The Times Cycling Campaign

with the hi-viz blind them.

.

Too right will. What is it with campaigners and day glo?

I'm forming a cycling campaign group to campaign for fewer cycling campaign groups. What should I call it?

this might interest some on here,,out together to help make the UK roads safer

https://www.facebook.com/CyclistsForRightOfWayUK

I hope you don't mind me saying but that's a rather silly campaign. Still you've got "27 Likes" on Tits Or Face Tube so well done.

this might interest some on here,,out together to help make the UK roads safer

https://www.facebook.com/CyclistsForRightOfWayUK

www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12838292&start=80#p17465587

Sorry all, don't think he got the tone

That's OK. It was obvious he's an idiot. He thinks starting a faecesbook page makes it a real campaign.

Worked for Rage Against The Machine...

Met my local mp earlier (John Leech) he attended debate and supporting the times campaign, said something about a ten minute bill he had read on tues which included it also, 2nd reading is on 27/4 which is a day the HoP is empty, so sounds like that bill going nowhere. Sounds an odd process, scheduling in discussions for a date no-one is there...

I hope you don't mind me saying but that's a rather silly campaign. Still you've got "27 Likes" on Tits Or Face Tube so well done.

not really a silly campaign. .. it`s set up to make the UK roads safer for Cyclists.

^^ https://www.facebook.com/CyclistsForRightOfWayUK

Now you're just a spammer, fuck off.

Good time to set up a new cycling campaign though. Much more likely to appeal to funders when cycle campaigning is being lapped up by national media.

He's arguing with me... what a cock.

it`s not spamming ...explain to me why you think it is ? ..ohhh.. is that the way you speak to people?

I think you missed the trick, bikeradar sent you our way because that is exactly how we speak to people. We're not affiliated with a magazine, and don't have to give a toss about whether we offend you.

As for spam, yes, yes it is.

Spam = unsolicited advertising messages.

Were you a member of the community? No. Did we know you? No. Did you register just to post an advertisement? Yes. Did we want that advertisement? No. Did you participate in the community? No. Have you re-posted the advertisement? Yes.

It's spam, you're a spammer, here's your prize... now fuck off.

Doing my part to keep this the webs friendliest cycling forum.

not really a silly campaign. .. it`s set up to make the UK roads safer for Cyclists.

Do you realise what Right of Way actually means. I only ask because it's a specific legal term around actually having public, permitted or specified access to or across land. Cyclists already have that, in massive abundance through the road network. While carving up yet more private and alternatively designated space specifically and exclusively for cycling would in theory make cyclists safer is that really the best way forward? (A point of order, despite what your facebook page claims, this really isn't done in the rest of Europe to any greater extent than it is in the UK.
Constructing an exclusive Right of Way network for cyclists to the extent that it would afford them significant levels of safety would be masively prohibitively expensive and fundamentally damaging to commerce, culture and heritage. The arguments for trying many other road safety measures that are affordable, realistic and achievable are far more compelling than this.
I think we can all appreciate your enthusiasm and commitment to safety for cyclists, but you might be better lending your efforts to supporting existing proposals, this one is never going to get off the ground.

Good time to set up a new cycling campaign though. Much more likely to appeal to funders when cycle campaigning is being lapped up by national media.

Back to the serious business of actually campaigning for something tangible.

I wrote to my MP and asked them to get onboard with the Times Campaign (I don't agree fully with where they're going with it but the benefits of a big broadsheet national debate are obvious).

My MP replied with this

Dear TSK,

Thank you for contacting me about cycling safety and The Times’ ‘Cities Fit for Cycling’ campaign.

Lots of constituents have contacted me in support of the campaign and as a cyclist myself I am very supportive of it. This week I’ve signed the Early Day Motion on the campaign. Unfortunately this afternoon I’m going to be travelling back to Sheffield for a meeting tonight which means I’ll be unable to attend the debate, however it has my full support. If you’re interested you’ll be able to watch the debate live from 2.30pm at http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Live.aspx Cllr Julie Dore, Leader of Sheffield City Council, has also given her full support to the campaign.

We need to get more people cycling and so I completely agree that much more needs to be done to improve safety for cyclists. It’s worrying that the number of cyclists injured or killed on the roads has started to rise again in the last year. I am also concerned that the Government’s decision to cut road safety budgets, to end national targets to reduce road accidents and to cut local authority funding by 27% over the next 4 years could further hinder efforts to improve cycle safety. Plans put in place by the Labour Government to create a new cycle hub at Sheffield railway station have also been dropped.

Labour is now looking seriously at each of the excellent ideas that have been proposed by The Times and the Shadow Transport team have immediately backed three specific proposals that could make a major difference to the safety of cyclists.

First, a proportion of existing government funding for roads should be set aside to be spent on building new cycle ways, improving junction design and installing traffic light phasing to give cyclists a head start.

Second, the government’s trial of longer HGVs should be axed and income from the proposed HGV road charging scheme should be used to support the road haulage industry to upgrade and improve safety measures and training.

Third, the national targets to reduce deaths and serious injuries on Britain’s roads, axed by the government, should be reinstated.

These measures are a start and to discuss these issues further Maria Eagle, Labour’s Shadow Transport Secretary, has organised a Cycling Summit in March. It will bring together cyclists, cycling organisations and representative from motoring organisations, road hauliers and road designers to discuss the Times’ manifesto and what else should form Labour’s approach to cycling and improving safety.

If you have any other specific issues or ideas about improving cycling safety that you would like me to pass to on to Maria Eagle ahead of the Cycling Summit then please let me know.

tl;dr? Labour are making the right noises and are soliciting more input, which is nice.

I think that one issue that's important here that wasn't picked up by the Times cycling manifesto is to stop this cycle that we have now of poor planning and road design/management and trying to fix it later on. We should make sure that anything that we do new from now on needs to incorporate cyclists needs and safety without fail. Obviously changes to planning policies, local implementation policies and so on aren't sexy or captivating and you can't proclaim success by cutting a ribbon for a photo op. However, if we have a continuous practice of building and then retrofitting then for some people it will be too late and it's Bow/Kings Cross/Blackfriars all over again.

Am I a) wrong and/or b) is it even possible to have a national standard of policy in design and implementation that would work.?

I think that one issue that's important here that wasn't picked up by the Times cycling manifesto is to stop this cycle that we have now of poor planning and road design/management and trying to fix it later on. We should make sure that anything that we do new from now on needs to incorporate cyclists needs and safety without fail. Obviously changes to planning policies, local implementation policies and so on aren't sexy or captivating and you can't proclaim success by cutting a ribbon for a photo op. However, if we have a continuous practice of building and then retrofitting then for some people it will be too late and it's Bow/Kings Cross/Blackfriars all over again.

Am I a) wrong and/or b) is it even possible to have a national standard of policy in design and implementation that would work.?

I said exactly the same thing elsewhere a couple of days ago

I'm sure everyone has their own ideas of ways of improving things and what they would put in their own cycling manifesto and if I could pick one thing that I've not heard much about that I would include it would be....
The proposed cycling commissioner would have to approve every road being built and every junction being redesigned and that every junction being redesigned must include a "Dutch" level of cycle provision whenever possible.
If they have to redesign the junction anyway it's not going to cost much more to lay a few extra kerbstones or red tarmac to segregate cyclists and motorists. That way we wouldn't have to put up with substandard proposals such as the recent example from Liverpool.

There already is a specification, Local Transport Note 2/08 but it needs a bit more work. It might also be an idea if the Commissioner could fine local authorities who re/design roads and junctions poorly.

^ it can also be very difficult to redesign a junction to accommodate all users, within budget.

There's one I was asked to comment on here in Sept, the design is still not sorted now. Budget limits what can be done, if no spending constraints all solutions are possible.

Sure, but if you look at my Liverpool example they've actually put in a compulsory purchase order and then most of the additional land is given over to a grass verge and a couple of trees, insane waste of money!

It would be interesting to hear what has already happened in the battle over this scheme that you seem to allude to, Magnus. Without knowing anything about it, allow me to speculate.

You're right that cycling hasn't been considered here. I agree that this is a very poor scheme, although approaching improvements in the way that you do is probably the wrong approach.

Sure, but if you look at my Liverpool example they've actually put in a compulsory purchase order and then most of the additional land is given over to a grass verge and a couple of trees, insane waste of money!

It's not just that--they want space for an additional general traffic lane. The new footway and verge is designed to mitigate the environmental impact on pedestrians (probably not very effectively). What you have here is a two-lane (in each direction) arterial road. The proposed scheme is designed to increase motor traffic capacity of the junction--that's all of its purpose. This is why walls are knocked down (and rebuilt), the carriageway widened, and new junction approach lanes introduced (three instead of two, and a total of four, up from three, at Crosby Road North). Motor traffic capacity at junctions can usually only be increased if you create more traffic lanes at the junction than there are along the main drag of the streets meeting there.

To introduce any segregated tracks, you would have to negate the scheme's entire purpose, which is to increase the number of approach lanes to increase capacity. This they are not going to do; the number of people cycling on that road is most likely low, and engineers tend to engineer for existing flows of motor traffic, not future projected flows of non-motorised traffic. (With tracks retro-fitted to the scheme, you'd probably also make a major left-hook hazard from Crosby Road North into South Road worse. This seems to be a dominant movement at this junction, judging by the special provision for it. Letf-turning problems need careful consideration if you want to go for a segregated approach.)

So, the problem you're up against is not that they don't want to do something extra that's quite small, but that you'd be trying to get them to do the opposite of what they want to do. The overall strategic context, not only concerning and surrounding the junction, but probably also in Liverpool's overall transport policy, is unlikely to be in your favour there. It's not just a question of how much special cycle provision would cost--it's about what the proposers of the scheme expect it to do, and that obviously doesn't have anything to do with cycling.

As its basic design parameters tell against it, influencing this scheme to be something sensible is undoubtedly a lost cause. The only thing you might do here is to try to get them to drop the scheme entirely. This is probably also a lost cause, but slightly less lost if there is local opposition that could perhaps be galvanised (perhaps on the issue of old walls being knocked down, loss of amenity, more traffic, more noise/pollution, etc.). There does seem to be quite a lot of walking there, a clear sign of an under-developed junction with much more potential.

(I see this from a London perspective and I don't know what the political climate is like in Liverpool--and what could reasonably be expected, or whether a temporary rejection of the scheme would really improve any future proposals.)

If you wanted to get towards influencing such schemes, you'd have to start somewhere smaller where the engineers might listen to you, and work up to bigger things.

Hm, not very hopeful, I guess, and you may well already understand all these things. I just thought it was an interesting case study of quite how much is wrong with most traffic schemes that are done.

not sure if this can be of interest to anyone but I have just learnt that a country like Italy, notorius for its extremely chaotic and aggressive traffic, motor culture, narrow roads and little consideration for cyclists has just published a DDL (law proposal) which could be soon discussed in Parliament.
The funny part of this news is that the idea was entirely "inspired" by the Times (Cities fit for cycling) campaign, started on facebook only 15 days before and signed by 6500 people. The points of the law proposal are exaclty the same as the ones proposed by The Times and within 15 days it was signed by 60 MPs!
I copy the link to the article below for the curious ones who also understand italian. Not sure whether this will actually become law and even less sure if it will be enforced knowing Italy but I reckon it is still a good example. If nothing better we can say that The Times managed to inspire other countries? ;)

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2012/02/26/ciclisti-manifesto-sicurezza-diventa-pronto-alla-discussione-parlamento/193958/

Is Italy really notorious for having little consideration for cyclists?

It's the biggest cycling nation in Europe no?

^ my sister lived in Naples and said it'd be suicidal to cycle there (IHO).

very dangerous cycling in most parts of central/southern italy, dangerous cycling in the north due to bad road conditions and motorists totally ignoring cyclists, cars parked everywhere often on pavements (even in Milan) or in double lines on the curbs, mising cycling lanes and code of transport often not being enforced by police. If you tell someone you want to start cycling to work in most part of Italy people's reaction is that you are suicidal as rhb says.

Is Italy really notorious for having little consideration for cyclists?

It's the biggest cycling nation in Europe no?

I've happily cycled in New York, Los Angeles, Calcutta and Paris. I don't think I'd chance cycling in Rome (and definitely not Moscow, but that's for another thread)