“This is how you challenge motonormativity”: Cyclists applaud mayor’s *chef’s kiss* response in shutting down “very silly” road tax question; Gordon Ramsay’s Cycling Nightmares: Recipe for a never-ending bike helmet debate? + more on the live blog

mattw wrote:

That's a Dutch 4-ply chicane.

KERPLUNK !!!

ISTM that we are ahead of the Dutch in several areas, at least in the *standards* recommended. Less so in execution.

Ahead?! I almost rode of my 4m wide bi-directional special cycling-only bridge!

Well ... er ... actually, neither UK NOR NL really have "standards" for cycle infra!

At least AFAIK things like LTN1/20 are "guidelines" *.  Plus I learned recently that NL is actually remarkably light on mandated "standards" - from what (very little) I understand they've got an interestingly different mechanism.

UK road designs markings certainly do have a bunch of (rather arcane) rules.  I'm less than certain these are to the benefit of cyclists though!

mattw wrote:

Part of the issue is that the Dutch have the best of 1990s thinking in some areas in their established approaches - and that still suffers from small-c conservatism, just as we get from car-brained engineers in most of our Highway's Authorities.

Well ... there are suggestions there might be a "conservative" character there (although "national character" is a whole 'nother debate...) and I don't know for sure, but:

a) Sometimes, what has been tested at population level for decades is in fact "what is good enough".  Even if it's old, and a bit boring.  Yes you can make stuff that's "better" in some respect.  But it often turns out it ends up substantially more expensive, or not as durable, or is only better for a few and worse for the rest or has some other undesirable side-effect.  Or it works OK in your tests but when you put it out to the whole population they just can't seem to adapt to it.  (Bit like the bicycle itself really).
b) While NL has generally evolved towards what seem to be now-stable designs, it's actually not quite the case that they have said "we got it right in the 90s - we'll stop there".  There are examples of continuing iteration on "standard" designs, both in detail and in broader principles (at a junction, for capacity - here's another where layout tweaks have continued).
c) In fact I've seen examples of innovation from NL (some examples here).  Of course not all of this is good - some is pointless, some is overengineered etc (there's a whole bunch of "tech" stuff like the solar-panel cycle path as noted here or app-linked things which will likely have a lifespan similar to Liz the Lettuce etc).
d) Is it not just that they've been doing it for years, but continuously and fairly consistently?  If you take a place in the UK (one which actually has cycle infra...) you'll often be able to trace multiple "generations" of designs - because we have start-stop funding (and indeed cyclic enthusiasm for this or  ... the opposite).  And per UK "laissez-faire" there will likely be little consistency - in fact not infrequently the older stuff is much more practical than the new.

mattw wrote:

eg Compare a Manchester CYCLOPS junction, with the Liverpool City Region version of the same thing.

I've yet to try any Cyclops stuff.  TBH I'm a bit skeptical - I don't think it's bad exactly, and it could be better than the NL design, but ... compared to that it's barely been tested.  It has the whiff of familiar UK "not invented here!  So we'll reinvent it ourselves!" ... and somehow come up with something inferior.  (Some of the UK "reinventions" actually do seem to do with our road infra rules - where we have to change details to get round the rules we do have getting in the way!)

* Previous funding rounds from e.g. Active Travel England stated that monies would not be apportioned to schemes which don't follow guidelines.  Although I'm unclear about there being feedback from *what is actually delivered* and further funding despite reading something about that.  It certainly seemed that you could at least grab a bunch of cash once.  Plus there's a question on just how much further monies will actually be available to allocate in the foreseeable future...

Post-audit seems to me to be one area. There are many others.

In Chesterfield, where the CCC have a fairly long (decades) relationship with Derbyshire, the chap from CCC said that he was being invited to the post-project site meeting.

That seems to be one part of the practices we need.

mattw wrote:

Post-audit seems to me to be one area. There are many others.

In Chesterfield, where the CCC have a fairly long (decades) relationship with Derbyshire, the chap from CCC said that he was being invited to the post-project site meeting.

That seems to be one part of the practices we need.

Absolutely.

I understand why there's little pressure to do any kind of review, let alone ongoing monitoring and feedback.  Especially with cycle projects as so often these see to be one-off funding deals, which generally struggle for money anyway even after scheme compromises (grumble grumble).

Indeed - I suspect the opposite - "once it's finally done, we'll hear no more about it thanks".  Everyone's moved on (sometimes literally in the case of the council officers / designers, due to how long these take...), and there's no money to change things by then anyway.

Due to human biases I think any feedback is much more likely to be of the negative kind.  If something just works, you don't remember that, go look up your councillor when you get home and take the time to write to them and tell them.  If you're angry of course...

Plus another "structural" issue is the fact our system has decided to leave cycling things to the local authorities (I guess there are some good reasons...).  That can mean that "insights" from one project are less useful - or not sought out - by those involved in another.

I'm not a fan of Cavendish or the gongs system.

How can that be with the all powerful cycling lobby making sure every penny of governement funding is moved from drivers to cyclists!!

I did a gravel race recently that took in various national cycle routes and as you found out, they are unmaintained and rely on traffic to keep them even recognisable as a path. A friend fell off his bike into nettles because the path was so narrow and deeply rutted that as soon as he was unbalanced even slightly he was going down.  

I made the mistake of following an NCN sign this weekend. It started off as rough single track through some woods, then turned into a 15-20% downhill on a root/rock-strewn "path" just over 40mm wide. If I'd not been desperately trying to hang on to a plummeting bike loaded with camping gear, I'd have been questioning how anyone on a "normal" bike would be expected to know that was coming. A cycle network, to me, implies a network that essentially any cycle or cyclist should be able to navigate. 

To add insult to near-injury, the whole thing ended in the grounds of a golf club. 

"Recreational" cycle "networks" - compare and contrast (here's what we could win):

NL - the "numbered junction network" or knooppunt (actually this started in Belgium but has been expanded into NL) - a network of numbered junctions on the existing excellent (mostly for transport) cycle network allowing you to easily navigate longer trips without even needing a map.

UK - the "notional cycling network" - a collection of numbered signs on the existing unpleasant back-alleys round dodgy estates, footpaths, roads and muddy / submerged / overgrown lanes in the countryside which - with the aid of a map, you might be able to find and follow part of over the course of a longer trip.

I should say - credit to those who actually managed to cobble this together in the UK!  Even where this didn't require volunteers to have built routes on donated land or to have negotiated access, the effort at making anything in the UK connect for cycling is impressive.  Unfortunately this has meant that on examination a lot of the "network" isn't actually fit even for "we've got all day" recreational purpose or indeed navigable by many people.  (Sustrans has been working on this TBF).

NCN 1 through Fife before they rerouted it went up the 10% Binn Hill; not too steep until you realised it was off road in wet mud!  The signed 17% on route 77 is a bliss though and gives you great views of Kinfauns Castle and the River Tay  

I'd argue it's OK to have paths with steep gradients on the NCN. After all - some areas are hilly! However, it should be marked in some way. Perhaps similar to ski runs - we can have colour coding.

However, that shouldn't take away from the basic requirement for maintenance, and being something vaguely resembling a path. 

Yeah - this is the whole problem with the NCN in its current form - it's trying to be all things to all people and is never quite sure which it's trying to be when. It needs to be multiple networks for different uses layered on top of each other, instead of trying to patch together a network out of different scraps for different uses.

Well... I think the NCN in its current form was only achieved by exactly the latter process you described.

What it should be is up for debate.  Having ways for different uses and users is good (and will continue).  But I'd say if there is to be any "cycling network" at all the primary function should be to allow ordinary people on "ordinary bikes" (not ordinary in the UK) to get about the country on paved (or at the very least improved) surfaces.  So "doesn't require mountain bike" (or mountain-biking skills).

That's because "the road network" is no cycling network at all for most people.

The cycle network could (and ideally should) connect to different types of facility mentioned.  So there could additionally be more "recreational" sections or destinations (e.g. like this, or this, or this).  And the network could connect you to a bikepacking/cyclecross route, or give access to points e.g. on long-distance footpath.  Perhaps you could even ride to some hard-core downhill routes rather than driving?

Currently though advertising a "national network" is really a trap for those who haven't done in-depth research on each section (and possibly even then).  That is unfortunately consistent with UK-style "encouraging cycling"...

Chapeau, sûrement?  (Not a Québécois or indeed other French speaker).

The French term for 'chapeau' is 'hat'. 

Can we expect a future Government to reverse the damage caused by George Osbourne's 2015 Budget?  That's when he demolished the graduated annual car tax based on emmissions, and replaced it with a flat rate, the same tax for a 1.0L 2 seater Smart car and a 4.2L Range Rover.

Mr Anderson wrote:

Can we expect a future Government to reverse the damage caused by George Osbourne's 2015 Budget?  That's when he demolished the graduated annual car tax based on emmissions, and replaced it with a flat rate, the same tax for a 1.0L 2 seater Smart car and a 4.2L Range Rover.

to be honest, bringing back the fuel duty escalator, abolished in 2000 might have more impact.

Mr Anderson wrote:

Can we expect a future Government to reverse the damage caused by George Osbourne's 2015 Budget?  That's when he demolished the graduated annual car tax based on emmissions, and replaced it with a flat rate, the same tax for a 1.0L 2 seater Smart car and a 4.2L Range Rover.

I think that will happen.

The Chancellor needs something like 2-3k per annum per motor vehicle. So expect some things on EVs, too.

Mr Anderson wrote:

Can we expect a future Government to reverse the damage caused by George Osbourne's 2015 Budget?

GO did a lot of damage in many areas, which I will not tax your patience by relating. Suffice it to say that I would repeal him generally if that choice arose.

Hunt said there will be ved on electric cars from 1 April 25.
Whether that gets enacted is anyone's guess.

Make a charge based on annual mileage gathered from MOT data and mass.

The simple fact is that as electric car use becomes more widespread there will be an increasing black hole due to lack of revenue from the tax generated by petrol sales.  Whatever government is in power will need to find a way to fill that hole and the obvious option will be something like a pay per mile charge.

True, but if the Conservatives are in opposition they will to try to stir up as much trouble as possible over taxing driving.

If e-driving is not taxed, it will become much cheaper than ICE driving, with a corresponding increase in vehicle miles travelled and congestion, and decrease in public health.