-
Point 4 - aren't the Highways Agency more involved in Motorways & Trunk Rds than city streets (council tax contributes to these)?
If so, why must they pay for city cycle lanes - little to no direct modal shift there.
Now, you see, I was wondering why everyone was cross with the Minister for Roads* for saying that he'd rather not have cyclists on the roads he controlled.
I took this as him being about to announce a huge program of cycle route building, and wondered why none of the cycling organisations failed to call his bluff on this, by going on the news and saying isn't this great, he'd rather that cyclists were able to cycle on totally separate paths, and this must mean that there will be a huge funding announcement coming soon. We are hugely looking forward to it, etc.
*may not be correct title
-
hmm, I get there fine in Chrome. Full text is:
In November, Times journalist Mary Bowers was just yards from arriving at work on her bike when she was hit by a lorry. Mary, 27, is still not conscious and is making a slow recovery in hospital.
Tragically, such an accident is far from rare. More than 27,000 cyclists have been killed or seriously injured on British streets in the past 10 years.
On the urban roads of Britain today cyclists need to be fit for cities. Cycling should be both safe and pleasurable. Ministers, mayors and local authorities must build cities that are fit for cycling.
The Times has launched a public campaign and 8-point manifesto calling for cities to be made fit for cyclists:
- Trucks entering a city centre should be required by law to fit censors, audible truck-turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars to stop cyclists being thrown under the wheels.
- The 500 most dangerous road junctions must be identified, redesigned or fitted with priority traffic lights for cyclists and Trixi mirrors that allow lorry drivers to see cyclists on their near-side.
- A national audit of cycling to find out how many people cycle in Britain and how cyclists are killed or injured should be held to underpin effective cycle safety.
- Two per cent of the Highways Agency budget should be earmarked for next generation cycle routes, providing £100 million a year towards world-class cycling infrastructure. Each year cities should be graded on the quality of cycling provision.
- The training of cyclists and drivers must improve and cycle safety should become a core part of the driving test.
- 20mph should become the default speed limit in residential areas where there are no cycle lanes.
- Businesses should be invited to sponsor cycleways and cycling super-highways, mirroring the Barclays-backed bicycle hire scheme in London.
- Every city, even those without an elected mayor, should appoint a cycling commissioner to push home reforms.
Here are three ways you can take action and support The Times Cities Fit for Cycling campaign:
Pledge your support
Your name: *
Your email: *Tick the box to be kept up to date about the campaign:
We want to hear your cycling stories. Whether you travel by car or bike, let us know your experiences of British streets and suggestions of how to make them safer. In doing so, you agree to have your story published by The Times digital and in print
Spread the word
Tweet your support of The Times Cities Fit for Cycling campaign by clicking the button below.We've provided you with a tweet but feel free to write your own with the hashtag #cyclesafe (tweet reads "I support @thetimes Cities fit for Cycling campaign and their eight point manifesto http://t.co/haNBhriz #cyclesafe")
Write to your MP
Raise the issue of cycle safety with your local MP by emailing them directly.Enter your details below so we can find your representative and write your concerns in the new window.
Your name:*
Your email:*
Your postcode:* - Trucks entering a city centre should be required by law to fit censors, audible truck-turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars to stop cyclists being thrown under the wheels.
-
Now, you see, I was wondering why everyone was cross with the Minister for Roads* for saying that he'd rather not have cyclists on the roads he controlled.
I took this as him being about to announce a huge program of cycle route building, and wondered why none of the cycling organisations failed to call his bluff on this, by going on the news and saying isn't this great, he'd rather that cyclists were able to cycle on totally separate paths, and this must mean that there will be a huge funding announcement coming soon. We are hugely looking forward to it, etc.
*may not be correct title
The moment a cycling organisation does the above they'd be opening up the argument for cyclists losing their right of way on the highways, don't you think?
Segregation could perhaps be great, minimum pre-requisites being the network is immediately as comprehensive as the existing road network, and strict liability at junctions being in place.
(^ my own views, not representing any organisation I may or may not work for, etc etc)
-
That's all very scary and heavy stuff and doesn't really serve to promote cycling
To many words like "cyclists being thrown under wheels' 'killed and injured' 'dangerous'
I prefer the standards piece about shared space
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24032482-shared-space-is-the-future-for-londons-roads.doCycling isn't dangerous!
-
The** Connect2 project in South Bermondsey** has hit yet another stumbling block with Network Rail (and to a lesser extent Thameslink). The whole project is in jeopardy because of these complications.
If you don't know about this project in SE London, please see the attached for more info and here: http://www.sustrans.org.uk/what-we-do/connect2/schemes/greater-london/south-bermondsey-disused-rail-bridge-links
This project, championed by Barry Mason, will have a favourable impact upon local residents, pedestrians and cyclists.
On Monday, an emergency steering group meeting was held at the council HQ (between Sustrans, Southwark Cyclists, [FONT=Arial] Southwark Living Streets, [/FONT]Barrie Hargrove, Council officers, local Councillors) where it was decided that an on-site demonstration should take place on** Saturday 11 Feb at 10am at the bridge **(in parallel with stern letters, press releases, fliers and hopefully a meeting with the council leader + chief exec of Network Rail between now and then) to try to get this latest decision revoked and to find a satisfactory solution.
**Please do come to this demonstration on 11 Feb and spread the word! It's crucial we have a good turn out.
**Thanks,
Alex
1 Attachment
-
I just saw this too.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3306502.ece -
I dunno - it's a bit gruesome - and the infographic they made is flouro nodder hell - but it's a pretty big indication of how mainstream cyclist (in London) has gone when the Paper of Record (tm) sets out its front page to fight for cyclists' protection.
(As an aside, papers generally only take up campaigns they know they can win, so I wonder whether there's some upcoming announcement... isn't DfT more than halfway through a review of cycle safety?)
-
Given the levels of twitter support via retweets, it's proving mighty popular this morning.
in other, related, news:
-
The Times has launched a "Cities Fit for Cycling campaign" based around 8 points.
- Trucks entering a city centre should be required by law to fit censors, audible truck-turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars to stop cyclists being thrown under the wheels.
- The 500 most dangerous road junctions must be identified, redesigned or fitted with priority traffic lights for cyclists and Trixi mirrors that allow lorry drivers to see cyclists on their near-side.
- A national audit of cycling to find out how many people cycle in Britain and how cyclists are killed or injured should be held to underpin effective cycle safety.
- Two per cent of the Highways Agency budget should be earmarked for next generation cycle routes, providing £100 million a year towards world-class cycling infrastructure. Each year cities should be graded on the quality of cycling provision.
- The training of cyclists and drivers must improve and cycle safety should become a core part of the driving test.
- 20mph should become the default speed limit in residential areas where there are no cycle lanes.
- Businesses should be invited to sponsor cycleways and cycling super-highways, mirroring the Barclays-backed bicycle hire scheme in London.
- Every city, even those without an elected mayor, should appoint a cycling commissioner to push home reforms.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/contact/
Any thoughts?
Well, this is all very well-intentioned but much of it rather clueless. It's unfocused and clearly based on very little experience of cycle campaigning. A number of points are of course very sensible, such as the call for 20mph, but where it comes to effective HGV measures they'd have been better advised to check out http://www.nomorelethallorries.org.uk/, which has a much better set of recommendations.
Point 2 is totally confused; much too specific in its recommendations and failing to identify what really needs doing at junctions, e.g. pre-signals and Trixi mirrors are just very small parts of the toolkit and not by any stretch of the imagination of any central importance.
Point 3 is correct in calling for good underlying data of cycle traffic flows, but that should be part of standard data-gathering routines and not a separate exercise. Whatever happens, such information is usually just rough approximation and less valuable than people might think, but as the number of people cycling is often underestimated, it could be useful.
The HA budget, point 4, isn't really the budget that needs to be influenced; there are loads of other budgets which are much more important, such as TfL's. At the end of the day, it's not that crucial where the money comes from, but a much better call would have been to reinstate Cycling England, axed by the current Government, and give it a proper budget.
Point 5 is OK but could be made so much sharper, e.g. include cycle training in the driving test, as per http://www.bikeaware.org.uk/.
Point 6 is OK, we support 20mph very strongly, but the reference to 'cycle lanes' smacks of the usual ignorance that you need some sort of dedicated facility to ride a bike. Lots could be said about that here, but it's fairly involved, and you can't expect well-meaning journalists to understand that very well without experience.
As for point 7, there isn't any particular need to get businesses to back up public funding, particularly not for the sort of projects they envisage, which are just about the least effective conceivable.
About point 8, again there isn't a huge need to separate cycling out from other modes. Proper consideration for cycling must be built into all traffic schemes, and all officers must work on that sort of thing. In my experience, where you have specific cycling personnel, their advice is often sidelined, and I can't imagine that such a person, even if fairly senior, would really be able to exercise their powers, but I suppose it would depend on what sort of person you'd get.
All in all, like many people who are new to campaigning, they greatly overstress the risk of collisions and make cycling appear like a high-risk activity. It is not (as was said further up).
I completely understand the journalists' distress at their colleague's horrible crash, but unfortunately you can't just draw up a programme from scratch without doing more research.
Still, good luck to them. Quite often, the actual content of such a programme doesn't matter as much as one might think.
- Trucks entering a city centre should be required by law to fit censors, audible truck-turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars to stop cyclists being thrown under the wheels.
-
yes Oliver. good points.would like to just corroborate point r.e cycling officers within organisations like local councils.
they are often very low in seniority and cant make dept. heads adopt suggestions regardless of weight of evidence to support implementation.
it really does depend on those in positions of authority understanding and vocally and publicly standing up for cycling improvements, and diverting money to it on specific projects and job positions -
For anyone that's interested, the next meeting is in the Somers Town Coffee House from 18:30 on Monday.
I can't make it, but I'm sure that they'll be happy to see any of you 'orible lot.
-
Anyone doing the flashride next Wednesday?
http://www.lfgss.com/thread80284.html -
Point 4 - aren't the Highways Agency more involved in Motorways & Trunk Rds than city streets (council tax contributes to these)?
If so, why must they pay for city cycle lanes - little to no direct modal shift there.
I think it's one of the areas where the Times need to explain themselves better. However, Trunk roads have a habit of occupying a lot of space in cities as well as frequently running through the middle of large towns and anything smaller. I understand that the HA still retains responsibility for a lot of these roads. On top of that trunk roads often form the most effective route between towns and cities so development of cycling facilities along them would improve the opportunities to get between them. It's all well and good devising a lovely quiet route for cyclists but if you're more interested in getting from A to B then instead of something winding and quiet you would probably prefer the option to take something quick and efficient. If infrastructure is going to be meaningful, the HA need to be fully invested and on board with the whole movement.
Most motorway junctions could do with a serious revamp as well.
-
Anyone doing the flashride next Wednesday?
http://www.lfgss.com/thread80284.html
^ Thanks for posting.In case you hadn't already heard about it, please do get behind this protest ride next **Wednesday 22 February. Meet at the Duke of York steps, The Mall, 6.15pm. **
The short ride is being organised by [iBikeLondon](http://ibikelondon.blogspot.com/2012/02/time-is-right-join-me-for-ride-to.html), [Cyclists in the City](http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/2012/02/flashride-wednesday-22-february-615.html) and London Cycling Campaign in advance of the the biggest Parliamentary debate on cycling this country has seen in 16 years. It will be sensibly marshaled and respectful to other road users. Expect it to last 30-45 minutes.See also:
http://ibikelondon.blogspot.com/2012/02/time-is-right-join-me-for-ride-to.html
and this heartfelt post:
http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/Never before have we had such an opportunity to get cycling and safety for cyclists on the political agenda and after a terrible year for deaths on our roads, many of us refuse to sit back and wait any longer for change to come.
The worry though, judging by by the responses to the cycling debate that many Conservative MPs have sent to their constituents, is that the emphasis risks being 'cyclists should wear helmets, cyclists should wear hi-viz, cyclists should have more training'. We need to tell them what we want and make them understand the real issues.
This is the briefing note MPs have been given: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06224. In a nutshell, status quo. 'How can we make it safer on existing roads with more of the same?' This is simply not good enough.
Cheers,
Alex
MrDrem
rhb
skydancer
deleted
Brun
pharoahsanders
Seak
Titivulus
Zebra_Cyclist
The_Seldom_Killer-
Post a reply
About
Cycle campaigning
Posted by
@Oliver Schick
On point 1. what will they be censoring?