Department for Transport say councils must give walking and cycling schemes time

Rich_cb wrote:

Another sensible announcement from the DfT.

scary, isn't it?

It is!

I still have a sense of disbelief whenever the government does something that will actually improve active travel.

Rich_cb wrote:

Another sensible announcement from the DfT.

Apart from the initial idea of funding the active travel initiatives, I'm struggling to think of any other sensible things from DfT*.

Was it £29bn on new roads to solve the CO2 shortage and global cooling?

Or the £55-130bn for a new railway to London from Leeds, making perfect financial sense as no one works on a train ever (NB I'm not expecting them to have predicted the shift to remote working - the numbers didn't make sense even in the before times).

Or was it Highways England or the Highways Agency or whatever they are called to make things Not Grant's Fault filling in the tunnels that could have been used for cycle paths?

*Why is it Dept FOR Transport and not OF? Did they really want to be DafT and not DoT?

I was referring to the recent funding guidelines for segregated cycling infrastructure and the withdrawal of funding from councils that have been doing stupid things with their pop up infrastructure.

Both issues were covered on road.cc.

TheBillder][quote=Rich_cb wrote:

*Why is it Dept FOR Transport and not OF? Did they really want to be DafT and not DoT?

Genuine answer?  Before 1991, every government department was 'of' something (except Home Office, Foreign Office and the Treasury, of course).  And - in the lovely bureaucratic way, each had its own unique initials - with the 'o' for 'of' included if it was needed to distinguish between two Departments.

Then - in a shifting of responsibilities - the Department of Education and Science (DES) lost 'Science'.  If it became just Department of Education is couldn't be DE - that was Employment - and it couldn't be DoE - that was Environment.

So they made it Department FOR Education.  But, of course, the real reason was far too prosaic.  And so it was explained as a positive - it wasn't just 'of' Education; it was positively 'for' it.

Since then, when new Departmental names are required because of changes in responsibility, they normally plump for the more positive sounding "for" rather than "of",

Yes, if you look at the active travel specific funding, strategy, implimentation and design guides, it's mostly fairly good. Could always be better, but if we got what was outlined in those things, it would be a huge step forward.
So where does delivery go wrong after that?

I'm hoping that with a more sensible framework of legislation in place the end result will start to improve.

The best of the new guidance has only been in place for a short period of time, given how long it takes to get cycling infrastructure approved, see Chiswick, we likely won't start to see the benefits for a few years.

Shame the DfT don't tell other members of Central Government not to call the new cycle lanes "Lunatic" and the councils acting on Central Government advice and consent "Socialist" though. 

That's just democracy.

I don't agree with JRM but I'm quite grateful to live in a country where plurality of opinion is tolerated.

Is he speaking those words as his role as part of the Government, or as a personal MP though? If the latter fine, he is entitled to his opinion, but I was lead to believe the former as in the questions are being asked to the him as the Government liasion in Parliament. So wouldn't it be nice if the left hand and the right hand were on the same page. 

You make a good point. I too would prefer a more unified message on cycling from the government.

I imagine JRM would claim that the actual cycling infrastructure is a matter for local government and that central government merely provides the guidance framework and the funding. Hence he can lambast an individual piece of infrastructure whilst simultaneously supporting the government's position that more infrastructure is needed.

Isn't politics great...

I would imagine that JRM is an out of depth person who has been given a "top" job to appease the ERG and keep him under a semblence of control, but where he wouldn't need to give press conferences or interviews. Of course they can't stop him languishing across the seats at Westminister or stopping some of his archaic utterings from being printed officially, but as most people don't bother reading the Hustings, he can normally get away with it. 

I too am quite happy for a plurality of opinions.

What grinds my gears though, is when opinions backed by science/evidence are put on the same footing as nonsensical opinions.

There's plenty of evidence of the benefits of decent cycle infrastructure and reducing car usage, so it's hardly 'lunacy' to be trying to improve facilities and improve people's health and well-being.

hawkinspeter wrote:

What grinds my gears though, is when opinions backed by science/evidence are put on the same footing as nonsensical opinions.

I do agree. We see it all too often on these pages in the 'debate that shall not be named'.

The nature of democracy is that every person's opinion holds equal value, whether that opinion is based on years of meticulous research or a conspiracy theory you saw on YouTube once while you were drunk.

It's annoying but it's the least worst system we've got.