Cycle campaigning

Don't think Mark Treasure et al are asking for that. Even in Utrecht or Groningen the only door-to-door paths are ones linking doors on main roads. The rest of the network is made up of quiet streets and filtered permeability.

Don't think Mark Treasure et al are asking for that. Even in Utrecht or Groningen the only door-to-door paths are ones linking doors on main roads. The rest of the network is made up of quiet streets and filtered permeability.

This.

But you want

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

The 'space' in space4cycling is that. The quiet roads and paths beside main routes combined to make something that everyone will want to use. That's the dream.

It's a shame to see the Hackney vs The Rest thing come up here and there as well as the Training vs Paths (which really shouldn't be a thing). Hackney is doing the quiet roads part really well, it just needs the main road paths bit too.

I know some don't see it that way, and I guess that's why everyone's a-fightin'.

How does either approach deal with the issue that bicycles are, by many measures and received wisdom, not welcomed on the roads?

The single biggest change would be changing the attitude of drivers in general.

But you want [stuff]

Again, mattioats nails it. That doesn't mean that I want bicycle-specific infrastructure from door to door, just that I want bicycle friendly infrastructure from door to door. So 20mph, filtered permeability and generally tamed motor traffic on small roads. Segregated cycle paths beside busier roads, essentially a network that an 8-year old could use from door to door.

I fall squarely in the middle of the segregation vs. integration debate. I'm pro training, but not at the expense of infrastructure (and vice versa). Frankly I'm totally baffled as to how anyone could be at either pole of this debate (notwithstanding the assertation that the existence of bicycle specific infrastructure should not mean that you are compelled to use it). For one thing, we're hugely unlikely to find a politician with the bollocks to put up the money to build dutch-style infrastructure everywhere very soon. Therefore (within our lifetimes at least) we're likely to be forced to deal with a mixed approach.

The single biggest change would be changing the attitude of drivers in general.

Yes. Play nicely children!

(In other words: I agree, but this will be an effect of rather than a driver of increased modal share for cycling.)

I think drivers will be hard to change from their outlook with only persuasion. Campaigns that encourage carefulness are great, but easily forgotten.

That's why I think attitudes will only change once people can see cycling as a more viable alternative to those short journeys and commutes, and for that they need to appear safe and inviting, which I believe can only happen with some much better infrastructure.

It's the appearance thing that's important. For the majority sat in a car or bus, watching us lot happily go about our business in London, not many will think 'yeah, I should do that, it'll be great for these reasons...'

Some will, but most will see it as either very or a bit scary, or a faff, and not bother. They won't even think of cycle training, which is a shame because so many people would be okay on the roads with training.

Those people looking out of windows in rush hour have to see something inviting. They see cycling in parks and such as inviting, so they do it. Roads, not inviting. We're pretty simple creatures.

FFM

Your earlier statement I quoted did not read that way. I made it clear I choose to use infrastructure when it benefits me. But I still see the ability to ride on the road is fairly much a necessity.

It's the appearance thing that's important. For the majority sat in a car or bus, watching us lot happily go about our business in London, not many will think 'yeah, I should do that, it'll be great for these reasons...'

Some will, but most will see it as either very or a bit scary, or a faff, and not bother. They won't even think of cycle training, which is a shame because so many people would be okay on the roads with training.

Those people looking out of windows in rush hour have to see something inviting. They see cycling in parks and such as inviting, so they do it. Roads, not inviting. We're pretty simple creatures.

Agree 100% with the above.

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.

The kerb nerds aren't asking for shit infrastructure, they're asking for high-quality infrastructure - see Motion 3 & 5.

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/agm-motions-confirm-our-commitment-to-campaigning-for-streets-that-make-cycling-safe-and-inviting-for-every-londoner

FFM

Your earlier statement I quoted did not read that way. I made it clear I choose to use infrastructure when it benefits me. But I still see the ability to ride on the road is fairly much a necessity.

Fair enough. I suppose by "continuous" I meant "showing evidence of joined up thinking". So definitively not 200m of red pavement that suddenly ejects you onto a dual carriageway.

There are so many viewpoints in this debate, the LCC kerb nerds are just one of them. There are many people who want more/any infrastructure rather than even consider modifying their own road use behaviour.

But I think people have a right to that desire. That's what makes a mass-cycling nation, letting anyone have a go and not die.

As long as it doesn't impinge on others' rights to their desire (read: riding in the road at speeds they prefer) then it can be done. And we know it can be done.

EDIT:
I'm not advocating a so-called 'dual network' or whatever it's called when grannies go on the pavement and roadies go on the road. I'm saying we know we could make it so everyone's happy.

There are so many viewpoints in this debate, the LCC kerb nerds are just one of them. There are many people who want more/any infrastructure rather than even consider modifying their own road use behaviour.

The LCC will be campaigning for high quality infra (amongst other things) in the run up to 2014 local elections.

The question is are we realistically going to get the high quality infrastructure? I don't get the impression that we are likely to see miles of segregated pathway that certain vocal sections are shouting for. It is easy to say that in principle such things are a good idea, and politicians at notorious for saying whatever is likely to get a vote, even if they can't deliver on their promises.

I am all for reduced speed limits and better enforcement of the rules of the road, for all road users.

There are many people who want more/any infrastructure rather than even consider modifying their own road use behaviour.

I'm not totally sure what you're getting at here. But if you mean what I think you mean, then my response would be that I shouldn't have to ride in a particularly "modified" (i.e., noteworthy, highly trained) way just to feel like I'm not going to come to harm pootling down to the shops. Good infrastructure should take care of that. Note that I'm not advocating lazy cycling. I'm just saying that having to ride defensively all the time suggests that we have the wrong model for interactions on our roads.

The question is are we realistically going to get the high quality infrastructure? I don't get the impression that we are likely to see miles of segregated pathway that certain vocal sections are shouting for.

I am all for reduced speed limits and better enforcement of the rules of the road, for all road users.

If we don't ask for it, because we assume we won't get it, we definitely won't.

10 years ago I was told by almost everyone that a daytime ban on HGVs was unachievable. I campaigned for one anyway.

Now the Mayor is talking about bringing one in, albeit a conditional ban.

I'm not totally sure what you're getting at here. But if you mean what I think you mean, then my response would be that I shouldn't have to ride in a particularly "modified" (i.e., noteworthy, highly trained) way just to feel like I'm not going to come to harm pootling down to the shops. Good infrastructure should take care of that. Note that I'm not advocating lazy cycling. I'm just saying that having to ride defensively all the time suggests that we have the wrong model for interactions on our roads.

I have met people who can't signal or look behind who do not consider themselves a danger to them or anyone else and are unwilling to learn or develop their cycling skills.

But good infra in these cases means the danger they pose is only minor.

Do that on a road in the UK and you or they could end up dead. Do it in Utrecht and they're just an anti-social dick.

I have met people who can't signal or look behind who do not consider themselves a danger to them or anyone else and are unwilling to learn or develop their cycling skills.

That sucks. Cycling proficiency for all should be an aim; feeling confident mixing with HGVs just to get to school shouldn't.

Edit: and what matti said

IIRC at the last AGM before the mayoral election the LCC board decided to adopt the 'Go Dutch' campaign to push for more segregated infrastructure, and I think the new Space For Cycling campaign is following on from that. Charlie from LCC is probably the man to ask if you're interested in how the decisions were reached.
It is disappointing that the debate around these issues get so polarised that people form camps and tend to criticise every idea coming from the 'other' side.
Lots of the commentators making claims about what LCC does or doesn't support are expressing their own interpretations and not necessarily those of LCC.

Since 'Go Dutch' and 'Space for Cycling' have become major themes we have made several trips to the Netherlands to see what happens. David Hembrow is incandescent because we chose not to take his infrastructure tour of Assen and Groningen and went to Utrecht, Rotterdam and Amsterdam where population densities and cityscape are closer to that in London. We spoke with the people who thought up the Dutch system, the people who wrote the design guides and the people who currently edit them. We had tours run by the Fiesterbond and by Dutch Cycling Embassy people.

Not surprisingly we found the Dutch system is far more complex than it appears at first sight. This is especially true where the infrastructure has been adapted to 17-19th century streetscapes. There is a mix of segregated routes on main roads with an ubiquitous network of permeable streets and shared space areas.

One of the design mantras repeated by several of their experts was "mix where possible, segregate where necessary". That of course opens up a whole area of definitions. Some of which were addressed in Saturday's LCC agm. Others are debated amongst active members in our policy and engineering groups.

In the Netherlands there is the famous CROW cycle design guide but we also learnt that each province is free to interpret it as they will, picking and choosing different elements to suit their environment.

Cycle training is totally embedded in the Dutch school system with a multiple choice exam and practical test at about 11 years old. Even before then some 'rules of the road' are taught from nursery school. The prime rule is that any traffic turning has to give way to any traffic going straight on. That applies to pedestrians, cycles and HGV. This training not only delivers competent cyclists it also ensures that every driver should understand how to share roadspace safely.

The prime rule is that any traffic turning has to give way to any traffic going straight on. That applies to pedestrians, cycles and HGV. This training not only delivers competent cyclists it also ensures that every driver should understand how to share roadspace safely.

The same applies in Denmark. The principle is so strong that driver and cycle training could be described as behavioural engineering on a massive scale. It's not just that drivers are aware of their legal liabilities; it is as if their synapses have been hard-wired to respect this basic rule of the road.

One of the problems on this side of the North Sea is that the state has largely abrogated its public information responsibilities, and civil society has yet to fill the gap. Awareness of the Highway Code is poor, and we now rarely if ever have public information broadcasts that focus on such things as road behaviour.

I echo Charlie's comments about the polarisation of debate within the wider London cycling community. That said, while some people do indeed misrepresent the position/s of LCC, there is at the same time within the organisation a continuing and energy-sapping argument over pointless details, and the setting up of false dichotomies.

Witness the packing of the Dedicated Space workshop at the AGM on Saturday. Other workshops, such as the 20mph one to which I contributed, were poorly attended. Still, we got a lot done, and it was a very constructive exercise.