Cycle campaigning

coshgirl posted this up in another thread, london assembly survey on cycling in london.
Fill in and give them your views, debate is happening on the 10th december

https://www.lfgss.com/post3949443-1.html

Have done^

lifted from another thread but relevant to here:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/21/londons-cycling-culture-dangerous?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

an interesting read.

lifted from another thread but relevant to here:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/21/londons-cycling-culture-dangerous?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

an interesting read.

It's just nonsense.

Mark Treasure and Mark Ames have NEVER excused reckless behaviour by any group of road users.

10 years ago it wasn't only 'professional cycle couriers' that ran lights

etc etc

The piece is tendentious unsubstantiated assertion and innuendo.

^ Morrison doesn't mention Mark Ames but Matt Glass.

Seemed like the government aren't going to do much when they predicted a fall in cycling and a rise in driving;

https://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/uk-government-is-planning-for-a-fall-in-cycling/015676

^ Let's hope it's not a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think there's definitely going to be a massive increase in the use of motorised/power assisted bicycles over the next few years at least.

if the government wanted to affect people's choice of transport mode they could, through policy, fiscal and other. they also have their nudge office to affect behavioral change. TfL do want fewer people driving and have actively encouraged cycling (despite Boris traffic smoothing agenda.)

if cycling numbers are shown to have dropped it could be due to the massive recent dangerisation from campaigners as well as the usual media strident anti cycling commentary.

yes these predictions will dictate policy and may sadly be self fulfilling. the police commissioner linking cycling to povery (again) could be another nail in the coffin of the recent cycling renaissance.

We seem to be going through another massive wealth redistribution era, much worse even during Thatcher's time when the car was crowned king and the country built to accommodate these metal boxes. Other agenda such as environmental policy, commitment to improving the nation's health through active travel etc. also seem to have been ditched while this current government grab what they can for their cronies from the rest of us before they get booted out at the next election.

http://madcyclelanesofmanchester.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/who-pays-piper.html?m=1

So next time a "cycle campaigner" says that you shouldn't criticise the local transport authority or local council, ask whether they receive funding from that same local authority, either indirectly through the organisation they work for, or directly as an employee, consultant or pensioner. If they are funded by that local authority then it is perhaps best to ignore their advice.

What are people's thoughts on this blog/statement?

He's got a point about conflicts of interest but to suggest that a cycle campaigner's opinion on cycling in a particular location is by default worthless if they are in any way funded by the relevant council is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If someone declares an interest in something (even a very remote interest) it doesn't mean their opinion has been bought just because their opinion might disagree with his.

It depends on the definition of cycle campaigner. If they are an active member of their cycle campaign they are campaigners. All the people paid to deliver on behalf of local authorities can't really claim that term. I know some media sources might refer to them as such, but it is lazy journalism normally.

Whose opinion about getting more people riding counts?
(Agree with Adroit that people in the sector are not campaigners)
Everyone has a conflict of interest, a bias towards their expertise.

Yes cycle trainers* would suggest training people helps get them riding with less risk (and common sense would dictate that training anyone in something helps them do that thing better].

Transport planning/engineering consultants * paid* by a local authority will understand how to achieve whatever the council wishes they achieve, be it more riding or casualty reduction (less riding?)

Mechanics and bike shop people want more people riding though they may not have an understanding of how to achieve that other than understanding how to sell bikes (though promoting PPE may not be the best way for shops to sell bikes)

Professional campaigners paid by membership of their orgs (Like LCC/CTC) may have amassed expertise and crunched enough data to be able to say what works. Good campaigners of this sort will be embedded in Local Authorities working with them and criticising either misguided objectives (like traffic smoothing ) or plans that won't achieve objectives that they approve of. They will complement an authority when it gets things right.

Amateur campaigners with no vested interest may well have the least conflict of interest but may also have a lack of understanding of what can work and is attainable. (So for example, people calling for complete segregation and nothing else (or just for cycle training and nothing else) perhaps shows a lack an understanding of what is really achievable )

What are people's thoughts on this blog/statement?

Most cycle campaigners are completely unpaid volunteers. The main campaigning organisations (LCC, CTC) have a small number of staff, but few of those are actually in the campaigns department. Cyclenation doesn't have any paid staff and pays externals for some service delivery (Bike Week, web-site redevelopment). People working for other organisations (Sustrans, other consultancies, local authorities) sometimes were campaigners before they became professionals. You wouldn't usually call these people 'campaigners', though.

Interesting stuff, makes sense, ta. Was struggling to think around it myself but generally felt uneasy by the line "If they are funded by that local authority then it is perhaps best to ignore their advice" as that'd mean ignoring some folks who actually know a thing or two about the subject and may have something positive to contribute.

Been quiet around here. Support LCC's call for a better Zone 1 Bike Grid:

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/tell-transport-for-london-its-vital-the-bikegrid-is-a-genuinely-safe-and-inviting-network-of-cycle-routes-in-central-london

http://www.bikebiz.com/index.php/news/read/ctc-and-british-cycling-pile-pressure-on-mps-to-plan-for-cycling/015997

^Yes it is great to see BC getting more into campaigning. They may have more clout and a wider reach than all other campaign groups put together.
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/cam20140207-British-Cycling-launches-10-point-plan-to-transform-Britain-into-a-true-cycling-nation-0

Great campaign launch image too:

more on the central bike grid:

http://rachelaldred.org/writing/please-respond-to-the-central-london-grid-consultation/

consultation closes friday...

What kind of comments is everyone preparing? I would say that addition of signs - "Many of these routes already exist – it is often just a matter of guiding cyclists to
them." - is not enough, these "quiet ways" already exist, I use many of them mixed in with main road routes in my commute and danger is still present.

^^^^^ The thing to do is to tell tfl and your borough that they need to reduce the danger by removing through traffic on a network of through routes in Central London.
It is the lack of connections between all the existing "quiet ways" that causes the problem.
If you send borough specific demands in to grid@tfl.gov.uk they will pass them on.

Better still copy your email to the borough councillors where you live or work

this is what i sent. cannibalise if you want..

General notes:

The grid should be constructed to be suitable for all cyclists. This means that routes should feel safe for families with small children, and, when on quieter roads, offer commuting cyclists journey times comparable to those they will find on main roads.

Where traffic levels are above 2,000 pcu, the grid routes should separate cyclists and other traffic. Where there are separate cycle lanes, these should be at least 2m wide.

The grid should have the capacity to carry a 400% increase in existing cycling levels - the Mayor's target.

Waymarking should be good enough to allow cyclists unfamilar with the routes to find their way between any two points in central London. Where grid routes intersect, there should be a map of the entire grid, and also local detail.

Where routes are not on main roads, the cycle route should have priority at junctions. Where possible, zebra crossings should be used in place of traffic lights.

Where routes are on main roads with significant demand for kerbside access, authorities should consider splitting the road into a two-way through-road, and a one-way service road that allows vehicle access, but not vehicle through traffic - but two-way cycle through traffic.

The grid should be built to allow cycle through-traffic - but investment should not stop here. It is also necessary to create safe, direct cycle access to places that are not on the grid - by making one-way streets two-way for cycling, and by creating protected space for slow cycling on busy commercial streets.

Royal Parks:

Through-traffic should be eliminated from Regent's Park Outer Circle, and from the Hyde Park Carriage drives, to allow all users to cycle safely, and to enjoy the parks in their intended states.

A northbound route through green park from the mall to piccadilly is essential.

Routes on paths through the parks should be improved to a minimum of 2m in each direction.

Routes through parks should be open 24/7, and lit sufficiently for safety.

In general, the parks should take a more positive attitude to (considerate) cycling. It's as appropriate a park activity as walking and horse-riding...

The City:

A grid route should connect CS2 at Aldgate and Bank directly along Fenchurch St, without diversions.

A grid route should connect Blackfriars and Bank along Queen Victoria St, to allow Waterloo-City commuting.

CS1 should connect directly to London Bridge.

There should be a grid route along London Wall, taking advantage of excess road capacity here.

Camden:

The grid should be built as a high-quality segregated route, at least 2m wide in each direction, on Tottenham Court Rd, Gower St, or both.

Motor traffic other than buses and bikes should be removed from Clerkenwell Rd.

There should be safe cycle access to Camden High St.

Through-traffic should be removed from tavistock place.

Kensington and Chelsea:

The grid needs safe, protected East-West routes here - either on Kensington High St, or Holland Park Ave.

Exhibition Rd should be made access-only for motor vehicles.

Westminster:

Westminster's grid routes need to allow two-way cycling along their lengths - routes that take different roads in each direction are confusing.

Westminster should make most of its quiet one-way streets two-way for cycling to allow for easy access to places not on the grid.

CS11 should come south to Hyde Park (also, therefore, connecting Hyde Park and Regent's Park)

Bow St/ Wellington St should be made one-way for vehicle traffic to allow for safe cycling.

There should be a protected route on Portland Place from Regent's Park to Oxford Circus to allow families access to Oxford St etc.

Westminster needs to ensure at least two, and preferably three safe, easily-followed east-west routes across the borough. Right now, there are none.

Westminster should implement 20mph limits on its grid routes, to ensure comfortable conditions for less-confident cyclists.

Islington:

Traffic other than buses and cycles should be removed from Old St.

Thanks chameleon and charlie_lcc, will add my two cents + send email at lunch to borough councillers where I live + work plus the email given on the form. Nice work.

Would any experienced cycle campaigners like to help provide some wisdom to Reading Cycle campaign? The campaign is beginning to do some really great things, has the 4th largest membership in the UK apparently, and has a huge hurdle to overcome with the council who own a bus company and don't want people to cycle as they want them all out of cars and on to buses.
The council has received the largest settlement from the Local Sustainable transport fund and it is being frittered away.
They want to get more people on the newsletter database who can see what is going on and cast a critical eye over their activities, a sort of mentoring initiative.
If you want to help out email chair@readingcyclecampaign.org.uk
(you won't get bombarded, it is about 4 newsletters and about 12 emails a year)
They would really appreciate some wise input!

Hi adroit, Cyclenation can help with this - I'll be in touch with the chair.

more central london grid suggestions from the west:

http://hfcyclists.org.uk/2014/02/london-cycle-grid-response-west/