'Government' finally abandons its 'commitment' to cycling...

The 'Government' has at long last dropped any pretention that it is
genuinely committed to cycling. It has now dropped all national
cycling targets and instead will turn cycling over to the tender
mercies of local authorities. (God help us all...).

See http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=4392

And:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/strategy/futur.../challenge.htm

On 20 Jul 2004 13:25:23 -0700, (Howard)
wrote in message :

The 'Government' has at long last dropped any pretention that it is
genuinely committed to cycling.

I think that was one of the oldnewlabour targets that never got
dropped in the great purges. Idealistic targets are all very fine,
but there is no chance that t would ever have been achieved - all
governments are far too beholden to the motor lobby these days.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:25:23 -0700, Howard wrote:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/strategy/futur.../challenge.htm

Quickly browsing through that,
http://www.dft.gov.uk/strategy/futur.../challenge.htm

The graph in section 11.1 renders quite badly.
Anyone got a better source for that, or maybe what the actual numbers are?
Useful in discussions with people about cycling on the roads.

"Howard" wrote in message
om...
The 'Government' has at long last dropped any pretention that it is
genuinely committed to cycling. It has now dropped all national
cycling targets

About bloody time.

This whole business of "robust", i.e. inaccurate, targets was pretty
stupid - "Look at me, my target's bigger than your target. I've got
the biggest target in the jungle."

The idea of encouraging cycling by "dangerizing" it is stupid too.
Yes cycling is terribly dangerous, you shouldn't ride on an
unmodified road. Yes cycling is terribly dangerous, you shouldn't do
it without special protective clothing.

In fact, anyone who rides a bike really has only themselves to blame
if they have an accident and upset some poor innocent motorist's day.

The transport thingy says that the quality of bike facilities is
"uneven". That's rubbish. It's remarkably consistent, all through
the country.

There's some research that indicates that building bike paths for
everybody from door to door would not double cycling. On the other
hand paying people three quid per trip would, instantly

Jeremy Parker

The 'Government' has at long last dropped any pretension that it is
genuinely committed to cycling. It has now dropped all national
cycling targets

About bloody time.

Jeremy Parker

But the targets in Prescott's 'A New Deal for Transport' were in
reality very conservative and would have seen cycling levels still
rise to only a fraction of many continental countries. They were also
entirely achievable and based on what other countries had achieved in
a similar time span. For example, the Dutch via their Bicycle Master
Plan. (The Dutch might cycle en mass today but so did the British a
few decades ago and in the 1960's even the Dutch Ministry of Transport
though no one would cycle anymore in 20 years time. Luckily the Dutch
saw where this would lead...).

The biggest problem is that no 'Government' in the UK has ever had the
balls to take on the motor lobby. A few years back the Commission for
Integrated Transport said that the UK was poised at a cross roads. One
way led to a European style integrated transport system, the other way
led to US style 'carmageddon'. It seems that choice has been made.

This country is well and truly Fu*ked beyond redemption, and no
mistake.

"Howard" wrote in message
om...
The 'Government' has at long last dropped any pretension that
it is
genuinely committed to cycling. It has now dropped all national
cycling targets

About bloody time.

Jeremy Parker

But the targets in Prescott's 'A New Deal for Transport' were in
reality very conservative and would have seen cycling levels still
rise to only a fraction of many continental countries. They were
also
entirely achievable ....

as is shown by the total failure to achieve them. At least the
British target was as not as big a fiasco as Denmark's, where the
result of their 5 year plan to increase cycling was a 15% drop

....and based on what other countries had achieved in
a similar time span. For example, the Dutch via their Bicycle
Master
Plan. (The Dutch might cycle en mass today but so did the British a
few decades ago and in the 1960's even the Dutch Ministry of
Transport
though no one would cycle anymore in 20 years time. Luckily the
Dutch
saw where this would lead....

The modal split for cycling in Cambridge is higher than Amsterdam, I
think.

Actually the only significant thing that happened about bikes in the
Netherlands in the 1960s was the "white bicycle" movement, when the
provos painted bikes white so that the meths drinkers could chuck
them into canals.

The Dutch revolution in policy didn't occur until the autumn of 1973,
when the Arabs cut off their oil to let Shell know what's what. It
wasn't intended to be a bike revolution, either, it was intended to
be a moped revolution. Cycling was obviously in terminal decline,
but the fuel shortage - likely to continue - would require some
alternative to cars, and mopeds were the only possible candidate.
Because the Dutch expected a large rise in moped riding (as did some
other European countries) they expected a large rise in moped
accidents, to match.

To forstall the moped carnage, the Dutch passed a compulsory helmet
law, in 1974, I think The result was an immediate halving of moped
journeys, and the bankrupting of the moped industry, because
everybody stopped buying new mopeds. Many of the former moped riders
started riding bikes, on which nobody wore helmets, resulting in a
big step in bike riding.

At this time Dutch cycle facilites followed the usual European
pattern. They got built, where there was space, as part of the
construction of new roads. Thus they occurred alongside main roads,
out in the country. Of course, with new roads, sometimes the country
got swallowed up by suburbia. You see the same pattern here in
Britain, where some of the old discredited prewar cycle tracks,
alongside bypasses, still linger.

Dutch cycle tracks were slightly different from British cycle tracks
because their use by mopeds had been legal since 1952. The tracks,
being moped tracks, could be rougher than needed for a bicycle
(mopeds have suspensions), but needed better sight distances, and so
on, because of the higher moped speeds.

The new cyclists created a new problem in towns, where bikes had
never really been separated from other traffic. The Dutch looked
around the world for best practice and found, of course, Great
Britain, and its "new towns". Stevenage was world famous for its
segregated bike network, and Stevenage's chief engineer, Eric
Claxton, used to tour the world giving talks about it.

The Dutch built a couple of experimental urban bike paths, in the
Hague, and Tilburg. The found out that they didn't increase cycling
much, but have carried on building them.


The biggest problem is that no 'Government' in the UK has ever had
the
balls to take on the motor lobby.

The evil motoring lobby gets everywhere. In fact, even in my branch
of the London Cycling campaign, a majority, probably a substantial
majority, of the members seem to own cars.

A few years back the Commission for
Integrated Transport said that the UK was poised at a cross roads.
One
way led to a European style integrated transport system, the other
way
led to US style 'carmageddon'. It seems that choice has been made.

This country is well and truly Fu*ked beyond redemption, and no
mistake.

Well, you could emigrate, I suppose, although I'm not sure where to.
I'm lucky, I guess. I know how to ride a bike, and enjoy it, even in
a motorised country.

Jeremy Parker

Hi Jeremy,

When I said that the targets were entirely achievable I mean
achievable if it were not for the fact that so many people were
determined NOT to achieve them. Look at my experiences of working as a
local government cycling officer at www.thebikezone.org.uk for an
example of what I mean.

Yes, we do have the odd location where people still cycle in
significant numbers, Cambridge, York, Hull (which has had 3 cyclist
deaths in the last year or so), but most of the country is a cycling
'no go' zone. Look at the national figures.

Yes, I am well aware of the history of transport policy in the
Netherlands. As you say space originally intended for road side car
parking was converted to cycle paths and even though the Bicycle
Master Plan itself notes that urban cycling paths have been associated
with an increase in cycle casualties at junctions, they still continue
along their 'segregationist' policy, which is just what we don't want
in the UK.

I would say owning a car is very different to being an active part of
the road lobby. (I am a car owner myself). I was referring to the
anti-speed control mob, the fuel tax protesters, the AA for they way
they whipped up mass hysteria when the harmonisation of European
insurance law was proposed (which would have created a 'no fault'
compensation scheme for injured pedestrians and cyclists), the motor
manufactures such as BMW and so on. (At a conference I attended a few
years back a delegate from the DfT was asked why the Government had
done so little to develop Intelligent Speed Adaptation Systems, the
DfT guy said this was because a 'certain' car manufacturer with an
interest in the UK had made it clear that it would withdraw from the
UK if this was taken into the mainstream political arena as it was
considered to run counter to its interests, i.e. selling expensive
overpowered status symbols...)

I am glad you can still enjoy riding a bike. However I find it
increasingly hard to do so. I hardly ever ride in a group anymore as
drivers are so intolerant of meeting groups of cyclists on the road,
even on quiet country lanes. Being overtaken and cut up by left
turning cars, having cars bully their way past me at narrow
pinchpoints and so on also takes much of the pleasure out of cycling.
Perhaps I have been spoilt as I can recall how much better it was 30
years ago, if only because of the much lower levels of traffic on the
road. Do you think you will still enjoy cycling on our roads in 10 or
20 years time? Do you think your children will still have cycling as
part of their everyday lifestyles?

In message , Jeremy Parker
writes
You see the same pattern here in
Britain, where some of the old discredited prewar cycle tracks,
alongside bypasses, still linger.

I didn't know that such things existed! Where are there still
examples, then?
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

in message , Howard
') wrote:

Do you think you will still enjoy cycling on our roads in 10 or
20 years time? Do you think your children will still have cycling as
part of their everyday lifestyles?

If not our children, then our grandchildren, yes. And they will be
riding bikes on roads which, give or take the odd horse and cart, will
be otherwise largely empty. The great car economy is busy burning
itself out.

Yes, there may be some economically extractable oil left when I am old,
but it will be far too valuable for anyone but the richest to burn as
transport fuel.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; lovely alternative to rice.

"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
...
In message , Jeremy Parker
writes
You see the same pattern here in
Britain, where some of the old discredited prewar cycle tracks,
alongside bypasses, still linger.

I didn't know that such things existed! Where are there still
examples, then?

A24 between Leatherhead & Dorking past Box Hill.