Anger in Bournemouth and Bury St Edmunds as government refuses to fund safer cycling schemes

Leodis wrote:

I would say dodging dog walkers with extended leads, dog shite, glass and wild children a lot more stressful than riding on roads.

Where I am, it's horse shite - sometimes practically across the entire path. Lovely after rain.
But still, it makes my 'rush hour' commute more pleasant than the dual carriageway or twisty narrow lane options that would be the alternative.

Leodis wrote:

I would say dodging dog walkers with extended leads, dog shite, glass and wild children a lot more stressful than riding on roads.

Sustrans are not interested with current cyclist needs, its been proven time and time again they are only interested in the Dutch dream and getting kids on bikes.

Nowt wrong with the Dutch dream and getting kids on bikes. Unfortunately, that seems to be something getting a bad rep' thanks to Sustrans using it as some sort of excuse for their poor infrastructure.

If any council is still designing cycle routes for the purposes of "leisure", they deserve a slap. The vast majority of cycling miles aren't leisure, they're transport.

bikebot wrote:

Leodis wrote:

I would say dodging dog walkers with extended leads, dog shite, glass and wild children a lot more stressful than riding on roads.

Sustrans are not interested with current cyclist needs, its been proven time and time again they are only interested in the Dutch dream and getting kids on bikes.

Nowt wrong with the Dutch dream and getting kids on bikes. Unfortunately, that seems to be something getting a bad rep' thanks to Sustrans using it as some sort of excuse for their poor infrastructure.

If any council is still designing cycle routes for the purposes of "leisure", they deserve a slap. The vast majority of cycling miles aren't leisure, they're transport.

Nail and head there Bikebot.

We have some great cycle routes around my way and some terrible ones but I think you're right about many Councilor's perceptions of cycling. It seems to be looked at as either a leisurely hobby: something to do with the kids on a Sunday afternoon, or as a sport (tdf, cycle clubs, lycra louts and RLJs), and forget that for many cycling is a means of getting from A to B without relying on cars, buses, what have you.

Leodis wrote:

I would say dodging dog walkers with extended leads, dog shite, glass and wild children a lot more stressful than riding on roads.

Sustrans are not interested with current cyclist needs, its been proven time and time again they are only interested in the Dutch dream and getting kids on bikes.

Sustrans - going Dutch? I don't see it. Sustrans seem barely interested in cyclists at all. They mostly seem to be about leisure routes for pedestrians (out there in the countryside somewhere). I don't see any sign they are aiming for a Dutch mass-utility-cycling culture.

I don't see much evidence they are about getting kids on bikes either, at least not as far as kids being able to make practical journeys to school etc.

I genuinely don't fully understand what sustrans are about or what they are trying to achieve. I won't slag them off because I don't know what their objectives are, so I can't say they aren't meeting them.

workhard wrote:

We got money locally, in West Sussex, from LSTF without any help from Sustrans and in some instances within the county in the face of their opposition. They aren't interested in what actual real live local cyclists wants but in furthering their own agenda which is increasingly remote from anything other than leisure cycling.

That does open the debate about where cycle funding should go. Is it better spent on improving the situation for existing cyclists (who it could be argued will cycle anyway) or encouraging new cyclists to take the first step by creating leisure routes that give them the ability to develop some bike skills before going onto the open road?

JeevesBath wrote:

encouraging new cyclists to take the first step by creating leisure routes that give them the ability to develop some bike skills before going onto the open road?

That seems questionable. What are these 'bike skills' one can develop on leisure routes that will then allow you to handle traffic-filled real roads?

Actually learning to ride a bike is not hard (I just cycled round and round a car park for a bit!). The difficult bit is dealing with traffic, and leisure routes don't really do anything for that. Which is why I very much doubt many people will graduate from those leisure routes to the real roads.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

JeevesBath wrote:

encouraging new cyclists to take the first step by creating leisure routes that give them the ability to develop some bike skills before going onto the open road?

That seems questionable. What are these 'bike skills' one can develop on leisure routes that will then allow you to handle traffic-filled real roads?

Actually learning to ride a bike is not hard (I just cycled round and round a car park for a bit!). The difficult bit is dealing with traffic, and leisure routes don't really do anything for that. Which is why I very much doubt many people will graduate from those leisure routes to the real roads.

You could consider it a theory of progression. When learning to swim, you generally start off with floats and work your way from there.
I appreciate that it doesn't include traffic, but a shared use path can help to develop awareness of other users (faster cyclists, pedestrians, etc) and an increase in handling skills which can transfer to a road situation while still actually managing to get from point A to point B. Not everyone would have the patience to cycle round and round a car park. (I myself used to do endless circuits of the Tesco car park as a youth, but notably before Sunday trading became the norm! God, I'm old... ).

Creating 'on road' routes is fine, but you can't build a segregated cycle lane on every road, so eventually the lane will run out and inexperienced cyclists would go "OK, where do i go now???".

It's just a theory at the end of the day, which I why I posed the question. Most Councils will have an objective of reducing congestion by encouraging alternative travel modes. Spending money on 'existing' cyclists isn't going to change the situation, so increasing uptake by novice cyclists would be the way to go. If there's a good way to satisfy both camps with one solution, no one seems to have found it yet.

JeevesBath wrote:

workhard wrote:

We got money locally, in West Sussex, from LSTF without any help from Sustrans and in some instances within the county in the face of their opposition. They aren't interested in what actual real live local cyclists wants but in furthering their own agenda which is increasingly remote from anything other than leisure cycling.

That does open the debate about where cycle funding should go. Is it better spent on improving the situation for existing cyclists (who it could be argued will cycle anyway) or encouraging new cyclists to take the first step by creating leisure routes that give them the ability to develop some bike skills before going onto the open road?

Good point, well made, I'd answer it two ways...

Do we have evidence of any significant cross over from the "safe" leisure route group to the open road group?
Why aren't our open roads safe enough, due to speed and volume of traffic, for folk to develop bike skills on?
Can you develop the necessary roadcraft to use a bike as Mon-Fri transport, rather than just a weekend toy, on leisure routes, especially off-road ones?

Ok that's three ways...

I think the answer is that cycling funds should be spent on both groups; encouraging new cyclists and 'rewarding' existing ones for (their pig-headed obstinacy in) remaining on the roads. Sustrans imo/ime have no interest in the latter group.

workhard wrote:

JeevesBath wrote:

workhard wrote:

We got money locally, in West Sussex, from LSTF without any help from Sustrans and in some instances within the county in the face of their opposition. They aren't interested in what actual real live local cyclists wants but in furthering their own agenda which is increasingly remote from anything other than leisure cycling.

That does open the debate about where cycle funding should go. Is it better spent on improving the situation for existing cyclists (who it could be argued will cycle anyway) or encouraging new cyclists to take the first step by creating leisure routes that give them the ability to develop some bike skills before going onto the open road?

Good point, well made, I'd answer it two ways...

Do we have evidence of any significant cross over from the "safe" leisure route group to the open road group?
Why aren't our open roads safe enough, due to speed and volume of traffic, for folk to develop bike skills on?
Can you develop the necessary roadcraft to use a bike as Mon-Fri transport, rather than just a weekend toy, on leisure routes, especially off-road ones?

Ok that's three ways...

I think the answer is that cycling funds should be spent on both groups; encouraging new cyclists and 'rewarding' existing ones for (their pig-headed obstinacy in) remaining on the roads. Sustrans imo/ime have no interest in the latter group.

I can't answer your questions as I don't have evidence, and I imagine nor does anybody else (hey, maybe I have just thought of a research grant application...).Consider this though:
A novice cyclist has two options for getting to/from work.
One, a 'leisure route' (shared use path/towpath etc). The five mile journey takes 30 minutes, and the cyclist has to contend with dog walkers, children etc.
Two: a road route which takes only 20 minutes to cover the same distance, with some marked cycle lanes. The cyclist has to negotiate four major junctions and be comfortable with being overtaken by several HGVs every mile of the journey, as well as content with the odd bus or delivery lorry parking in the cycle lane.

Which option would you try to sell them on if you are a Council trying to encourage them to ditch the car?

JeevesBath wrote:

Which option would you try to sell them on if you are a Council trying to encourage them to ditch the car?

I don't know the specifics of this proposal, but my general criticism of these choices is that the off road route is often optimised to be a leisure route. Councils should be building good alternative off road routes when they can, with proper surfaces and with sections that are separated so that cyclists can ride quickly.

And stop filling the damn things up with stupid infrastructure. There's an off road route near me that I would sometimes use, except some numpty installed a kissing gate at the end of it. The only way you can get through is to dismount and lift your bike above head height!

bikebot wrote:

JeevesBath wrote:

Which option would you try to sell them on if you are a Council trying to encourage them to ditch the car?

I don't know the specifics of this proposal, but my general criticism of these choices is that the off road route is often optimised to be a leisure route. Councils should be building good alternative off road routes when they can, with proper surfaces and with sections that are separated so that cyclists can ride quickly.

And stop filling the damn things up with stupid infrastructure. There's an off road route near me that I would sometimes use, except some numpty installed a kissing gate at the end of it. The only way you can get through is to dismount and lift your bike above head height!

In an ideal world, I'd agree but the reality of funding means that compromises have to be made. A mixed use path will be far more financially viable as it can serve a greater demographic than a dedicated cycling-only route.
Agree about the infrastructure though. Recently they extended the cycle path near me, by sending it over a railway line which requires me to dismount and push/pull my way through two spring loaded gates. As a result, I stick to the road instead.

JeevesBath wrote:

In an ideal world, I'd agree but the reality of funding means that compromises have to be made. A mixed use path will be far more financially viable as it can serve a greater demographic than a dedicated cycling-only route.
Agree about the infrastructure though. Recently they extended the cycle path near me, by sending it over a railway line which requires me to dismount and push/pull my way through two spring loaded gates. As a result, I stick to the road instead.

I really don't think it does, or more accurately, will matter.

These projects are still cheap compared to all other transport infrastructure, and the political climate is shifting. See the stories this week about yet another commons report pushing to increase national funding. Before that, the discussion on here about the plans in Bristol was quite interesting, showing just how little railway expansion would be possible for the amount they want to spend on cycling.

It's time to start making the case not just for the money, but how it should be used and what the benefit would be.