I was impressed to see 77 MPs turn up to the cycle safety EDM yesterday, brought about by The Times’ Cities fit for Cycling campaign. I was fortunate enough to be able to watch the debate through the parliament website. Whilst the debate lacked strong focus, it was pleasing to see cycling discussed seriously in parliament, with red-light jumping being mentioned only once, and the MP who brought it up quickly chastised by the chair of the debate, Dr Julian Huppert MP.
Since watching the debate, I’ve been thinking about where I’d personally like to see this sudden momentum directed. Obviously, our elected representatives cannot be experts on every subject, and so it is my hope that they will be looking to the right groups for guidance. There were a lot of ideas floating around the debate and I think it would be beneficial to propose a few basic principles and a few short and long-term objectives which would help get us to the point where cycling is safer for existing cyclists and safe enough for the rest of the population to want to cycle.
Principles:
- “Cycling” should not be treated as a single entity; transport cycling should one of the core responsibilities of the Department for Transport and the equivalent local institutions, sport and leisure cycling should be overseen by the relevant government departments which oversee sports, leisure and tourism.
- Measures to increase the safety of cyclists should be primarily external to cycling and the cyclist. Make cycling truly safe for all and helmets, high-visibility apparel and Bikeability become an irrelevance. The single largest change needed is the design of our roads.
- Measures to increase the safety of cycling should not make cycling less convenient; cycle infrastructure needs to be convenient and safe for children and fast, experienced commuter cyclists alike. The dual network approach is confusing and causes more problems that it solves.
- Measures to increase the safety and convenience of cycling should not come at the expense of safety (including subjective safety) or convenience for pedestrians.
- The Netherlands model for road design should be the basis for the changes needed to our road network in order to make cycling safe and attractive for all.‡
Short-term objectives:
- Commit to integrating cycling into all stages of road design, planning, construction and maintenance
- Overhaul LTN 2/08 in order to reduce the beurocracy involved in producing reasonable-quality cycle infrastructure such as the Camden cycle tracks and to prevent it being misinterpreted and used to justify facilities such as these.
- Replace the current hierarchy of provision with a much more specific set of separation principles.
- Continue with driver awareness programmes and Bikeability whilst road designs remain in place which put cyclists in danger.
Long-term objectives:
- Cycling needs to be integral to the design of new roads. Existing roads are refreshed periodically based on wear & tear and their importance; this work must include bringing the road up to the new standard for safe, convenient cycling.†
- In urban areas, basic functional cycle networks should be built as a matter of priority. These should be along main roads and informed by existing desire lines of those using all modes of road transport.
- Central government needs to set a final compliance date by which time all relevant Highways Agency and local authority roads must comply with the new standards.
- As the cycle networks become fleshed out, phase out Bikeability in schools in favour of Dutch cycle training which will be more appropriate for the redesigned roads.
† Whilst admittedly an incredibly blunt instrument, rolling out safe, convenient cycle infrastructure as a part of the existing process of refreshing roads should help construct basic cycle networks along existing desire lines, as these are generally the roads with the most wear & tear and importance.
Good. I’ll repost this. Cheers, Ian.
I’ve reposted or should that be re-blogged this on the CTC Northampton Blog at http://ctcnorthampton.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/the-times-campaign-where-next/ with an intro from our Right-to-Ride Officer about how our MPs responded to our e-mails over The Times’ campaign.
Out of Northamptonshire and Milton Keynes, my MP did best. His first response, a fortnight ago, was that EDMs were a waste of time and money. By yesterday, he attended the debate and made an intervention. I was pleased. He’s Michael Ellis (Northampton North).
I think the popularity of this EDM took a lot of MPs by surprise. I really hope my current (temporary) MP, Simon Danczuk regrets not bothering to attend or to reply to my correspondence on the matter. As it stands, Rochdale (in his constituency) deserves to be given this award instead.
Brilliant reworking of Times logo!
A few basic principles – but the best articulated, most coherent and holistic set of principles I’ve seen in a long time, and that includes all the best bloggers on the subject.
Thanks very much. It was tempting to write too much or go very far into specifics, but at this stage I don’t think that is what our MPs need.
Pingback: After Westminster Hall, where next? | At War With The Motorist
Congratulations on a finely stated set of principles, short and long-term objectives! Can anyone disagree with these?
I particularly like the clear distinction between “cycling” as a sport for enthusiasts and the use of bicycles as a mode of transport for ordinary people. Cycle campaigning has until now been mainly done by enthusiasts, myself included, but this is changing and ordinary people who would like to ride bicycles are starting to have a voice.
I also like the point that the Dutch have done 30 years of practical research, and now have the best, tried-and-tested, and most cost-effective solutions to provide safe streets and mass cycling.
Lumping all cycling together might have seemed like a good idea during the cycling’s dark ages, but I feel that it is time for a split. It’ll be better for everyone involved.
As for what the Dutch have done, it does seem a shame to ignore all of the time and effort they have put in developing the best road network in the world for cycling when we could just be shamelessly copying it instead.
Pingback: The politics of cycle infrastructure in Britain « amcambike
Pingback: After Westminster Hall, where next?