If you can't cycle it, then it ain't a cycling route

I've been reading the local council's published proposal and funding bid for a local "pinch point" along the A194  which is a busy 70 MPH dual carriageway which also happens to one of the main routes into the town.

There is bugger all about improvements for cycling, apart from a mention about signing some of the slip road crossings, apart from the following

All well and good, but the bridge which is marked on the official map as being advisory specifically prohibits cycles from being ridden. The actual signs at either end of the bridge are below.

South side of the footbridge

North side of the footbridge

Now colour me pedantic, but a cycle route where you are only allowed to push your bicycle, is NOT a cycle route, advisory or otherwise, it is a footpath. I have been across and appreciate why they stop you from riding a cycle, but to mention it as a cycling facility in a bid to show that cyclists are catered for is nothing more than a bare faced lie.

The A194 route is popular with commuting cyclists, not that there is that many as the conditions are so hostile, as it is a direct link in and out of the town and links several residential and industrial areas as well as schools. The current cycling provision is frankly zero.

This bid goes into lots of detail about car movements and into fantasy about how it will create more jobs cos more people will be able to drive there once the congestion caused by the "pinch point" is removed, which kinda seems like a self defeating prophecy to me.


Any congestion reduction will only come from reducing the number of cars, The bid actually hints that it would INCREASE traffic volume. This is madness.

As I mentioned above the bid makes virtually zero provision for improved walking and cycling apart from putting in better crossings on the A19 sliproads. That's out of £3.4 million, and as it has now gone public, it can be assumed that it has been given the green light from the DfT. Below is the section explaining the paltry amount of consideration given to pedestrians and cyclists as part of the bid

What should have been done, was to provide a wide 2 way cycleway from Whitemare pool along the A194. As well as very wide grassed verges, there are various sections of the old road (Roman Road and Hadrian road) which run parallel to the A194 which could be linked in to reduce the overall cost.

This would have provided people with a real alternative to driving, but it seems that South Tyneside council is stuck in the 1970s still.

This is why national mandatory high quality designs and guidance is urgently needed to force local authorities like South Tyneside Council to provide good quality and safe environments for pedestrians and cyclists

Get Britain Cycling - I've written to my MP, you should too

Below is the letter I have sent to my MP via They work For You asking him to attend the Get Britain Cycling debate on the 2nd of September.

Please also write to your MP asking them to attend. Feel free to steal, plagiarise and use the text below as you wish



Dear Stephen Hepburn,

I am writing to ask you to attend the Get Britain Cycling debate in Parliament on the 2nd of September, and represent the best interests of your constituents.

This was the focus of a parliamentary enquiry earlier this year, and has been in the media spotlight for the last 18 months. The report from the enquiry can be read here if you have not already done so.

Cycling has witnessed a large boom in recent years, and is one of the best forms of transport especially for the short journeys which make up the overwhelming majority of car trips in the UK.

Now is an ideal time to prioritise and promote cycling as it is still benefiting from the Olympic "effect" and Bradley Wiggins' historic first British Tour De France win for Britain  which looks set to have another British winner this year. The Tour is also due to start in Leeds in 2014, which is not too far away & certain to increase cycling's profile even further.

More importantly, increasing cycling provision by providing safe infrastructure and road environments  would provide several key benefits within the constituency which would help alleviate some of the issues faced by people living here.

As you are aware, South Tyneside and Jarrow have a significant obesity problem causing other long term health issues such as diabetes and heart disease. You have previously raised this issue requesting numbers.  The local paper has previously reported obesity and related conditions costing £50 Million a year in the borough.

Making cycling a safe and attractive option for people to integrate into their daily lives as a transport mode will make for a healthier population, as it is an excellent way of increasing & integrating activity into everyday life.

As you are also undoubtedly aware, the area is quite deprived, and lots of households are struggling with ever increasing bills.

Cycling could help people reduce fuel and other motoring costs by switching to bicycles. Also areas of the constituency have nearly 50% of households which do not have vehicles.

Prioritising the vast majority of transport policy on cars & other road vehicles negatively impacts these households which do not have cars & rely on public transport, & cycling and walking.

In these times of austerity, building cycling infrastructure has a very high return on investment from short term savings in reducing congestion & fuel costs to long term savings in health costs

I would appreciate your support in this matter on the 2nd of September and would be more than happy to engage in ongoing discussions with yourself about cycling in the constituency.

Yours sincerely,

"I hate cyclists. They never...."

...pay "road tax. They don't have insurance or pass a test" Go the cyclist haters on Twitter, the Daily Mail and localnews sites. "Ban 'em from the roads" until they do go the shouts from the baying mob.

As we all know this is a complete load of codswallop spouted from ignorant loons who don't frankly have a clue.

So lets quickly debunk these one by one,with a little bit of Google-Fu...

Tax (VED) - 2.1 Million vehicles untaxed according to this report published by Autocar in 2009. Also based on data from What Car there are over 230 models on sale that are legally VED free and pay the same amount as bicycles.

Insurance - 1.3 Million cars (1 in 25) without insurance - confused.com

Driver testing - It was not possible to get any accurate figure of unlicenced drivers, which includes disqualified and people who have never taken or passed a test, but estimates range from 1 million to 5 million+.

In addition, although bicycles are not subject to maintenance checks, cars are and 4.5 million MOT renewals are missed every year according to this report from uswitch So that is 4.5 million cars that are on the road illegally at some point during the year.

So to all drivers. STFU and sort your own house out, as you are all one and all guilty of the above

At least until you treat cyclists as individuals and not some delinquent hive mind!

Cycling's image problem

Cycling in the UK has a massive image problem.

Yea, there are lots of stories in the news papers and websites, about how cycling is "the new golf",  how  lycra is cool again (really..?), and that masses of people are taking to their bikes every weekend. Sportives, which are organised mass bike rides (not races) are the new fun runs with several across the country every week with hundreds often taking part.

Again every day you can find stories about cyclists doing wonderful rides to raise lots of money for very good and worthy causes.

Brilliant, wonderful more bums on saddles - All good yea?

No, actually it isn't.

Cycling is not just a sport for people with expensive carbon road bikes and mega travel full suspension mountain bikes, it is the best transport mode on the planet.

The UK though with the exception of a few places seems to be completely blind to the fact, and failing miserably.

To all these people that don the lycra and ride far and wide on a weekend put the bike back in the garage on Sunday evening and take the car to the shops, or to drop the kids of at school, or to work. I ask why?

The cycling lobby and campaign groups , media organisations and the bicycle industry need to make cycling transport as cool and sexy as cycling as a sport has become, and as cool and sexy as Copenhagen Cycle Chic makes it.

I think we need to possibly ditch some of the more preachy messages such as the "Take the fast lane, not the fat lane" which was ran in Manchester, and telling people that cycling is the good and right thing to do, cos frankly some won't do it out of bloodymindedness, and some don't care.

We all know that the infrastructure is crap and not fit for purpose, and a lot of people think the roads are unsafe. That doesn't stop the weekend cyclists from cycling. It shouldn't stop them from riding to the local shops for a pint of milk or a loaf of bread either.

Estate on road to a better future... I don't think so

There was an article in the Shields gazette this week crowing that ward councillors had managed to obtain £50K to make the Holder House Estate in South Shields easier for drivers to navigate.

Residents apparently have been complaining about "vehicle access" and "lack of space to maneuver cars" on the estate. If you look at the estate on Google maps, you can see it's a relatively new estate, probably from the 70s/80s. The roads into the housing areas from the main access roads ringing the estate are dead ends, with lots of footpaths linking the roads.

View Larger Map
I had a quick tour up some of the roads (Fennel grove & Caraway walk) with the video running, and you can see the result below. It is quite boring though.

The only restrictions on vehicle access and maneuvering are ironically all the vehicles parked on the roads and pavements. Oh and the fact that the estate is a 20mph zone. I couldn't see any issue, and cannot see why the council are spending £50K.



Obesity and related conditions cost the authorities £50 million in South Tyneside alone. Nearly a third of the adult population in South Tyneside is obese. Worse still is the fact that 38% of children on South Tyneside are obese. Figures were taken from this article which makes grim reading

Instead of pandering to the whims and whines of the motorists, what the councillors and council NEEDS be do is enabling more cycling and walking on the estate, and links from it to other amenities across the borough, and discouraging and restricting vehicle use.

There is a public health issue here, and the council are effectively investing in making the problem worse. South Tyneside is a very car-centric area with low levels of cycling provision. What there is tends to be either shared paths or utterly abysmal. Below is the where the cycling provision takes over from the road by the Holder House estate, which is a small gap in the curb & a dirt bridleway

Below is a typical ST cycling link shared path (different estate) with no dropped kerb access.

Money needs to be spent on making the cycling infrastructure safe, convenient and easy and attractive to use. Education and "outreach" into the communities to get people on bikes is also very important.

Yes, there are some tough and unpopular decisions to be taken, but the councillors are elected to work for the good of the community and to better it. This is just short termism populist pandering which will have a far deeper negative impact on the community than making a handful of drivers slightly less miserable.

The myth of "Mutual Respect"

You often see comments and articles suggesting that cycling in the UK would be great if only everyone showed mutual respect.

Below are two from Helen Russell writing in the Metro Newspaper  from last year after Bradley Wiggins was hit by a car from last week following EmmaWaygate. Other articles are available.

Both of these articles talk about mutual respect between cyclists and motorists. Both of them and most of the other articles miss one important point which is that in these examples only one side didn't show respect and that was the drivers. 

Mutual respect is a myth perpetuated largely by seemingly naive people, who seem to think that all the world needs is for people to be nice to each other.  Complete bullshitty touchy-feely nonsense. It's like asking bullies and bullied to show respect. 

I'm sorry to burst the bubble, but mutual respect does not exist in society, let alone the roads. If it did we would not need to lock our doors at night. Shops would not need to employ CCTV etc to catch thieves. There is an element of the population which will do what they want in a selfish and sometimes dangerous manner. Those people usually also drive vehicles, or bicycles or walk dangerous dogs and couldn't give a flying f... about anyone else. That doesn't even include the half-asleep or distracted.

These selfish morons will always keep the perceived risk people have about cycling on the roads fuelled and burning as they ignore the rules of the road and endanger others. They will always tear around pedestrians on bikes making them scared of all cyclists. 

Mutual respect is not the fix and will never make the masses feel comfortable enough to start riding bikes.

  

The only things that will change things for the better are all of the following, and :

• Proper infrastructure, separated where possible
• Presumed liability in favour of the more vulnerable
• Stronger enforcement of road traffic law and much stiffer penalties
• Restriction of vehicles to make certain the short hops much more convenient by other means

Who are shared paths really for...?

This post was triggered by a subtle comment to a photograph on an excellent post breaking down the hierarchy of provision and design process by the Ranty Highwayman which you can read here. Much more informed than I could muster.

The question posted was basically who are shared paths for, and who gets the most benefit?

View Larger Map


The above picture shows a typical shared path alongside a busy dual carriageway with the Google street view on the right.

Pedestrians are squeezed and now have to share with cyclists and both are short changed by this arrangement as they are expected to share the relatively narrow path.

The real winners are the drivers, as they can now zoom along with even less risk of been held up or just having to be alert to people riding along on the road as all but the bravest and fastest cyclists have been effectively forced off. The other winner is the local authority who can colour in another route and add more miles to the "cycling network" earning them more grant money by ticking boxes (see footnote)

You can understand why some pedestrians feel aggrieved that having to share the space that used to be their sole domain with cyclists that can rush along at several times their speed. Both parties need to be more alert, while the drivers get away with having less to look out for.

To make matters worse the shared path on that carriageway terminates at a toucan crossing, & the cycle route crosses the road to carry alongside the other carriageway.

The footpath although carries on, so legally cyclists aren't permitted, but most will carry on anyway. This enforces the view amongst the novice cyclists that riding on all footpaths is permitted which just increases the angst amongst some.

Incidentally, this route links several primary schools, and only the schools - how much traffic between schools? Probably not a lot, but gets decent grants from the various funds (A cynical view I know).