Cycle campaigning

More attacks on cycle trainers from the Aseasyasridingabike on twitter

Amazing story about cycling instructors deliberately introducing children into the road in front of HGVs #lccagm

(For the record, of course cycle trainers teach trainees on roads with lorries, it is a specific learning outcome at Level 3, and good to cover at Level 2 if lorry drivers use the roads where the trainees may ride/ We teach them to ride where lorry drivers can best see them - in front of the drivers. How else will they learn?)

I am not sure why there is this sustained attack on people promoting cycling. Perhaps these people are linked to driving orgs who would like cyclists off the road completely.

Does inviting them for a cycle training's an option or not?

I have met some of these people, very few have done or are willing to undergo cycle training, but are happy to pass judgement on it with no experience.

They tend to be rather frightened souls and need our understanding and pity. They resort to insults due to the angst that thinking of cycling on the road causes them.

I have met some of these people, very few have done or are willing to undergo cycle training, but are happy to pass judgement on it with no experience.

They tend to be rather frightened souls and need our understanding and pity. They resort to insults due to the angst that thinking of cycling on the road causes them.

Mark Treasure (As Easy As Riding A Bike) is one of the less monomaniacal kerb nerds. He's open to reason, but seems to think that cycle training is opposed to infrastructure (tracks, re-engineered junctions).

...seems to think that cycle training is opposed to infrastructure (tracks, re-engineered junctions).

Where on earth did he get that idea from?

What can we do to communicate to him and others that cycle trainers support a raft of measures that get people riding and help reduce risk on the road?

Where on earth did he get that idea from?

What can we do to communicate to him and others that cycle trainers support a raft of measures that get people riding and help reduce risk on the road?

I don't know where he gets that idea from. The kerb nerds seem to regard Hackney and CT as being one & the same, which maybe part of it.

David Dansky was talking about posting a defintive statement by CT on infra etc, which would be helpful. It'd be nice to see David Arditti withdraw his comments about David Dansky's (too many Davids) conflict of interest as well. I have been looking for a way to counter this argument, which is obvs nonsense, because it applies equally to Mikael Colville-Andersen, who gets paid to consult on kerbs, and is a loud proponent of kerbs.

In response to my comments here, Mark Treasure tweeted the following:

"With reference to discussion on LFGSS, I certainly don't think "cycle training is opposed to infrastructure"! I would say that some cycle trainers are opposed to physical separation. Nothing more than that."

Been trying to plough through this thread and most of the links, and frankly the whole cycle campaigning/infrastructure/separation/training debate is extremely tiring and seem to involve an awful lot of bitching and personal attacks... Do you guys do other stuff too, or is that it?

Been trying to plough through this thread and most of the links, and frankly the whole cycle campaigning/infrastructure/separation/training debate is extremely tiring and seem to involve an awful lot of bitching and personal attacks... Do you guys do other stuff too, or is that it?

Yeah, it's very Life of Brian People's Front of Judea. I liked Borges analogy of two bald men fighting over a comb (originally used to describe Argentina & U.K. Falklands War) so much I titled a blog post using it.

Seems a shame really...

#uniteandtakeover

The role of National Standard cycle training as part of many measures to get people riding

Cycle Training UK, a worker's co-operative, exists to promote cycling as a form of transport. We train people of all abilities to improve their enjoyment of cycling. After training a person will control their bike well. They will have ridden in realistic road conditions, minimise risk by understanding the rules of the road; ensure they get seen, and communicate their intentions to other road users. By developing these skills a person will feel more confident and be more likely to cycle

Cycle Training UK recognises that training is one of a raft of measures that can encourage people to cycle. These measures include changes to the highway infrastructure , lowering speed limits, education and training of drivers, reducing the space for motorised traffic, including the creation of car-free roads. Where many such interventions have been introduced in places where we live and work, they feel less risky and more pleasant so people feel happier to cycle and walk.

Seem a shame really...

#uniteandtakeover

I agree. Andy Atkins of FoE spoke at LCC AGM yesterday, and one of the things that he said was that to effect lasting changes through campaigning you need a broad coalition of groups acting in concert.

The campaign groups did alright at consensual action over Get Britain Cycling.

From what was said at the AGM, space for cycling is going to national, with other local campaign groups picking it up, and national groups following LCC's lead.

Roger Geffen of the CTC was at the LCC AGM, and joined in the workshop of dedicated lanes.

There needs to be debate about the direction of campaigning, and it's good that people care enough to get angry, but it's a shame that the anger and passion gets misdirected into personal attacks and / or harping on about the past.

I feel the major issue is that cycle training isn't something that's taught in other countries like Denmark, CT teach people to make their own risk assessment and forum a good relationship with other road user, which is unheard of in other countries where it's illegal to ride on the road if there's a cycle path presented.

That simple notion is probably what created the illusion that CT et all are oppose cycling infrastructure because it go against the ideas of it.

Cycle training is part of the national curriculum in Denmark... i.e. schools must offer it, but you have the option to opt out.

AFAIK it's nowhere to the level as Cycle Training is in the UK, only similarity is in the name.

Very possible... Still in many ways, like cycling infrastructure and keeping cycling a high priority on the political agenda, they're miles ahead. Not too sure about the said separation policies though.

It been mentioned here I think that the Cycle Training in Denmark is closer to Cycling Proficiency than Cycle Training/Bikeability which I feel is the best training a person/child can receive.

Taken from here https://www.lfgss.com/thread74504.html but as a rider down thread is not an appropriate place for the discussion

The Coroner's Report is now out. She slams the use of blue paint false cycle lanes. They cause confusion, give cyclists a false sense of security, lead them to ride in the wrong position. Cyclists and drivers can't tell the difference between a real lane and false lane

Let's ignore this, continue to demand more shit infrastructure and suggest that people advocating education so cyclists can make informed choice as to where to ride are nazis.

I agree. Andy Atkins of FoE spoke at LCC AGM yesterday, and one of the things that he said was that to effect lasting changes through campaigning you need a broad coalition of groups acting in concert.

The campaign groups did alright at consensual action over Get Britain Cycling.

From what was said at the AGM, space for cycling is going to national, with other local campaign groups picking it up, and national groups following LCC's lead.

Roger Geffen of the CTC was at the LCC AGM, and joined in the workshop of dedicated lanes.

There needs to be debate about the direction of campaigning, and it's good that people care enough to get angry, but it's a shame that the anger and passion gets misdirected into personal attacks and / or harping on about the past.

Absolutely - Play the ball, not the man.

What people like Mark Treasure are arguing for is the utopian ideal of Utrecht on the streets of London. As with everything in a society like ours we may eventually have to settle for something a little less than that (at least in the interim). But there's no need to call anyone a bastard, a loony or an arsehole in the meantime.

Also, get out a bit more. After nine hours at the AGM and conference all anyone wanted to talk about in the pub was cycling!

Let's ignore this, continue to demand more shit infrastructure and suggest that people advocating education so cyclists can make informed choice as to where to ride are nazis.

Is it not possible to demand good (rather than shit) infrastructure?

Oh it's possible to have both, but cycle training mean that you won't need to rely on infrastructure to be safe.

Also you still need to be able to ride on the roads as it is unlikely there will be infrastructure all the way along your route.

I can choose to use cycling infrastructure but rarely do as it is frequently poor and hinders my progress. It is not that I am against it, but see training and using the road as much more liberating, if I were to only use cycle paths my journeys would be very limited.

if I were to only use cycle paths my journeys would be very limited.

Which is why it would be nice to have decent continuous infrastructure.

There are already decent cycle route in London that take you through smaller streets that are quieter and much more relaxing than the man road, they don't have cycle path generally but it's much more inviting for people whom are new to cycling than the blue superficial highway.

Which is why it would be nice to have decent continuous infrastructure.

If you expect door to door cycle paths you are dreaming.