Cycling Embassy of Great Britain – the ambassador responds

Thank you for responding, Jim.

I've spent 25 years reaching out to non-cyclists, from On Your Bike magazine (aimed specifically at newbies and wanna be cyclists) through to the Bike to Work Book (a 100-page book aimed at newcomers to cycle commuting, available for free). I also edit a trade-funded website for would be cyclists and, for the same website, commissioned the Bike Hub iPhone/Android satnav app to show hesitant cyclists their local cycle paths and quiet roads.

Over those 25 years, pleasingly, I've seen more and more people try out cycling for the first time. The market for cycles is growing. Sales of city bikes, cargo bikes, child-carrying bikes are booming.

I don't live in London but, when I visit, I am constantly amazed at the growth in cycle traffic, despite the less than ideal conditions that cyclists and would-be cyclists have to put up with. I've also noticed a key change in the type of riders out there (noticeable in other cities, too). The hardcore commuters have been joined by folks clearly brand new to cycling. Stand at a busy junction in London during morning rush hour and see the stream of cyclists at the head of the queue, very effectively blocking the passing of (sometimes impatient) motorists. Many of these cyclists are no longer the typical hard-core bike commuter but ordinary folks in civvies.

Even without fantastic infrastructure, more and more people are taking up cycling. When the weather gets warmer, even more will join them.

Yes, we need to encourage even more people to cycle but how are you going to do this by creating an organisation based on disparagement of cycling campaigners?

The "old" campaigns, as you put it, have not "failed", over 120 years they have helped protect our rights to remain on the British road network. Not all roads are suitable for cycle use, and the CTC acknowledges this. In places, segregated infrastructure would be advisable and should be pushed for. CTC is in favour of such infrastructure, when it's done to standard. Sadly, it's often not done to standard, and CTC is vocal in its condemnation of poor quality infrastructure.

CTC, like myself, is worried that local councils will instal sub-standard infrastructure and then force cyclists to use it, banning them from roads. This happens in the Netherlands, where use of many cycle paths is obligatory. This works in the Netherlands because standards are adhered to.

The Cycling Embassy of Great Britain may have laudable aims but if so many of them overlap with the aims of the "old" campaign groups why create a new one? And why attempt to weaken the organisations which have spent years and years fighting for our rights?

Creating a new organisation that is based on disparagement of the existing, long-standing ones is not terribly helpful.

Lines like this (from your draft manifesto) do you no favours:

"We believe that existing cycling campaigns, with their emphasis on training, exhortation, minimal infrastructure and bike share schemes, have largely run their course."

Largely run their course? That is rude, bad PR, demoralising to hard working cycle campaigners and, of course, wrong.

Perhaps a name change is in order? How about just Embassy of Great Britain?

From your manifesto: "Concern expressed that by being a Cycling Embassy, we instantly ‘shoot ourselves in the foot’ for being a cycling campaign."

You're meant to be an organisation pushing for segregated cycle routes yet in your manifesto somebody suggests "We could have a tagline suggesting that it’s not just for cycling."

You want to be a repository of Dutch-style cycle infrastructure standards? Well, watch out on BikeBiz.com for news of a magazine, website, iPad/iPhone app from a German publisher which will do that, with knobs on.

The reason I'm taking the time and trouble to take you to task on the foundation of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain is because I know the damage that can be done by the dilution of messages: splintering off from the "old" and what you misleadingly call "failed" campaign groups weakens us all. If you truly have cycling's interest at heart, push for your agenda *within* the existing structures, don't create new ones. Use your energy and good ideas to liven up the existing campaign organisations. Donate the £80.56 to Sustrans.

On Twitter last night, Bike Portland said this: "While bike advocates argue about helmets, cycle tracks and budget dust, the highway lobby just grins and rubs their hands together."

We need to stand together, not pull apart in ultimately fruitless schisms.

Wield has an i in it.

Good Lord, Carlton - if I didn't know what I was reading I would think I had accidentally picked up a copy of Pravda!

Carlton,

I was thinking, on my journey in this morning: does cancer have one single body that manages and controls everything?

Do car groups have one over-arching body? Does one organisation represent gardeners in all their many forms?

No, basically. And why should cycling be any different? We can stand together without all standing like sheep behind what many feel is less than effective leadership from CTC, and so many others.

We need to stand together, not pull apart in ultimately fruitless schisms.

The CTC are not really interested in applying lessons from the Netherlands here. Try searching for "the Netherlands" on their site, for instance. Naff all comes up.

They are a campaigning organization centred on the interests of their existing members - that is, people who are happy to use the road network as is. Fine. I have no problem with that.

But frankly I think it's going to be far more "fruitless" for the Embassy to try and swing around the CTC oil tanker, than it is to convince the general public.

There doesn't need to be an overlap here.

CTC fights for segregated bike lanes when necessary:

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/ctc-fights-removal-of-brighton-bike-lane

Carlton, that story is truly appalling. I've done some digging, and found the document that proposes the removal here

http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgConvert2Pdf.aspx?ID=9707&T=9

p.210-11.

It's good that the CTC are fighting this proposal. But I cannot find any reference to the story on the CTC site. Perhaps they should make their opposition a bit more public?

I would also note, in passing, that the "Hierarchy Of Provision" would not have resulted in the creation of that cycle lane in the first place.

Weald - isn't that somewhere in Yorkshire? My CTC membership lapsed years ago but I am a member of a British Cycling affiliated club. I doubt I'll join another wheeled organisation, however good its intentions as I don't have enough hours in the day.

Dear Jim

Thank you for some clarification regarding the possible working relationship of CEoGB and other campaign orgs. Maybe I missed something, but I couldn't really find anything about this on material previously put out before today. Indeed, I got the impression that you would be ignoring the likes of CTC, LCC, and Sustrans, which worried me a little.

I haven't seen anything yet about how CEoGB will do things differently, rather than just stating aspirations. Maybe you've yet to decide this, which is fine. And if, in time, you do successfully achieve that, all well and good.

I propose that although CEoGB is, to use your own rhetoric, an 'anti-cycle campaigning cycling campaign', existing campaign groups can affiliate with CEoGB, formally or informally, and subscribe to your aims. The role of CEoGB with respect to other cycle campaign orgs might yet have to be determined, but whatever it is, it should of course be complementary.

Personally, I think it's encouraging and positive to see enthusiasm and activism especially in my favourite sphere, cycle campaigning. Given the reasons for founding the CEoGB, I don't think another organisation is necessarily the issue. The issue is how it works with fellow organisations.

So in the spirit of cooperation and goodwill I am happy to try and get the LCC groups I have direct involvement with to work with CEoGB, as after all, united we stand... etc.

And I thought there was something funny about 'weald'.

best regards
Philip

*my* Grifter was a piece of crap.

@oldridgeback weald/wield not sure that's really the nub of the argument here - it should have read 'wield' and it did in the version posted, but our server went down at the same time that Jim's piece went up - and it took the final version with it… sorry about that Jim, it's restored now though.

Dave did you think your Grifter was crap at the time? With hindsight I now realise that neither my Raleigh Hustler nor my mate's Raleigh Chopper were not cycling technology at its Seventies peak… but they seemed more than capable at the time, even with the permanantly slipping second gear on the Chopper's Sturmey 3-speed.

"I've spent 25 years reaching out to non-cyclists"

Good for you (honestly, I mean that ). But over those 25 years, not many more people have been converted to cycling - copious stats are available to back that point up - and I suspect of those that have, it's more been down to those arch-segregationists at Sustrans. Doesn't that tell you something?

"Most [CTC] members are just ordinary, family cyclists."

Wow. That's bonkers. You can't possibly believe that, can you?

Carlton, whether or not you personally think the CEoGB is a good idea, the number of people posting here saying "I don't feel represented by CTC et al" shows there is a demand for it. Please stop trying to slap us down. It's really patronising.

That's quite alright! For the record, my Grifter was bright blue with the holographic decals. But then I am an only child.

@Doctor Fegg hmm… I started cycle commuting in London getting on for 20 years ago now. Back then I was on nodding terms with the handful of cyclists that I met on my daily commute – when I go back there now I would get a very sore neck indeed if I nodded to all the cyclists I met on the much shorter ride from Paddington Station.
What got me on my bike was low funds and the high cost of getting the tube to work - my guess is that's the reason most other London commuters get on their bikes too and the fact that the more people you see doing it the more doable you realise it is.

According to the DfT's own stats cycling has grown - there was a long term decline to stop first (and by the way there's been controversy about under-counting cyclists on those stats for years too) but it seems to me that cycling's growth has been patchy it is an urban phenomenon and even here it is concentrated more in the very biggst cities - rural cycling has probably declined, not helped by the fact that according to a DfT funded study of it's own casualty stats rural roads are by far and away the most dangerous places to cycle.

Tony - couldn't resist a dig about weald/wield/wheeled. If you were on nodding acquiantance with London's handful of other cycling commuters 20 years ago that would've included me. I've still got the same bike, tho my commute's shorter than it was then.

Going by the casualty rates from the DfT, country roads have the highest statistical crash risk for all road users and that includes cars, trucks and motorcycles.

But do you not see you're falling into the same trap?

Do you not see the irony in a disparaging post saying "stop the disparagement"?

Do you not see that you're so close to the argument that your judgement is not entirely impartial? (I mean, I do a whole bunch of cycle campaigning but I had to look up who Freewheeler was. Bringing some random guy into the conversation for no readily discernible reason says "this is all about tribal argument, not about the merits of particular approaches".)

Take a deep breath. Step away from the keyboard. Let CEoGB get on with doing what they do. You get on with doing what you do. At the moment you are turning the whole debate into XKCD 386.

(For what it's worth: my personal take on CEoGB is that I'd be surprised if it achieved much as a body in itself (but I'd love to be pleasantly surprised). But what it is already doing is giving those of us who believe in appropriate infrastructure, and doubt the Franklin/HoP gospel, the confidence to say so. Over the last two weeks I've noticed there are dozens of campaigners like me who are finally getting the courage to speak up. It's marvellous.)

I, for one, would welcome a campaigning organisation which is a little less beardy, sandaly and fluorescent, and a bit more ambitious.

@Tony: Indeed. London is really encouraging. Yet in the large Midlands town where I work, pretty much everyone used to cycle to the town-centre factory (still there and employing people, amazingly). Nowadays, on my daily commute of 1.5 miles each way, I'm lucky to see one other cyclist.

A few reasons seem to have come together at the right time in London: the cost of the tube; the Congestion Charge; judicious investment by TfL under Ken; and I hate to say it, but 7/7 played a huge part. (Ask British Waterways when the tipping point was for cycling use of the Regents Canal.)

We don't have those in the rest of Britain. Cambridge, York and perhaps (but probably not) Oxford aside, cycling is a trace activity. Getting cycling from 0.1% of local journeys to even just 10% is going to require massive, reconstructive surgery. So let's not knock the people who are saying "it's time to try something different" - because it is.

@Carlton: +1 on "there are many ways to bring new people to cycling", but I think the key point you're missing is "...and we need to do all of them". It isn't "either/or", and that's where HoP gets it wrong. If reduced traffic gets us a 10% modal shift, that's great. If segregation gets us another 10%, that's also great.

People's perceptions of danger vary enormously. The CTC/Cyclenation stance has always been to even this out - i.e. "make the roads safe, make people aware that they're safe". Great in theory but, as per above, practically impossible in the majority of Britain where utility cycling is non-existent. Segregation says "give the people what they want".

Yes, bad segregation can make the roads more dangerous for roadies. Similarly, no segregation can make the roads more dangerous for non-roadies. We need to fix that, not to use either as an excuse for doing nothing.

Carlton - regarding the manifesto, are you looking at the current draft (combined with the mission statement)? It's here http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/sites/cycling-embassy.org.uk/files/doc... I'm trying to get it finalised and we've modified it quite extensively since the first draft (which was just me throwing some ideas around over Christmas and may have been more strongly worded than it ought to have been - what can I say, I was staying with my in-laws...). I've read the latest version through again and there's nothing that I can see that's disparaging of previous campaigns, but if you can let me know which bit you don't like I'll see if it can be reworded. Once it's finalised, and it still needs some work, that will be going in a much more prominent place and hopefully some of the misunderstandings that have cropped up can be cleared up.

Please remember that the CEoGB is a very freshly hatched organisation - and among other things the website is very much in its infancy. Please bear with us while we prepare for the official launch...

Many are quick to note that segregated cycle lanes done badly are a nightmare. I agree - they are.

On the other hand, traffic calming measures done badly are also a nightmare.

Road narrowing to slow down traffic that means the cars have no room to overtake cyclists, resulting in frustrated and impatient drivers. Artificial pinch points that mean I have to dive out into the traffic flow to get round them. Or wobble through a narrow gully to the left - which I find nerve-wracking on account of the narrowness and the high kerbs. A line of parked cars on the other side of aforementioned gully so I have to throw myself in front of the cars now accelerating away from the obstacle.

These traffic calming measures are presumably designed to deliver traffic reduction and lower speeds, those preferred options from the oft-cited Hierarchy of Provision. I also presume they weren't what the CTC and others had in mind when they published the HoP, any more than when the CEofGB proposes dedicated cycling infrastructure it is aiming for the tiny, cratered, and randomly terminating cycle lanes that we are currently stuck with.

Can we at least keep the discussion focused on the relative merits of cycling infrastructure when implemented properly?