One of the comments I received regarding the first review was: ‘Too Long; Didn’t Read’, so I gave it a go with different format this time round. The results:
This post took quite long to get out as I’ve been occupied with University work and, if you missed it, the launch of the Solihull Bicycle Campaign. At the moment it is just the bare bones of the structure including; a forum, a webpage and a newsletter. The basic campaign goals are; high quality cycle infrastructure and safer streets for all ages. I also hope to develop a community on the forum, based around cycling in Solihull. If you’re at all interested in any aspect of cycling, or safer streets (well you’re reading this blog…) I woud very much appreciate it if you took a look.
There are many misconceptions regarding the behaviour of cyclists, many of these stem simply from a lack of understanding between those who choose to drive and those that choose to ride a bicycle. These simple misconceptions are often preyed on by the media and blown wildly out of proportion. The fact is that headlines such as ‘War on the Roads’, sell newspapers and it pays well for media outlets to encourage argument above rational debate. For the purpose of this post I will use the terms ‘cyclist’ and ‘motorist’, but these are far from homogeneous groupings and it is important not to fall into the trap of tarring all those in one group with the same brush (for one thing, most cyclists do also drive) . Each of these groups is composed of many different and unique individuals and personalities, and just like any other subsection of society will contain its fair share of both good and bad apples. As such, many of the points should be seen as an explanation of the behaviour of those ‘good apples’, and are not intended as a sanction of the behaviour of the bad ones.
There are many cyclist behaviours that are demonized by the media, in this post I will seek to explore and explain these for the benefit and understanding of those behind the wheel.
One of the top misconceptions about cyclists is that we “think we own the road” and are basically “arrogant and elitist hippy snobs”. However many behaviours that are attributed to this, are based merely on the average cyclist’s wish to arrive at their destination in one piece.
Road ownership– While many people think otherwise, cyclists do actually have an equal right to be on the road: road maintenance, repair and development is funded from general taxation. The mythical ‘road tax’ was abolished in 1937, the current ‘car tax’ or vehicle excise duty (VED) is based on emissions produced. Meaning vehicles that produce little or no emissions, such as electric cars are exempt (as bicycles would be, if taxation were to be extended to them). Therefore paying VED does not confer any right to the road, and those cyclists seen on the road are merely exercising the same rights accorded to motorists.
Riding in the middle of the road– There are a number of reasons why cyclists avoid riding in the gutter and sometimes even ride in the middle of the lane. There are numerous hazards associated with riding in the gutter. As well as the dangers of slippery drain covers and high kerbs, a lot of the debris commonly found on the roads tends to accumulate at the sides. Such as; leaves, branches, broken glass and litter, all of which pose a significant danger to the slim wheels of a bicycle. Riding too close to the kerb also makes it difficult to avoid other hazards such as potholes and manhole covers, without swerving out into the traffic flow. Whereas remaining a decent distance from the kerb, provides a cyclist with room to avoid hazards, a decent safety margin in case of careless overtakes and increases their visibility.
Cyclists often move into the middle of the road and ‘take the lane’, this is intended as a visual reminder for following drivers not to attempt an ill-advised overtake as it makes it clear that there is no room/it is not the right place to overtake. Common places where a cyclist might ‘take the lane’ include narrow roads, pinch points and junctions, a careless overtake in these areas may endanger the overtaking driver, oncoming traffic and/or the cyclist themselves. The best thing to do in these situations is to hang back and patiently wait for a safe point to overtake, this is unlikely to affect your journey time by more than a couple of seconds. Shaving a few seconds off your journey time, is really not worth it for the damage you could potentially do to another human being (link not for the fainthearted).
Weaving through Traffic– This is known as filtering and, provided it is not done dangerously, is perfectly legal. This should be considered roughly similar to motorist’s desire to keep their average speed up by overtaking slower moving cyclists, and as bicycles are more compact this can sometimes speed up your journey by increasing junction throughput (just imagine if all those cyclists were in cars of their and sitting in front of you in the queue).
While these are all common behaviours seen in cyclists, what the mass media really latch onto is law breaking. While there are those that just have a flagrant disregard for the highway code, for others there is often a reason behind their decision to bend the laws.
Red light jumping– This may not be as common as the media would have us believe: a study in London of 7502 cyclists, found that on average only 16% of cyclists ran red lights. I feel that the reason why this is blown out of proportion so often, is that when cyclists run red lights the do so much more visibly than motorists. While the cyclists that run lights often do so in the red phase and in front of stationary traffic, car drivers are much more likely to try to squeeze through in between amber and red. So while both users jump red lights, the cyclist is obviously the more noticeable one. While the majority of drivers are motivated to run red lights out of a desire to conserve momentum and travel time, this is often not the central reason for cyclists.
One of the main reasons that cyclists run red lights is to get a head start on the trucks, buses and cars, so as to prevent left hooks, dangerous overtakes and tailgating while in the junction. One of theories put forward for the gender skewed HGV-cyclist casualty numbers, is that women are less likely to run a red light and are therefore more likely to be in the vicinity of a HGV when they conduct their turns. It often boils to down to either running the red light in between traffic streams, or staying and dealing with impatient and/or inattentive drivers behind.
Pavement cycling– I would say in the majority of cases the choice to cycle on the pavement is motivated out of fear for the cyclist’s own safety. Given the choice between cycling on the road, and therefore riding with multiple tonnes of metal propelled to high speeds, and cycling on the pavement, it is no surprise that so many cyclists choose to risk a £30/£60 instead of their lives. That so many people choose to put up with the inconvenience of cycling on the pavement and putting up with dodging pedestrians, street furniture and road mouths, really says a lot about the safety of our roads.
Not using cycling infrastructure– While this has long ago been overturned as a law and is now down to the cyclist’s individual judgement, the perception that this is illegal and unsociable still abounds. The central problem with the majority of so-called ‘cycling infrastructure’ is that it is at best inconvenient to use and at worst downright dangerous. On-road cycle lanes are often narrow, filled with debris, parked cars and drains, and encourage cyclists to cycle into the areas where they are most at risk (such as those that run right into the blind-spots of HGVs). Off-road cycle lanes are often in even worse repair; filled with surface defects, wet leaves and are strewn with numerous barriers and obstacles (not to mention pedestrians). Once again cyclist behaviour comes down to one theme; the desire to get from A to B in safety.
For the average cyclist a trip along British roads is fraught with a huge number of decisions that effect their chances of arriving at their destination safely. Often balancing their own safety against the convenience of the motorists around them. It is no surprise therefore, that this makes them such an opportune target for the media. However this in no way sanctions the day to day discrimination, abuse and threats leveled at those people who choose to get from place to place by bicycle. If you substituted the name of any minority group with the word ‘cyclist’ in many rants and articles, the law courts would be flooded with cases of discrimination, racism and hate crime. That person on the bicycle in front of you is someone’s mother, father, sister, brother, daughter or son, all they want to do is get to the end of their journey in one piece. Cyclists have an equal and base right to be on the road. If you really want to get cyclists off the road, build us some proper infrastructure (and while we’re at it, the idea that cyclists should not get infrastructure because of the actions of a few, is completely absurd. It would be like the government no longer building motorways because so many drivers speed, use their mobile phones or behave like idiots).
This is a review of the new cycling route along Auckland Drive and Windward Way, in North Solihull. This route is part of the North Solihull Cycle Network, which aims to create a ‘connected network of high quality cycle routes for the benefit of residents and local employers in the area‘. While there are a few good points to the route, it still falls short of what is needed for a cycling revolution.
The entirety of this route is made up of shared use pavements. To quote myself on shared use pavements: ‘Shared use pavements are NOT a solution in any but the most lightly traveled areas. They merely cause similar friction to that experienced between cars and cyclists.’
Although the pavements are of a decent width, the width is not great enough to deal with anything less than extremely low numbers of pedestrians and cyclists. Any cyclists that use this route on a regular basis will often find themselves reduced to walking pace by large numbers of pedestrians (particularly during school rush hours). And on the flip side of the argument, pedestrians often feel intimidated by being passed by cyclists at any speed above walking pace. Which does little to endear those who ride a bicycle, to the general population. Unfortunately not all sections of the route have this minimum amount of space: As you can see, even when you have passed this pointless pinchpoint the path does not widen out to the regular three meters seen throughout the rest of the route. This highlights perfectly the non-standardised provision that cyclists have come to expect from cycling infrastructure across the country.
However the largest design flaw with this new route, is an all too common flaw regarding priority. This particular area is peppered with dead end roads, many of which are little more than large driveways (see below), and cyclists are forced to give way at every single one of these liberal crossings. This makes for a very time consuming and inefficient ride and can put cyclists at risk from turning and emerging vehicles.
While at first glance, the route looks like a meaningless loop, there is a connected route at the southern end which leads to Chelmsley Wood center and the route encompasses four schools, a nursery and the Solihull College Woodlands campus. Which I would argue is a pretty ideal location to encourage general cycling.
Although the pavements are for the most part wide and pretty well surfaced. The idea of shared use pavements being anything more than a stop gap measure is flawed. With priority given to motor cars at every point, this development does nothing but effectively legalise pavement riding and reinforce cycling’s place as the underdog of road planning. In conclusion; this falls far short of ‘high quality’ cycle infrastructure, does very little to encourage cycling as a viable form of transport and is no substitute for high quality fully segregated infrastructure.
The benefits of cycle are clear, extending right across the board and encompassing health, economy, sustainability and general well being. Even those drivers who would never consider cycling, would stand to benefit from increasing numbers of cyclists (reduced congestion for one thing). So what is actually needed to create a cycling revolution? What is preventing the majority of the population cycling?
According to a study by Sustrans, roughly 56% of people consider cycling in urban areas to be too dangerous (source). This is not surprising, the majority of cycle trips in Britain involve sharing the road with large numbers of cars, HGVs and buses. Telling people to ‘take the lane’ and ‘just keep your wits about you’ is clearly not the answer to getting the majority of Britain’s population cycling. “It’ll be okay, just take the lane”
What is needed is cycling infrastructure for everyone, not just those who are young, fit and assertive enough to survive on the current roads. An infrastructure network that allows anyone from the age of 8, to the age of 80 to get about safely and effectively. Based on what is in place in countries with a high percentage of cyclists, Particularly the Netherlands and Denmark, a cycling network should consist of: High quality fully segregated routes along all major roads, supplemented by a network of quiet and traffic free residential roads. To reduce traffic flow in residential areas, a system of one way and dead end streets with a 20 mph speed limit is often put in place. This is usually accompanied by filtered permeability and contraflows for cyclists and pedestrians thereby reducing motor traffic to access only, but not restricting the movement of pedestrians and cyclists. Due to the low speed and traffic flow, these areas do not often require full segregation. For a rough guide, Copenhagenize’s bicycle planning guide sums up the required provision admirably. (Source)
As can be seen in the above graphic, as soon as vehicle speeds (and traffic levels) begin to increase, dedicated cycle infrastructure should be considered mandatory. However, to deliver a cycling revolution all infrastructure should be of extremely high quality and should, at the very least, meet three core guidelines.
1) Safe– all cycle infrastructure should be safe to use. If you would not consider it safe enough to let your 8 year old son/daughter or 80 year old grandparent use it, it is clearly not good enough. Full segregation from both motor traffic and pedestrians (where there are decent levels of either) should be considered mandatory for all dedicated cycle infrastructure. Shared use pavements are NOT a solution in any but the most lightly traveled areas. They merely cause similar friction to that experienced between cars and cyclists.
2) Continuous– The majority of the cycle infrastructure in Britain lacks this. To be truly effective a cycle network should actually be a network, not a half-hearted mix of on and off road provision that terminates at random (and often dangerous) points. All cycle infrastructure should be of standard design and should be continuous from the beginning to the end of a particular route, a mix of provision merely leads to confusion and refusal to use said infrastructure. Those on bicycles value smooth and uninterrupted travel even more so than those who drive, as stopping and starting is quite an energy loss not to mention a significant inconvenience. All cycle infrastructure on a main road should therefore have equivalent priority to the main carriageway itself. Which includes priority over driveways, minor roads, turning vehicles and through junctions.
3) Convenient– a cycle network should be about getting people from A to B, and therefore should at the very least be as direct as the parallel routes for motor vehicles. People on bikes do not want to tour all of the other letters of the alphabet to get to B any more than those driving.
While these are the core three, other important criteria include:
Width– one way cycle tracks should, at the very least, be of sufficient width to allow one cyclist to overtake another comfortably.
Clutter– cycle infrastructure should not require cyclists to swerve around bollards, ticket machines, trees, drains, etc…
Surface– cycle paths and tracks should have a uniform smooth surface and be kept clear of debris.
Parking– vehicles should not be allowed to obstruct/park on cycle infrastructure and all infrastructure should be well removed from the ‘door zone’ of parked cars.
To ensure that all of these criteria are met, there is one last ingredient that is needed for a cycling revolution: Public will. This isn’t about making life hell for drivers. It isn’t about removing everyone who wants to drive from the roads, and it isn’t just about men in Lycra on carbon fibre bikes. It’s about people wanting to get about on their bicycles, safely and free from harassment. It’s about a future, a future for you, your children and your children’s children.
If you haven’t signed the e-petition for safer cycling please do http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49196 . And if you’d like to keep up to date on what’s going on in the world of cycling, and future blog posts please visit either my Facebook page or follow me on Twitter.
Thanks for stopping by.
B
Our current society revolves around the motor car, as both a status symbol and main form of transportation. This has placed the car at the centre of all transport policy; our roads, streets, towns and cities have all been designed to cope with increasing numbers of cars. For many the car has become a central point of their lives; a necessity.
The alternatives to driving are unsurprisingly not very attractive to the average person: Public transport is often inconvenient, uncomfortable and expensive (still less than running a car, but as it is often a pay per trip system it encourages you to think about the amount of money involved in a journey).Walking is is viable for short distances, but requires a significant time investment for longer trips. And cycling of course (thanks to the media) is perceived to be ‘too dangerous’; a hobby for middle aged men in Lycra that enjoy dicing with death and flouting the rules of the road.
This image of cyclists, is the result of a road system that favours motor cars and sidelines those few cyclists brave or fit enough to venture out on it.
However this approach is ultimately unsustainable, there are a number of issues already making themselves apparent:
Congestion.-Traffic has often been likened to a gas, it expands to fill the space available. No matter how much extra space you create for cars, the demand will generally exceed supply. The only way to reduce congestion is to reduce the number of cars on the road, which can only be achieved through providing viable alternatives. While it is not possible to eliminate congestion entirely, bicycles are a much more efficient use of limited space and fewer cars on the roads also improves conditions for those who do then drive.
Peak oil -Cars run on fossil fuels which are non-renewable resources, meaning supplies of these fuels will eventually be exhausted (maybe sooner than we think) And while some hold high hopes for electric cars, the majority of the electricity used to run them comes from non-renewable sources. Our continued reliance on oil also puts us at the mercy of the countries that control the majority of the worlds oil.
Pollution– Many parts of the UK have already exceeded the legal limits for air pollution, as laid out by the EU, and this is estimated to cause the premature deaths of 29,000 people each year (source). The harmful substances that cars emit include: Carbon Dioxide- a leading contributor to global warming; Nitrogen Oxides- cause lung irritation and reduce immunity to several diseases; and Carbon Monoxide- which reduces your blood’s ability to transport oxygen. None of which can be considered conducive to good health, which is why the UK is now under significant pressure to rectify this. Which is where the bicycle comes in, as the original zero emission vehicle (beyond the emissions released in the manufacturing process of course).
Road traffic casualties– While overall fatalities on Britain’s roads are decreasing, this masks an increase in cyclist and pedestrian casualties. Cyclist fatalities have increased by 10% which far outstrips the overall increase in cycling and serious pedestrian have injuries increased by 2%. However, it could be argued that the 1,754 fatalities and 23,039 serious injuries last year, are a couple thousand too many (source). An increase in vulnerable road users casualties, on the other hand, indicates a failure to provide dedicated safe and high quality infrastructure for these user groups: A clear symptom of a car-centric culture which is willing to prioritise the use of one mode of transport over the lives of another.
Subsidies– The cost of all of the above issues and more far outweigh the money generated from areas such as car tax (Vehicle Excise Duty), insurance and VAT on fuel, meaning that car travel is heavily subsidised despite its negative impacts. An insightful video by Downfader sums it all up:
Even allowing for some statistical variation £140 billion in costs (over that raised in taxes) is a staggering figure and indicates just how heavily subisidised driving a car is.
Community– A less quantifiable impact is the impact that motorists have had on the social side of society; for the best of part of the previous century. The list includes the breakdown of social interactions (community), decline of small local businesses and the lack of freedom of the younger generations, however that would be a topic for another post.
Many other countries have already taken note of the of the many negative impacts of driving and have taken steps to reverse the status quo. The obvious solution in most of these cases has been sustained investment in alternative modes of transport, particularly cycling. This is most apparent in countries such as Denmark; The Netherlands (see previous post) and more recently, America.
So why is our government so bent on subsidising a method of transport that clearly has so many negative impacts on the economy and health of the country?
In a recent spending review in June the government announced a significant amount of spending on Britain’s road and highway system, none of which was aimed at anyone other than motorists. As well as this, the creation of the Office for Active Travel, which was meant to promote cycling and walking and have an initial budget of £1 billion, was shelved indefinitely. On top of this the Local Sustainable transport fund (the pot of money that councils can draw on to promote sustainable transport) is to be converted to the Local Growth Fund; removing any obligation for councils to spend the money on supporting sustainable transport. This just highlights that the government still refuses to take cycling seriously; as a sustainable and ethical mode of transport on which we can entrust the future of this country.
Since my girlfriend started cycling I, as a reasonably confident and assertive cyclist, have been reminded of exactly how dangerous many of the roads feel to those who aren’t extremely confident cyclists. Roads that I consider to be somewhat ‘okay’ to cycle on, are quite a daunting prospect for the two of us and have made planning quiet routes for us quite a headache. I have also been using much more of the off-road infrastructure than usual, which has served as quite a shocking reminder of how badly designed and implemented some sections can be.
Seeing how ordinary cyclists like her are so easily sidelined in the planning of our roads, streets and paths has served to remind me exactly how important safe and high quality infrastructure is for those who just want to be ‘bike users’ and not compete with high speed traffic (something that many experienced cyclists, myself included, often forget). So here goes, a guest post from the lovely Laura:
I’ve recently started cycling (since the beginning of April) because of the amount bus fare costs now and it got to a point where I couldn’t afford to spend on bus fare every time I wanted to go out somewhere. I wanted an easy and quick way to get around to places like to the local town center, to food shops or even just going out for a ride to get some fresh air and there are many more places, the main reason for cycling is because we had an unused bike sitting in the garage gathering dust I made the choice to start cycling. I really enjoy going out on my bike – especially when the sun is shining – it’s healthy, relaxing and a bit of exercise. Overall I am really glad that I made the choice to stop wasting money and start cycling. I get to places faster and easier than walking or sitting on the bus, I can beat the traffic! Those are the best advantages of cycling; beating the traffic, not sitting in long queues, saving my energy, getting exercise and enjoying the weather.
I don’t cycle on the roads as I find them dangerous and not trustworthy. If there were cycle lanes on the roads that are safe to use and you have more than enough space between you, the pavement and the cars coming past you, I would be more than happy to use them. Today, the roads don’t feel safe enough for me because I find some cars pass you too closely or too fast. Even if the cycle lanes were separated from the roads (which I’d prefer) I would like to see and use them because I would feel safer away from cars / buses / or any large vehicles.
I cycle in my own everyday clothes, jeans / leggings mainly. I find wearing my own clothes comfortable and satisfying because I don’t have to worry about changing before an interview or going out with some friends, I can feel nice while I’m cycling too. I don’t wear heels while cycling, but I wear either boots or pumps which I find comfortable to wear while cycling. I’m not a trainer person and I avoid wearing them whenever I can, it’s fine to wear what you like and what makes you feel good while cycling.
For the past few months now, cycling has changed my lifestyle. I feel I am more active, outgoing and independent because I can travel everywhere on my bike. It has also become another bond that I share with my boyfriend; something we have in common. I’m really glad I took up cycling and I feel it has changed me for the better and I can say I will be cycling a lot more from now on. Laura
If you have any questions or comments for Laura, please leave a comment below and I shall forward them to her. B
This post is my personal interpretation and analysis of the Birmingham Cycle Revolution bid, and what exactly appears to be proposing, in regards to infrastructure (the full document can be found here. All emphasis in quoted text below is my own). As in the video above, the introduction to the bid appears to be heading down the right tracks:
‘The bid focuses on investment in deliverable cycling infrastructure and facilities, building on our exiting cycling network, making the best use of our canal network and green corridors, develop a comprehensive on-road network supported by wider enabling measures. Such as cycle parking and bike hubs, offering significantly improved cycling conditions.’
While building on the existing canal and green corridors sounds like a pretty good idea, the focus on ‘deliverable’ infrastructure and emphasis on cycle parking and bike hubs is slightly worrying. Yes, cycle parking and bike hubs are a nice idea but paired with the idea of ‘deliverable’ infrastructure, it sounds like more of the same sub-par infrastructure present throughout much of the country (in other words an escape clause). The overall goal of the bid is a
‘Cycling modal split target of at least 5% over the next ten years, rising to the levels of of comparable European cities such as Munich and Copenhagen at over 10% by 2033.’
Certainly a high target for 20 years, with Munich at 20%+ modal share and Copenhagen at 36%+ with the target of increasing it to 50% by 2015 (http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/07/worlds-most-bicycle-friendly-cities.html). To even reach the same level as these cities would require a widespread and continuous network of infrastructure at a world class level, I for one hope that Birmingham can step up to the challenge. The proposals for the different types of route, however, do not exactly fill me with confidence:
‘Main Corridors: measures along eight of the main arterial roads into the city center. These will generally be suitable for more confident and experienced cyclists who value fast and direct routes with priority over side roads, and who are happy to mix with buses and other traffic in areas where separate cycle facilities cannot be provided within the space available.’
This whole idea that only ‘confident and experienced’ cyclists value fast and direct routes, and that we are ‘happy’ to mix with buses and other traffic is absurd. Fast and direct routes with appropriate priority should be standard across the whole spectrum of cyclists, and besides extremist vehicular cyclists (cycling’s secret sect) I have not come across a single cyclist who is actively happy to share the road with buses and trucks. The infrastructure proposed for these main routes also appears to cater this flawed idea:
‘Typical measures will include marked cycle facilities (formal or informal) on the carriageway, shared use foot-ways, improved cycle routes through subways (particularly at the ring road), bus lanes (with cycle lanes to link disjointed sections of bus lane) and short diversions to avoid particularly complex junctions or other pinch-points where facilities cannot be accommodated (for example in local centers) then general traffic measures will be introduced to narrow traffic lanes and reduce speeds, to give cyclists more confidence in taking up a dominant position within their traffic lane.’
So in other words, a choice between; an on road cycle lane (likely to be narrow, blocked and/or subjected to close passes by motorists), sharing the path with pedestrians, sharing a lane with buses or sitting in front of a queue of angry motorists who have no way to overtake you. Sounds absolutely lovely, especially the part where this will give the average cyclist ‘more confidence in taking up a dominant position within their traffic lane’. And then for those lacking confidence:
‘Parallel Routes: A network of generally quieter routes running parallel to the main corridors, but also leading to to local schools , health centers, parks and other community facilities, and suitable for less experienced commuter cyclists as well as family trips. Many routes will be identified primarily by signing, but additional measures will provided in many locations including marked cycle lanes or shared use footways, changed priorities at junctions, controlled crossings at intersections with main roads and measures to reduce vehicle speeds (including traffic calming features and 20 mph areas).’
While the idea of quieter routes does sound like a good one, as stated previously, is no replacement for safe, convenient and direct infrastructure, which will only happen if these routes are truly parallel and not significantly longer and harder to navigate through. However with the apparent focus on signage over any meaningful infrastructure I am not sure exactly sure how ‘safe’ these routes will feel. 20 mph limits are definitely a good thing (and not just for cyclists) but ‘traffic calming features’ sound like pinch points and other road narrowing schemes to me. Which at best create friction between drivers and cyclists and at worst are downright dangerous. The other types of infrastructure may be decent if built to a very high standard, but as stated before, often do little to help (‘controlled crossings’ – cattle pens anyone?). If implemented properly, with filtered permeability and appropriate priority parallel routes could be very beneficial but i have not seen any evidence that this will actually happened.
The document continues:
‘Within our bid area an emphasis on segregation and semi-segregation from traffic along main roads routes will develop a greater sense of continuity and improved safety similar to London’s superhighways.’
It is interesting that the people who wrote this document chose to compare the planned routes to London’s superhighways. While the designs for the new superhighways look promising, the routes already in place are hardly a roaring success in getting the average Londoner to cycle, don’t provide a great deal of safety and are definitely not trail-blazing pieces of infrastructure. And ‘semi-segregation along main roads’ doesn’t exactly sound like amazingly good infrastructure for the purposes of mass cycling.
Yes, I reckon I have approached this document rather cynically but I feel that I am somewhat justified in doing so, as the standard of currently in place on our roads at the moment is often of sub-par design, implementation and often more dangerous than the roads alongside. My conclusion is that this may be a slight step forward for Birmingham but it falls far short of being anywhere close to a real ‘cycling revolution’, in fact I don’t think there is anything really ‘revolutionary’ to be seen in any of these proposals. My opinion is that to start a true ‘cycling revolution’ funds should be focused on small stretches of infrastructure built to an extremely high standard of safety and convenience and then extended gradually with a focus on high standards and continuity.
I am well aware that the discrimination is absolutely nowhere near the scale and severity of the 1900 s America, but the fact is that many cyclists deal with threats to their lives on an almost daily basis (yes, I consider a tonne of metal being propelled just past me at 40mph, a threat) just because their method of transport is considered ‘abnormal’. The Government seems incapable of building infrastructure that isn’t so badly designed as to be downright –dangerous and as for the police and legal system, well the majority don’t seem to reallycare. Nevertheless, I have a dream…
While I would very much like to cycle on safer roads, I am one of those who would cycle even if the roads were paved with carpet tacks (don’t tell the gov I said that, it might give them ideas). What I really want is safer roads for all. I want to be able to tell my girlfriend/ mother/ siblings that it’s OK to cycle, that it’s perfectly safe to cycle to the shops. That they don’t have to worry about sharing the road with left turning lorries, impatient bus drivers or speeding motorists. I want to be able to put my hand on my heart and say “yes it’s safe go ahead and enjoy yourself”. There is always someone who will point at the statistics and say “look cycling is safer than walking”. But these statistics invariably fail to take into account all the near misses and close calls that affect perceived safety. And are the statistics really any consolation to that one in a thousand cyclist who does get hit?
I have a dream… That my future children will grow up in a country where they can cycle, without hi-vis and in near-perfect safety, to a friend’s house, to play in the park, to visit the town center or even to school:
Source: http://www.youtube.com/user/markenlei I am a strong believer in giving children freedom and independence to help them develop in true sensible, responsible and mature young adults, something that I feel is severely lacking in these times (but that’s a topic for a different blog). The fact is that children cannot, and never will be able to, drive a car. So unless a conscious effort is made to put alternative methods of transport such as walking or cycling on the same level of priority as that of motoring, and an effort is made to reduce the danger that cars pose, children will forever be reduced to being ferried around by their parents.
To be clear I am not advocating the complete removal of cars from the roads. I, like many other cyclists, am a regular motorist, yes I do cycle more than I drive but there is no denying the convenience of car for some types of journey (a business trip to a town 20 miles away is a reasonable reason to drive). And I understand if people don’t fancy cycling at -3C* or in gale force winds, but the heyday of car only travel is passing. If you look at other famous cycling countries such as the Netherlands or Denmark you will realise that there are still people that drive, the situation is not in fact completely reversed. People cycle because it is simply more convenient, not because they will be labelled as second class citizens or threatened on a daily basis if they choose to drive.
The big question is; what sort of country do you want your children or children’s children to grow up in? A country based around the motor car, to which so many are unknowingly prisoners of? A country which is based around the people, and no person’s transport choice actively endangers another’s? How many lives is your right to drive everywhere worth?
As you can see, this cycle track that runs in front of the shops in Shirley seems to hit all the right points. Made of good quality tarmac and clearly marked, it is clearly and fully segregated from both the busy A road to the right and the thriving pedestrianized area to the left. The crossing points for pedestrians are raised above the cycle track itself and clearly marked with symbols and bollards (the bollards themselves aren’t really that hard to navigate around, the space either side is decent enough for most bikes).
While cycle parking is pretty limited, the stands themselves are pretty well placed: Away from both pedestrian and cyclist desire lines.
And there is more than enough space to add more to cope with demand if it should arise. However as you may have noticed there is a distinct lack of cyclists making use of this facility, and it is actually pretty rare to see a bike locked up here. The reason for this, I would guess, is the location of this particular piece of infrastructure. Situated along the four lane Stratford Road this shopping street is hemmed in by busy roads and large junctions, the northern end is made largely impassable to cyclists by this intersection:
With two lanes going in each direction, this crossroad is far from pleasant to cycle through (as i can personally attest to, I travel through this junction on a weekly basis and it is definitely not for the faint-hearted). And to the south of the street, a slightly less intimidating junction :
(still far from somewhere you’d cycle through with your kids).
So while this piece of infrastructure gets an A for safety, it fails on being both continuous and convenient. The roads surrounding this area are as a rule pretty busy and what little cycling infrastructure that does exist, mostly consists of half-hearted pavement infrastructure (as covered previously). However what this short cycle track does show, is exactly what planners can do if they put their mind to it. If this standard of infrastructure was made commonplace i’m pretty sure that a decent amount of the population would feel safe enough to cycle regularly.
The Netherlands have not always been a nation of cyclists, while the bicycle has always played a part in Dutch history, the period after the Second World War was characterized by an increasingly car-centric policy. However The Dutch reached a point in the 1970’s, where the lives lost to motor traffic increased to a unacceptable level for the public, and the Netherlands, as a nation, made a conscious decision to end the dominance of motor traffic. This was primarily driven by vigorous campaign from the public to bring an end to the traffic fatalities, particularly those involving children (Stop de kindermoord -Stop the child murder).
Now cycling has become central to all planning and transport policy in the Netherlands and a network of safe, convenient and continuous bicycle routes are in place across the country. Comprising of high quality segregated cycle tracks along busy roads and restricted motor vehicle access along minor or residential streets. This has had the effect of creating a cycling culture in the Netherlands; practically everyone cycles, young or old. Getting on your bicycle is simpler, more convenient and in some cases even faster than using a car. People in the Netherlands don’t see themselves as ‘cyclists’ any more than the majority of the people in the UK see themselves as ‘motorists’, the bicycle is simply just another method of getting around. No helmets, no specialist clothing, just a person on a bicycle getting from A to B safely and conveniently.
a solihull cyclist 