Chris Boardman calls for more ambitious cycling provision outside big cities

I followed the debate on Sustran's design handbook with utter bemusement as everybody seemed to know what was wrong with it (in terms of the individual designs depicted) and nobody seemed to be pointing out the apalling truth that the question of how to design in cycling (retroactively and in new projects) had essentially been left for charities to answer. It is too important to be left to charity.

Exactly the same applies to suggestions that Chris should personally stump up funding for his suggestions - cycling is too important, to necessary, for it to be left to charity.

As he points out, there are existing pots of money dedicated to moving people around and making areas more liveable. Cycling needs to be funded out of those. Otherwise you end up with large pots of money being expended on the construction of business-as-usual cycling-hostile roads infrastructure, and small drips and drabs of funding being spent on patchily mitigating (and at times even exacerbating) the worst offshoots of the former.

Good stuff from Chris, as usual. I was going to have a go at 'initialised' but it's been done already.

It never ceases to amaze me how hard it is to get good sensible practical infrastructure and how cheap it is.

You could probably build one mile of good cycle track for the cost of one inch of crappy urban motorway.

How difficult or costly would it be to say that every road scheme where the speed limit is over 40mph must include a two-way 3m wide segregated cycle track running parallel to it on at least one side of the carriageway?

How difficult or costly would it be to say where the speed limit is under 40mph then a 2m wide protected cycle lane must be provided on each side of the carriageway in the direction of travel?

We also need to deal with the problem of side roads. A protected priority for the cycle lane/track would solve the problem of cyclists being forced to stop at every junction in order to perform observations. The stop-start nature of most cycling infrastructure is one of its greatest problems.

It is easier, cheaper and with a better result to design in features than it is to retro-fit features afterwards.

Retro-fitted cycling infrastructure is nearly always either a shared footpath or a bit of paint squeezed to the side of the road and we all know how crap that is.

If Boardman can get councils to actually think about what they're doing, rather than just paint the gutter green or put a picture of a bike on a footpath, that would be a success.

I spent a weekend in the Wirrel near Heswell, must say I was impressed by the cycle track.... and the number of people using it.

If there were options like it around South Cumbria I'm sure a lot more people would take the two wheel option.

So... Boardman, how about you put your money where your mouth is and donate half the profits from Boardman bike sales to infrastructure projects, road safety adverts and a fund for helping cyclists with the legal costs of pursuing justice after collisions where a driver was at fault?

The side heading on the webpage says Chris Boardman is calling for 'facilities'. Reading his words, I don't think he's asking for facilities per se. All the things listed are, it seems to me, measures which are conducive to everday cycling. Even 'provisions' is arguably stretching it a bit. Very often changes which are good for the broader community, ambience and urban vitality are good for cycling, (e.g. 20 mph & permeabilty) so much so that it can sometimes queer the pitch if cycling is overmentioned, even more so if the word 'cyclist', with its tribal out-group connotations, is used. Where facilties are called for they need to be of top quality to genuinely help the broad range of people cycling and wanting to cycle. Much if not most UK stuff lulls the less experienced into false secutiy and actually impedes the experienced sporty types - who need to be careful what they ask for. On Quince's comments, I'd agree Chris has a good grasp of the issues; I've seen him playing the room with a sizeable group of MPs and actively endorsing last year's parliamentary Get Britain Cycling report - which is as good a basis as any at present for garnering political will & committment. More power to his elbow would be nice though.

Chris is a good bloke, no question....but he is no Graeme Obree!

I kind of hope Mr. Boardman develops a Hulk-like alter-ego and starts smashing stuff up soon. The guy's said just about every sensible thing about cycling there is to say, in the most pragmatic and honest manner I've ever heard. He's doing more for decent campaigning for everyday cycling in this country than any other person I can think of. But his powers are pretty much limited to words -- he doesn't actually run the country. So either he turns into the Hulk and goes around smashing stuff and rebuilding in and rebuilding it in the image of beauty, safety and common sense; or we elect him Prime Minister. I'm not sure which I'd rather see.

More seriously, I'm glad this is getting specific. It's easy to wave one's hand around in agreement. It's harder to get away from action when the options are stuck in front of your nose.

Hats off to Mr B for using his prominent public profile to the aid of people on bikes everywhere.

And he's right. Properly costed, realistic plans, not vague pledges.

Vague pledges routinely turn into rapidly forgotten lies in most council chambers (many such pledges are lies from the start).