“Get Britain Cycling”: Are cyclists set to win?

6 Replies

Today sees the launch of the Summary and Recommendations of the “Get Britain Cycling” report. Reporting on this on the front page of The Times we see “Cyclists are set to win revolution in road safety”. Is this so? Road Danger Reduction Forum President Lord Berkeley is one of the Panel members of The Get Britain Cycling Inquiry. I have a reputation for pessimism (or as I would say, healthy scepticism) and as RDRF Chair I give a detailed analysis of the Summary and Recommendations below.

Make no mistake, along with Mayor Johnson’s “Vision for Cycling”; the production of this report is a pivotal moment for the possibility of not just cycling, but sustainable transport as a whole in Britain. So: are cyclists – and all those of us interested in the development and implementation of sustainable transport policy indeed “set to win”? Continue reading →

Spanish anti-cycling law

2 Replies

protest_valencia-500x295

We normally restrict ourselves to what happens in the UK, but the Spanish government’s proposed anti-cycling law is significant for Europeans, and many of our readers are potential cycling visitors to Spain. So check up on what is proposed here and if you want to support the excellent Spanish cyclists of Conbici do write in as suggested to the Tourism Ministry. You can do this in English, but below we present you with our letter to the Traffic Directorate in Madrid with a Spanish version provided by the RDRF translation service. Continue reading →

“Get Britain Cycling”

Leave a reply

apcg_header

We have posted on the “Get Britain Cycling”  enquiry  before – and although regrettably we were not called to give evidence, some good contributions have been made to the enquiry. In this post – after asking you support EDM 679 directly or through the CTC  – we give a view on two talking points that have arisen: The revelation for some MPs that the police do not enforce road traffic law, specifically 20 mph limits (who knew?) and the AA president gratifying some cyclists by saying that drivers shouldn’t threaten to kill them (which we’re supposed to be impressed by?) Continue reading →

Mayor Johnson’s “Vision for Cycling in London”: Part Four

7 Replies

Summing it all Up:

If my analysis in these posts here seems more critical than that of some cycling bloggers and cycling groups, this may be because I have experience of the lack of positive effects of numerous talked-up cycling strategies, initiatives and “visions” from those in power over the past 25 years in the UK. Not a few of these were hailed at the time as “step-changes” or “sea-changes” in support for cycling. My justification for an in-depth analysis of this document   is that unless we understand what is being incorrectly assessed and proposed, we won’t get it right this time either. The key point is to understand what opportunities are now open (or need to be pushed for afresh) in the current climate. Hopefully this analysis will allow for campaigners and practitioners alike to prepare accordingly. Continue reading →

Mayor Johnson’s “Vision for Cycling in London”: Part Three

Leave a reply

 Some more Problems: Cycle Training, Smarter Travel etc.

A key part of the funding (already announced before the publication of the Vision) goes to non-highway (or off-road) infrastructure. I’m absolutely in favour of moving beyond the usual highways and transportation planners fixation on the highway environment. But the spending has to obviously go in the right direction – and I’m not sure it does. Continue reading →

Mayor Johnson’s “Vision for Cycling in London”: Part Two

2 Replies

While giving praise where it is due: I continue this in-depth analysis with some more Problems:

 The Boroughs

???????????????????????????????

Permanently empty stands in a “Biking Borough”

Mayor Johnson: “I do not control the vast majority of London’s roads, so many of the improvements I seek will take time. They will depend on the cooperation of others, such as the boroughs…”. Continue reading →

Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce : how to avoid this type of scenario

Leave a reply

HuhnePryce

Chris Huhne and Vicky pryce: Photo AOL

The letter below was published in the Guardian

• Some of your correspondents (9 March) appear to regard such antisocial behaviour as trivial, deserving of “a fine and a wigging from the beaks”. Hardly an effective deterrent when Mr Huhne’s previous driving conviction and three-month ban didn’t appear to have much of an effect. Perhaps this case will encourage drivers to be more careful, and to avoid wriggling out of their obligation to accept minor penalties on the rare occasions they are caught.
Dr Robert Davis
Chair, Road Danger Reduction Forum

In fact it was quite heavily truncated: the main points I was trying to make were: Continue reading →

Mayor Johnson’s “Vision for Cycling in London”: Part One

Leave a reply

Victoria Embankment cycle lane proposal

This is the biggest current story for anybody interested in sustainable transport policy.  As the ever sensible Chris Boardman correctly commented: “This is the most ambitious cycling development and promotion plan in the UK in living memory, perhaps ever.” However, you don’t have to be a cynic for the excitement of first part of that sentence to be somewhat cooled by the “in the UK” part of it.

As a London cyclist of 35 years standing, campaigner for most of those years and transport professional in London for 25, here is my assessment of what the “Vision for Cycling”  may – or may – not mean for London. Continue reading →

How many cyclists and pedestrians is it alright to kill in order to protect car occupants from bad driving?

Leave a reply

In amongst all the fuss about Mayor’s Vision for Cycling in London, the Get Britain Cycling Inquiry  , the pressure from motorists’ organisations  to cut fuel duty (well, there should be a fuss about this) one important item has slipped under the radar – apart from for those genuinely interested in the safety of all road users.

This is the 30th anniversary of a move successfully lobbied for by the “road safety” lobby, which –although it took them 26 years to admit it – led to “a clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants, appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists (my emphasis)   So, how many cyclists and pedestrians is it alright to kill in order to protect car occupants from bad driving? Other issues apart from the moral one are revealed by this episode, so do read on: Continue reading →