Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

OPINION

Cycling Embassy of Great Britain – the ambassador responds

Avatar

Yesterday we published a guest blog by Carlton Reid on why he thinks the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain is a cycling orgnisation too far. Today Jim Davis one of the founding members of the Cycling Embassy responds…

I was a little surprised when Carlton Reid decided to attack the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain yesterday (and on Valentines Day too). He spoke with a World-weary cynicism of someone who knew all about the history of cycle campaigning in this country. Which is exactly why I want to try something new.

He states that the only Embassy policy that is different to other long-established organizations is ‘segregation first’ but I think this is a large fundamental distinction, if completely oversimplified.

The internet is a wonderful thing. It has allowed people to share cycling and also campaigning experiences. Through such sites as Warrington Cycle Campaign’s ‘Facility of the Month’ examples of dreadful, dangerous cycle infrastructure soon became infamous throughout the campaigning world (it’s certainly a highlight of my month). The internet also allowed people to see what was being accomplished in other countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark. With envious eyes, one could see relaxed, cheerful people in normal clothes on cycle streets and dedicated infrastructure. And then wonder why on Earth this isn’t being done over here, let alone being campaigned for.

The way I see it, cycle campaigners were saying ‘no’ to segregated infrastructure because they didn’t want to see any more appalling examples of what a Highways Department can do on crystal meth. Whilst they had a point (despite cycle organisations helping set the guidelines), I don’t believe that just saying ‘no’ and then pointing the public toward cycle training and the works of John Franklin is enough. This rubbish continues to be built, whether CTC or Cycle Nation or all the local campaign groups that it represents like it or not.

There is a bit of a contradiction in Carlton's argument for us. On the one hand he seems to be saying 'Don’t campaign for segregated infrastructure. It will never succeed. The CTC & Cycle Nation are pragmatists, and they’re steering well clear of it.' and on the other, 'Don’t campaign on the same the things as the CTC & Cycle Nation! You risk division!'. Whilst they make their minds up as to what exactly they represent, we'll try our own way thanks. A way that the public can get behind.

When the Local Transport White Paper was published, it basically threw all cycle funding out to the provinces where local campaign groups would not only have to scrap for scraps, but also fight the creative interpretations that a Council can place on what constitutes ‘Sustainable Transport’. In essence, widening a road can be ‘Sustainable transport’ as it can be seen to improve traffic flow, which in turn reduces emissions. More crucially, I regard this as a massive smoke screen. It allows the Government to say ‘Look over there!’ and while everyone focuses on cycling issues at a local level, they can widen the M25 to the tune of billions along with more motorway extensions and bypasses utterly hostile to anything without an engine.

I would like to see the Embassy focus at national level, to make sure that best practice is adopted as a standard as opposed to just guidelines that are too open to misinterpretation. I would like to see the basis formed from best practice around the World, particularly the Netherlands and Denmark, which currently manages a modal share that we can only dream of over here. I basically want to give local campaign groups a nice meaty stick to wield for a change.

Improving the way in which bicycle users are consulted could be improved dramatically too (for a laugh, try asking your council for a Safety Audit on a piece of cycle infrastructure local to you that you find dangerous). Above all, I want to see cycling placed firmly back on the transport agenda getting a deserving share of the transport spend. I simply don’t see current cycle organisations pushing in the same direction we are, and certainly not looking across the North Sea for inspiration where the benefits go way beyond riding a bike in comfort and safety. If you don’t ask, you don’t get.

Carlton pointed out that we couldn’t find a cycling ‘Sugar Daddy’ for funding. Quite frankly, the cycling world is the last place I would look to attract funding. We have ideas on where to go and there have been plenty of offers of donations once we get our governance established so the future is very exciting indeed. We are appealing to those that want to cycle as opposed to those that do.

The start up meeting held on the 29th January was very well attended with people coming down to London from such places as Dumfries, Newcastle, Bristol and a handsome chap from Worthing. A saucer was passed around and £80.56 raised to start up a not-for profit company. We came away focused and united and willing to try something new, with slightly lighter pockets.

The Embassy has attracted a lot of support from people that have become angry and disillusioned with current campaigns. We aren't novices at this. I think that the main problem is that Cycling Organisations are fantastic at communicating to the already converted but spectacularly awful at projecting themselves to a general public that couldn’t give a hoot. It’s nice for people like Carlton to attend self congratulatory campaign conferences and trade shows, because it’s easier to ignore the fact that approximately 97% of the population isn’t listening but might like to. CTC were given a large sum of money a while ago to promote cycling through a cinema advert. The ‘Cyclehero’ campaign to me demonstrates how current organisations fail to grasp the public perception of cycling with the ‘Hero’ as a woman looking like a Marvel comic extra. People just want to get to the shops or the library – they don’t care that cycling saves the environment or improves the nations health or can make you look like Catwoman. They would want a transport mode that is easy and direct without the need for safety equipment.

In conclusion, I certainly don’t want to see the Cycling Embassy being in conflict but rather enhancing older more established cycling organizations as we look at the situation with fresh eyes and specific aims. If we’re wrong, then fine. We shall scuttle back to our campaign groups and blogs from whence we came. But if we’re right, and I know we are, the implications for society as well as the older cycling organizations are as numerous as they are fantastic. I believe you have to kick start a cycling culture by representing the 97% that want to cycle as opposed to the 3% that already do.

Jim Davis is founder of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain as well as Worthing Revolutions Cycle Campaign Group and the Worthing Cycle Forum. He was Information Officer at CTC over 2002-2003 and still reminisces about his Raleigh Grifter.

Add new comment

66 comments

Avatar
Tony Farrelly | 13 years ago
0 likes

Yes, it's been a really interesting read so far… even the vitriolic bits. I'd particularly like to echo emilyobyrne's comments back on page one about the dangers of traffic calming measures for cyclists - bit of a hobbyhorse of mine. Think I might also take up Jim's suggestion and ask my local council to do a safety audit on the ones I have to negotiate on my way in to work at the risk of being squished by a speeding bus or lorry eager to accelerate up the hill and out of town - never mind that pinch point and the bloke on the bike.

I still want to ride on the road though.

Avatar
Londonneur | 13 years ago
0 likes

@ Philiploy

Reading my post I see it is very sweeping. Sorry for that. Of course what you say is true. So I say, “fair enough”. You are very well placed to know after all.

I suppose my feelings (which are only mine and may or may not be widely held) are based on my experiences with my local LCC group. They were petrified of doing anything that might be seen as “political” or “left”. They were up for dealing with the council but only up to a point. Nothing that might upset the apple cart was ever going to happen. I attended numerous meetings with the local authority(corrupt/lazy) which allowed them to say they had “consulted”. In this borough, cycling is seen a Trotskyist plot and they remove facilities at every opportunity. Can you guess where I live? They totally ignored us, of course. I ended up feeling I had done the councillors a favour. It seems non-political to me because promoting cycling alone, despite engaging with authority, doesn't question the status quo of car dependency. It's a different and wider issue then just cycling.

Helping those who want to, to ride their bikes is good. Making it better for existing riders is good but to really get 30-40% of journeys is going to take some serious status quo rocking. That level would harm the UK car industry.... now that's properly political to me. I work full time as a Cycling Instructor so I have put my money where my mouth is on this point. However, I know that what I do won't get us to where we need to be. My thing is one to one. It's small scale and personal and very valuable to those who take it on.

I agree with you that under the surface there is a lot of consensus which is where I hope this will all end up. That is to say, “All together now!”. I still have energy for some really constructive efforts but not if what we are going for is nonsense like the Tavistock Place madness in the West End. We need the good stuff....

I sometimes think the lanes/roads debate is really a city/country debate. Where I live we need big segregated lanes, no question. If I was riding on “A” or “B” roads, I wouldn't want to be forced onto a substandard roadside lane which is certainly what would get built. Fair enough.

I like it that these young turks(sorry CEGB folks) say things like, “We believe that this will bring about nothing less than a transformation of our society.”. It's nice to hear people talk about society again. It's just a more political language then I am used to hearing from CTC.

I'd like to see more cyclists. I'd like to see more cycling culture. I'd also like to see the destruction of car culture and it's hideous effects on our environment and security. My lovely city is stuffed to the gills with concessions to car drivers. It makes it hellish and it is so unnecessary.

Ultimately, there will be fierce resistance to any real change. The increasing aggression toward cyclists in London recently, is only the beginning. We need to be MORE political and ready to upset those who want to maintain the status quo.

Avatar
philiploy replied to Londonneur | 13 years ago
0 likes
Londonneur wrote:

it seems to me that the CTC/LCC and others are primarily concerned with promoting and protecting cycling and that is ALL. That is to say without any political element... Is that fair?

I don't know the CTC as well as I do the LCC but I would most definitely say that is a misperception, if such a view is commonly held. Both orgs work with politicians at a national and local level. And in pursuit of this, several local LCC groups have for a long time worked with other orgs that share similar aims, such as Living Streets or local residents groups, and get involved with initiatives to improve the neighbourhood or urban realm. The need for cycling to appeal to the wider public has long been recognised by many, so underneath all these fretful layers of commentary there is a good deal of consensus.

Avatar
philiploy | 13 years ago
0 likes

Hello Londonneur

If I was to hazard a guess as to where you live it sounds like Outer London? If they 'remove facilities at every opportunity', probably Barnet? Or Waltham Forest? (Hey, you're not Fr... oh maybe not, you're Londonneur!)

Yes, if 'Young Turks' manage to stir things up a bit (for a greater good hopefully), I guess this is no bad thing, and by definition it's not meant to feel comfortable. At our last Lambeth Cyclists meeting I did a quick straw poll with people afterwards during our 'social' part of the evening. The view that LCC should be more radical was a bit wider than I thought. As to another organisation forming, there were some quite sanguine views: 'let a thousand flowers bloom' was one quote.

The political point is interesting. I'm involved with the LCC in Kensington & Chelsea, and the political rhetoric I try and use with councillors there is one they understand. Thus, the bicycle is about 'personal choice/ freedom', or about boosting the local economy, or yes the Big Society why not?

Thing is, the bicycle can be a good for either the political left (bicycle as a means of emancipation for the common folk) or the right (bicycle as a tool of libertarianism). Use the rhetoric of the bicycle to suit the audience.

The rhetoric of 'society' by the way is very LCC, but it appears that hasn't been communicated widely enough.

Destruction of car society may be a tall order. Even the Dutch and the Danes haven't managed that.

Avatar
Londonneur | 13 years ago
0 likes

@Philiploy

You clearly know your outer districts... I am not Freewheeler (Freewheeleur) but I feel her pain. Or is that, "his"? Hmmmmmm... Perhaps I should start a new blog.... "Bollocks Biking in Barnet".

Agree that one can sell cycling in a number of ways. Sometimes you just have to tell it like it is tho. I once went for a meeting with some of the local councillors and lawyers. I asked them if they were prepared to acknowledge that there needed to be change in policy around cycling in the bourough since there were almost no cycling facilities. They were not even asking for their allocation from TFL for cycle racks.... Mr Bellend (name changed to protect the guilty) told me that there was no demand for them and that drunks use them for seats. I then aksed him why we were all sitting there? Our LCC lot were the only people in the room not being paid to attend. Know the feeling? These lot will never shift unless the order comes from above.

Lots of new riders in London... It's time to go for it and just say, "hey! This is broken"... don't sweeten the pill. Let's just ask for what we really want. Less road space for cars and more for bikes.

"Destruction of car society may be a tall order. Even the Dutch and the Danes haven't managed that."

Actually, they have done... or near to it. I'm not for destroying cars or society. I love mine. It helps me do all sorts of things that would be way too dred to do by bike. It's the culture that puts the needs of drivers first that I want to see the back of. It's quality of life for the people who live by the road vs. people who happen to drive through. The Dutch have their priorities straight so Yes they have tamed car culture. People there CAN make different choises and they do. Sometimes they use their cars too.

Avatar
Crankwinder | 13 years ago
0 likes

"Build it and they will come. I see no other organisation that is really focussed on trying to achieve this other than the CEoGB..." I forget who wrote that, but there's lots of people writing that nobody prior to CEGB has been really pushing for segregated cyclepaths.

Have none of these people ever heard of SUSTRANS ???!!!

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my impression that SUSTRANS have been not only calling for but actually building segregated facilities for years. The only trouble is, they get forced into compromises that result in these facilities falling a long way short of Dutch or even average European standards.

I read that CEGB will be uncompromising in its demands for nothing less than the Dutch state of the art. Very good. In that case I will judge them by the quality rather than the length of new path constructed. But before we build any new ones, should we not bring what we've got already up to those Dutch standards?

Supporters of the CEGB pooh-pooh suggestions that campaigning for cyclepaths may lead to cyclists being banned from the road. Well actually, it's already happening.

A very good, I mean bad, example is the A90 between Edinburgh and the Forth Bridge. The cycling alternative is a twisty, hilly, badly surfaced and in places less than 1 metre narrow path, that bumps up and down kerbs where it gives way to sundry side roads and driveways. The local CTC didn't think that was good enough and proposed that before cyclists were banned from the A90, a segregated cycletrack should be built to standards of width and surfacing as per other European countries. But since SUSTRANS thought the aforementioned cyclepath was good enough to be part of the National Cycling Network, their demands were ignored.

That's what happens when the cycling voice is fragmented. Divide and rule by car-centric authorities. Fast riders lose the road and slow riders get a rubbish path that only confirms that cycling to work is a rubbish choice.

So there's a first priority for CEGB: get us a Dutch-quality cyclepath alternative to all the sections of general-purpose road where cycling is already banned. There at least, we have nothing to lose.

Pages

Latest Comments