inlcuded, cycle like Tony Martin so I totally understand why slower cyclists feels threatened and if we are to encourage people to take up cycling there needs to be an alternative.

It's not so much about speed. There are very, very slow cyclists who are excellent at negotiating environments like this. It's more a general understanding of traffic movements around you that counts. Still, as I said, the E&C is crap and has to go, whatever the ability of those having to go through it. I wouldn't care about it if everybody was able to do one giant bunny-hop all the way over it. It's a festering, hateful urban sore.

Also do all schools even have facilities for cyclists? And if the numbers cycling to school are so low

The vast majority of primary school children in London live within walking distance of their school, so there's never going to be that much scope there. There is more scope with secondary schools, but there you have other attractive options for children, such as free travel on buses. We've known for some time that adult training is key, e.g. of parents at a school, to create a whole cycling culture. In some schools where they're doing it, such as Tyssen School, this is working.

I did'nt know that cycling on cycle ways is mandatory in Holland if there is one available. I understand that is not the proposal here, but that makes a big differnce to my support of them, and I think this is a very important point and there needs to be wider awareness of this to avoid the 'get in the cycle lane, thats for you, the road if for us' claims that will inevitably follow unless this is made very clear.

It's not very widely known, yes. (The same is the case in Denmark, although I imagine that it may not quite be the same law. There are definitely differences in traffic regulations.)

Despite my cynicism I came to London 20 years ago and there's been a massive increase in cycling here in that time, so the shift is happening, even if it not as quickly as some would like. It may seem an impossible task to redesign all London junctions with better consideration for cyclists. I recall a consultation asking for feedback on London's worst ones like E&C and the one at Oval, so there seems a commitment at least to try and improve things, even if its done in small baby steps. But more than this there is an ongoing struggle to embed cycling into all aspects of future planning and policy

Yes, it's a complex task. It's not impossible, but it will take generations to rectify the mistakes of the past.

I don't know what Olivers job is exactly but I guess he spends a lot of time trying to make this a reality.

I've just been an LCC in Hackney volunteer for about fifteen years, currently the group's secretary. I'm also a former LCC Board member and standing for the Board again.

Jeeeesus sorry I've rambled on, anyway I find the debate interesting and will rage for a while it seems.

No worries, some interesting points, including some I haven't replied to. I like your omission of 'it' before 'will' here, as it creates a nice ambiguity. :)

Thanks I was just rambling really but thanks for the response. I'm pleased to hear about the Tysson school scheme, sounds very positive.

My niece has just started in Jubliee school and as I always arrive at her house by bike she sees me and bikes as one and the same thing and has long wanted in on the action. She perfected her balance bike and in April got her first proper bike but it was too big for her. She has slowly grown into it and this September managed her first unaided ride around the park, her smile was so wide it would light up the darkest night, I was bursting with pride and was quite surprised how emotional I was. She now wants to go on a bike ride with me everytime i visit, its brilliant, thats what its all about isn't it. What a brilliant job that must be to see that on a regular basis.

And I feel like I've been properly initiated now Oliver has corrected some of my typo's or grammatical errors :) That Will hey, I've never met him but from the BTOB thread he was usually raging along the lines of 'so where was the last tag?' and 'any chance of a clue?' I hope he comes back for more of the same.

Good post blue feet
You point out the massive increase in cycling in London over 20 years which i too have witnessed with spikes and a recent acceleration , almost a snowball effect. There may be a tipping point with a huge sudden uptake or we may carry on with these small gains as we get better at improving skills and conditions.

The main point here is that we keep on looking for those wins. And where we can work with political leaders, like in hackney, who understand the value of this and understand how we need to tweak the environment, educate people, contain anti social driving, making drivers feel like guests on the road through and welcoming people on bikes on the road with them, london could be amazing.

For such change to happen out of London there needs to be national leadership as well as the local relationships and a more coherent united view from advocates

@ blue fleet. Your niece might meet me - I am teaching a course at Jubilee in a few weeks time, though I guess she is too young to be part of it yet.
I had to retire from BTOB on doctor's orders.

Ahhhh he's back, if indeed he ever went away.

Yeah she's only 5 but I bet her face will be pressed up against the window wanting to join in with you and the older kids.

Its good you've avoided BTOB recently, the current tag was introduced as a tiny thumbnail pic, with no announcement of where the previous tag was, and with no clue for the new tag. (all corrected now thankfully) Goodness knows what damage this may have caused you, it may have finished you off :).

Brill! I've spent about an hour and a half looking through some of those links and posts here. Very illuminating stuff, so much to think about- especially the false them (training) and us (separation) camps. Very nice to see comment sections that haven't descended into the usual depressing directions.

Has Boris nailed his colours to the mast in terms of supporting cycle training? Or rather is he prepared to continue to fund cycle training? I'm guessing the tory stance is they'd prefer the 'big society' to pick up the tab for free and rely on the goodwill of volunteers to provide it? If cycling to school uptake has not increased I think its a bit of a stretch to deem Bikability a failure, I've just had a brief look on the website and it does'nt appear to have a stated aim of increasing cycling to school, but rather to increase cycling skills and confidence on todays roads. Also do all schools even have facilities for cyclists? And if the numbers cycling to school are so low, then from a cost perspective the schools may deem investment in bike sheds a low priority and not the best use of their limited funds. If cycle training alone is not enough to coax the masses onto their bikes then other options need looking at and should be welcomed, in addition to, and not instead of sklls training. If large sections of the population are crying out for some segregated roads and it gets them on bikes when they otherwise would'nt consider it, why not?.

It's been mentioned before but there is pretty much zero cycle culture in most schools. We instructors are looked at like aliens who any combo of: nutters/brave/societal oddities.
Today a teacher told me she drives 8minutes to school...

One reason for potentially low uptake in courses is the poor literature sent out to parents that do assuge their prejudice and fears of the road and what their children will be learning. (Something I'm working on.)

Another is teachers aren't seen cycling so it's not seen as a normal activity, unless you get a teacher that is really into cycling and very keen. Most teachers pay complete lip service to it- as Will said- they've been known to ban misbehaving children. They do not see it as part of life skill.

"so because little Johnny could keep quiet during assembly, he doesn't deserve to learn how to use local roads safely when out on his bike on saturday?"

I think when adults see what is taught, they are generally pleasantly surprised at the course content and give it a little more respect.

If Mum and Dad don't see what we teach, they have no idea how good or bad their child may be. Therefore they're not in the position to correct or praise and live in ignorance. Until we get more parents doing courses I'm not sure what changes we will see. There also has to be a big tightening of legal measures against poor/aggresive drivers to coax those that are just thinking about it.

Most say it's too dangerous to to cycle, so they know there must be a problem on our roads yet there is so much opposition to anything but the status quo. I'm confused.

& @dancing james did either of you screenshot & still have copy of this tweet?

It's in my post no?

When I clicked first it went to a "something went wrong" page so i assumed it was lost, it has worked now. Sorry.