Chris Boardman, policy advisor to British Cycling, says it’s “ridiculous” that the government is spending billions of pounds on building roads instead of making walking and cycling a priority.
In an interview with the Radio Times ahead of this weekend’s Prudential RideLondon, in which he is participating, the former world and Olympic champion said it was “not logical or sustainable” to continue to favour cars over other forms of transport.
He said: "Seeing something on the scale of RideLondon is an impetus for change. It puts pressure on politicians to make cycling more accessible.
"It infuriates me that it's so hard to get the government to fund and prioritise something that has no downsides. Instead we're building more roads while car traffic's dropping. It's ridiculous.
"The logical thing is to make cycling and walking your preferred transport. You make sure that streets prioritise people over vehicles. You legislate and fund accordingly.
He added: "Walking, cycling, public transport, taxis, private cars. In that order. At the moment it's almost totally the other way round. It's not logical or sustainable."
Boardman, who besides his world and Olympic titles also wore the leader’s yellow jersey in the Tour de France and held the UCI Hour record, also said that despite the high profile cycling currently enjoys due to Britain’s sporting success, his main aim was to get people to adopt bicycles as an everyday mode of transport.
Earlier this year, he was at the House of Commons to help launch British Cycling’s ten-point #ChooseCycling manifesto.
78 thoughts on “Chris Boardman says it’s “ridiculous” for government to continue building roads”
He’s right, but until the
He’s right, but until the cycle manufacturers can match the construction and motor industries in offering jollies, freebies and cushy jobs for ex MPs and civil servants nothing will change
vat on shoes, vat on cars,
vat on shoes, vat on cars, which makes more sense to promote if you want money? Then there Is VED, fuel duty, etc etc. Then throw in some more money for the construction industry and the vat they pay.
So what do pedestrians provide?
mrmo wrote:vat on shoes, vat
Given the disposable income that not owning a car affords me, I am partial to throwing a few quid to the treasury via the intake of the occasional alcoholic beverage. Those free-loading teetotallers on the other hand…
mrmo wrote:vat on shoes, vat
Actually the VAT on shoes makes more sense because in spite of the massive income from all the other taxation mentioned it amounts to a piffling amount alongside the total costs of the road network for motor vehicles (especially including health and environmental impacts).
At least those shoes don’t incur more costs for the government than they would generate in taxation – so for a government wanting money then yes tax on shoes makes most sense (that and taking Chris Boardman’s advice and stop throwing money they haven’t really got on motor vehicle provision)
mrmo wrote:vat on shoes, vat
You do realise the subsidies on roads, parking, etc that cars require, not to mention ill health effects and injuries, are much more expensive than the tax take from all that?
The only people benefiting are the car manufacturers and road builders. The gov’t does not make a ‘profit’ from car transport.
Less strain on the NHS cash
Less strain on the NHS cash guzzler due to healthier lifstyles perhaps?
CB always makes sense with
CB always makes sense with these statements.
The other problem (aside from goverment policy being influenced by big business) if that society at large has been conditioned to accept the status quo. Tell the average person in the street (or in their car) that you’ve covered 30 miles on you bike by way of a daily commute and they’ll look at you like you are mad. Come the colder/wetter months most people will be surpised that you’ve even taken the bike out of the shed.
Matt eaton wrote:CB always
And that’s when I reply with: ‘that’s why your a fat bastard’. Excuse the French, but that is genuinely my answer. I got rid of my car 5yrs Ago, not owned one since…and guess what, my life has not changed a dot. If I need one I hire one, much cheaper.
The government should be making good the roads we have and fixing them properly, before they even think about building others FFS. I was in Pompeii a few years ago and their roads were in better nick!!!!!!!!!
Matt eaton wrote:…Tell the
I’ve only recently started to commute to work (I know, fair weather cyclist and all that B-) ) and initially had this and was constantly trying to justify it to people, until it dawned on me that other people should be the ones who should reallt have to justify why they need to drive to work.
I had the same with using the bus (e.g. “but you have a perfectly good car at home! why are you getting the bus?”). Same thing, I don’t have a good enough reason not to!
Can Chris be the next Mayor
Can Chris be the next Mayor of London? A bit of a commute from the Wirral….
One day a week will do, he’ll serve us better than Boris.
Mister Horse wrote:Can Chris
Only if we can then declare all of England to be London.
It’s great that Mr Boardman
It’s great that Mr Boardman says things like this, but the question is, who is listening?
No matter how strong the
No matter how strong the rationale, voices of reason even CB’s are seen as a bit bonkers.
“The real hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most normal. “Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does.” They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of the word; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society. Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickness. These millions of abnormally normal people, living without fuss in a society to which, if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be adjusted.”
Pretty difficult to compete with the car and finance marketing machinery telling you what you want is a car, you want it on finance and you want it now and anything else is abnormal especially when those industries have government in their pockets.
Good Luck Chris but I would prefer it he played his cards quietly and sought real power first.
Getting a bit carried away
Getting a bit carried away here aren’t we?
If we need to answer the question ‘does the country benefit economically from having a road network’ stop for a moment and think what our economy would look like without it. Points of reference would include those countries without one such as large parts of Africa, the less developed parts of Asia, etc etc.
Not many people there buying hipster fixies, dutch bikes or custom hand built 953 steel frames are there?
As it happens I agree with the sentiments of Sir Chris in respect of re-prioritising road space in urban areas but let’s not go down the ‘what have the Romans ever done for us’ pathway with such enthusiasm. Although they did kick off the road network…
Nixster wrote:If we need to
Which would be an excellent point if anyone was actually arguing for getting rid of the road network, or saying that it’s somehow economically ineffective. The problem isn’t the roads, it’s the excessive use of private motorised transport.
Boardman for Prime Minister!
Boardman for Prime Minister!
He’s not arguing against road
He’s not arguing against road infrastructure or even motorised traffic – it doesn’t have to be one or the other, although thats a frequently used argument by people running out of well reasoned ones.
Another 10-15 years and over
Another 10-15 years and over 50% of the population will be clinically obese. The government have the power to act and address this issue by funding and promoting cycling to make it safe and enjoyable for all. The government, like every one before it will never act until its too late, then they’ll have to spend billions more trying to rectify their lack of action now.
I walked into my opticians for an eye check up a couple of weeks ago. It was busy. All 14 waiting chairs were occupied. Ages from a girl aged about 18 to a pensioner in his 60’s. Every single one of them was horribly overweight, I kid you not.
That was shocking and its not until you see something like that that you realise this country has a big obesity problem. We see an overweight person so horribly fat that they can’t walk and we chuck a mobility scooter at them rather than prescribing an exercise program and advice on portion control.
CB has it right.
More sense from Mr Boardman.
More sense from Mr Boardman. I hope it finds some sympathetic ears belonging to those who care more about the future then the car owning majority of the current electorate. Maybe something might happen on the other sideof the election…
Is the problem the DfT who continually trot out the same thing with different names?
And there’s also the strange relationship/set up in traffic infrastructure in this country. There are two or three big private companies doing all this road building, etc all of which is commissioned by the public sector. Trouble is, they are now too big to fail. Maybe if the public sector did the whole thing there would be a bigger appetite for change.
People aren’t really all that
People aren’t really all that bothered about their health. Or about being made poor. Or about creating the congestion they all hate. As long as they don’t have to listen to those crazy lycra louts going on and on and on about it, they really don’t mind. Evidently.
The British Medical
The British Medical Association (or Doctors to you and me) said exactly the same thing in their recent Healthy Transport Report ;
http://bma.org.uk/transport
“We would like to see strong government leadership to re-focus UK transport policy. The greatest health benefits would come from prioritising accessibility over mobility, reducing the demand and need to travel by car and making public transport the affordable, desirable option.”
It needs a major initiative by the Government to push the country down the “Netherlands” route of high investment in walking and cycling (and public transport).
But it won’t happen with this government.
No matter what obesity, health, congestion or pollution statistics are thrown at them.
I’ve got no problem at all
I’ve got no problem at all with new roads. So long as there is accompanying infrastructure for everone else (bikes, pedestrians, puppies etc)
He is absoluty right as
He is absoluty right as usual
P.S. the SLS 9.4 Di2 is one hell of a bike.
If we must build more roads
If we must build more roads in the UK then let them be built over the bloody railways. They really are the most useless, anachronistic form of transport available to humanity.
michophull wrote:If we must
=))
He does make the point that
He does make the point that road traffic is decreasing – which it is. For whatever reasons, people are just not driving as much as they used to. So why spend billions on new roads?
Quote:If we must build more
unless you want to move large quantities of freight about the country. have a think how many 44tonne lorries you need to replicate a coal train, or one of the steel trains that run from south to north wales.
the only real solution is to ban the private car….
mrmo wrote:the only real
Errrr – I agree about rail use but to what is this a solution ? If there were viable alternatives, it might have some merit, but they’re most likely a long way off unfortunately.
fukawitribe wrote:mrmo
Banning might seem draconian, but I did say PRIVATE for a reason, if you need a car hire one, or get a taxi etc. For most people the question of whether they need a car is more, is a car more convenient than the alternatives, and almost always there is an alternative it is just less convenient so gets immediately discounted.
fukawitribe wrote:mrmo
Well, it would be solution to the ‘lack of viable alternatives’. Or do you really think all the resultant demand wouldn’t result in improved services?
oldstrath wrote:fukawitribe
Well, it would be solution to the ‘lack of viable alternatives’. Or do you really think all the resultant demand wouldn’t result in improved services?— mrmo
Even as a hardcore as I maybe, banning private cars is not an option and will only harden peoples determination to use them.
The reason that people do not cycle or walk more is because its not the most convenient mode of transport. It takes more effort then to just drive.
Reverse that and people will quickly get pissed off with the huge inconvenience of driving and parking. Remove the subsidy that motorised traffic receives and ban all free parking (there is no such thing really).
Make walking, cycling and public transport the most convenient forms of transport and you will see private car usage (and consequently ownership once all subsidies are removed) fall through the floor.
[quote=zanfEven as a hardcore
[quote=zanfEven as a hardcore as I maybe, banning private cars is not an option and will only harden peoples determination to use them.
The reason that people do not cycle or walk more is because its not the most convenient mode of transport. It takes more effort then to just drive.
Reverse that and people will quickly get pissed off with the huge inconvenience of driving and parking. Remove the subsidy that motorised traffic receives and ban all free parking (there is no such thing really).
Make walking, cycling and public transport the most convenient forms of transport and you will see private car usage (and consequently ownership once all subsidies are removed) fall through the floor.[/quote]
Spot on. Look at the places where cycling is prevelant as a mode of transport. Sure, you can drive a couple of miles accross town to work but it will take you longer than cycling and you’ll still have to park some way away from your actual workplace. Suddenly the bike looks like an attractive option.
I don’t see car ownership as the big issue here, it’s the use of the car for every journey, every day of the week that the problem. The car is best suited to occasional journeys, like weekends away or family days out. Regular and scheduled journeys like the commute to work are a better fit for walking, cycling and public transport.
Matt eaton wrote:
I don’t see
Car ownership is a problem too, albeit I think the lesser one.
As my name suggest, I live in Cambridge, and the majority of people here cycle, and 30% commute by bike.
People often own cars too, though. And a lot of the housing here is Victorian two-up, two-down terraces, and the roads are about two cars wide. A car is longer than the house is wide, there are no garages, and there is no room for parking on both sides of the street. Even with reduced car ownership, there isn’t room to store cars for all residents who have one.
When it snows you can see how infrequently some of these cars move. They’ll still be snow-covered 5 days since the last precipitation.
In the meantime, this private property is creating pinch points, blocking pavements (in one area these are actually marked bays on the pavement!), and reducing visibility along the roads.
We have ever-growing residents’ parking schemes, so that people can reserve their own little bit of public space for an object they use occasionally. Consequently there is a shortage of parking for non-residents as well, some of whom might actually need a car.
Ownership certainly can be a problem on its own.
HKCambridge wrote:Matt eaton
No argument from me on this, car ownership can be a problem. I do feel that there should be some limits to car ownership based on the type of property and off-road parking availibility. I’ve mentioned this before somewhere but perhaps an n+1 approach where n is the number of off-road spaces a property has. If the property has no garage or driveway then the total number of cars that could be registered at the address would be 1. I’d aknowledge that there are a couple of loopholes but it might prevent families who live in the type of houses you describe having 3 or 4 cars parked outside on the road.
oldstrath wrote:fukawitribe
Well, it would be solution to the ‘lack of viable alternatives’.— mrmo
How do figure that ?
Of course it would, eventually they might even get to a usable level (functionally and financially). My point was that it seems to be a bit drastic to stop all private vehicles before anything is there to replace it. As mrmo said though, he was only calling for a ban on private vehicles – which i’d not picked up on the meaning of – so car hire and taxis would help in some cases.
Don’t get me wrong, i’m very much in favour of reducing private vehicle use and massive increases in public/mass transit and infrastructure, as well as other easy things like changes in road (speed limits, reducing through roads, pedestrianisation etc etc). I just happen to think that to pre-empt that by an instant mass ban on cars is not the way – unless you want an instant, and quite reasonable, back-lash that could set things back a long way.
mrmo wrote:Quote:If we must
well I guesstimate that is aroundabout 9090 lorries of 44tonne capacity each day just to move all of the freight that the railways shift each day…hmm thinks… I work for a company that makes parts for two major truck manufacturers, so imagine all the overtime we could have if I shut up and let michophull have his way – mind you imagine trying to move all that freight on butchers bikes… great fun yes, but not economical.
“…think how many 44tonne
Why oh why did you have to employ a notional “coal train” to make your point. Sort of cuts us off at the knees in terms of our ‘green blob’ environmentalist ‘image’ doesn’t it? 🙁
Personally I thought the aim was to regulate coal-fired power stations out of existence for the benefit of us all…not to use them as an excuse for investing in rail infrastructure. 8|
The money myself and wife
The money myself and wife save from not driving (neither of us do btw) goes towards a couple of weeks away, usually in the Lakes and we use public transport for it all. The man is talking sense, in 20-30 years time we will wonder why these greedy self serving MP’s didnt act quicker.
The solution would be to ban
The solution would be to ban private car use for journeys less than 3 miles… but you work out a way to enforce that!
honesty wrote:
The solution
No – simply remove all licences from non-professional drivers. Then create a process by which everyone is entitled to re-apply (this will entail re-taking the tests which includes extensive road cycling training as well as an assessment of the applicant’s personality, i.e. how likely they are to fly into a fit of road rage), but only those who can provide a valid reason why they actually need their car will be considered. What constitutes a valid reason can be set as strict as “lives more than 20 miles away from place of work”. The process is to be repeated every so often for any given licence.
Sit back and watch as the nation leans out, saves a shitload of money, and gets healthier and happier (once the initial outcry dies down and everyone gets over themselves). Nice side effect: number of road fatalities will go down drastically.
Oh how I wish I got to be dictator for a while … 😛 😉
userfriendly wrote:honesty
This is interesting thinking and I agree with the idea of a cycling element to driver training and testing and perhaps even a personality assesment. A slightly different spin would be to remove/withold the right to drive from anyone convicted of a violent crime.
The downfall to your idea would be that a valid reason would be very easy to come up with. A driving licence is a qualification that allows a person to carry out certain kinds of work and this applies outside the scope of profesional drivers. If a person was unemployed it would be perfectly valid for them to learn to drive in order to improve their employability. Likewise, any working age person at all could make the valid claim that they would like to acheive this qualification in order that they could consider alterntive employment options. Maybe the principal could be applied to car ownership rather than licensing?
Matt eaton wrote:
This is
Why, thank you! 🙂 I’m rather pleased with it myself.
Easy way around this: the qualification to drive is what matters in terms of employability, and everyone would be entitled to acquire that qualification. If the applicant is then actually hired in a job requiring this capacity they will then be sent their (physical) licence. All it takes is one additional communication from the place of employment to the DVLA. And another one at the time of termination of employment, at which time the licence needs to be returned / made invalid.
I see much more of a problem with applying this to car ownership, TBH. There is nothing wrong per se with people owning cars – say, you like collecting nice oldtimers or want to drive a car on a racetrack somewhere sometimes. In the same vein, with the driving licence becoming a temporary thing constrained by legitimate justification and regular retesting, I can see some people wanting to keep their existing cars (possibly quite a few) while others (possibly quite a few more) may decide to sell them. Totally up to them. And why shouldn’t it be? 🙂
userfriendly wrote:Matt eaton
Why, thank you! 🙂 I’m rather pleased with it myself.
Easy way around this: the qualification to drive is what matters in terms of employability, and everyone would be entitled to acquire that qualification. If the applicant is then actually hired in a job requiring this capacity they will then be sent their (physical) licence. All it takes is one additional communication from the place of employment to the DVLA. And another one at the time of termination of employment, at which time the licence needs to be returned / made invalid.
I see much more of a problem with applying this to car ownership, TBH. There is nothing wrong per se with people owning cars – say, you like collecting nice oldtimers or want to drive a car on a racetrack somewhere sometimes. In the same vein, with the driving licence becoming a temporary thing constrained by legitimate justification and regular retesting, I can see some people wanting to keep their existing cars (possibly quite a few) while others (possibly quite a few more) may decide to sell them. Totally up to them. And why shouldn’t it be? 🙂— Matt eaton
OK, good points about doing your test etc. and then only being given your licence when you get a job where it’s relevant – problem solved there. I think, however, we’d need to consider the idea of collecting classic cars or owning race cars for the track in more detail. Most owners of classic cars do like to drive them occasionaly and for race cars the problem is even more pronounced – they need to be taken or driven to the track in order to be used. If owners of such vehicles want to use them what would they do? I suppose they could hire a profesional driver to take them and their vehicle to somewhere that they could enjoy it but the costs would be huge if they did this regularly.
This brings me on to another line of thinking – amatuer atheletes like many posters on this very forum. Without a car I would be unable to race BMX or CX (OK, I might be able to ride to some local CX races). For those who are more serious about these things and might have multiple bikes, wheelsets with different tyres, tools and spares, a turbo-trainer or rollers etc. with them at races it would be imposible to use public transport. Would a hobby that requires the use of a car qualify for a valid reason to hold a licence (surfing would probably be a more prime example than cycling)? Would you envisage a scenario where sporting equipment was available to hire and you would get the bus or train to a race or event and hire a bike when you got there?
Matt eaton wrote:
I think,
Well, there is no free lunch as they say. Though one could argue that currently motorists are getting a deal that is pretty damn close to it, what with everyone subsidising them while they destroy the roads and directly and indirectly harm people, and all of society pay the massive external costs. If you have an expensive hobby, expect it to be expensive for you.
There is also the option of keeping such a car in a garage rented at the location. Think of hobby pilots, do they take their planes home and park them in front of the house? Of course they don’t.
Easy one. Take the bike to the train station, take the train to a place near the event, cycle from train station to event. The bicycle is a form of transport in itself, so that would not constitute a valid reason to grant a licence. The surf board on the other hand can’t well be used on the road (even in very strong winds it just wouldn’t be much fun), so either rent a board at the location or, similar to the suggestion above, keep your own board in a locker provided there.
Of course there is also always the possibility of paying someone for the service of transporting you and whatever you have to transport somewhere.
userfriendly wrote:Matt eaton
Well, there is no free lunch as they say. Though one could argue that currently motorists are getting a deal that is pretty damn close to it, what with everyone subsidising them while they destroy the roads and directly and indirectly harm people, and all of society pay the massive external costs. If you have an expensive hobby, expect it to be expensive for you.
There is also the option of keeping such a car in a garage rented at the location. Think of hobby pilots, do they take their planes home and park them in front of the house? Of course they don’t.
Easy one. Take the bike to the train station, take the train to a place near the event, cycle from train station to event. The bicycle is a form of transport in itself, so that would not constitute a valid reason to grant a licence. The surf board on the other hand can’t well be used on the road (even in very strong winds it just wouldn’t be much fun), so either rent a board at the location or, similar to the suggestion above, keep your own board in a locker provided there.
Of course there is also always the possibility of paying someone for the service of transporting you and whatever you have to transport somewhere.— Matt eaton
I do agree with your sentiments on this. I just feel that to make it practical so many things would have to change. here goes..
Expensive hobbies are expensive and that needs to be accepted – I’ll grant you that.
Keeping a race car at the track – OK if you only ever want to drive at that track. Would you be happy to only ever ride your bike in one location?
Hobby pilots enjoy the freedom of the skys, I don’t think that the runway itself is a big part of the appeal. It’s a bit like parking the car in the garage and having the freedom of the roads. There is actually a plane on a driveway just round the corner from me but I agree that this isn’t the norm. More common are small boats which do need to be towed to the water.
Taking the bike to the train station and riding to the race is not a solution, at least with the railways as they stand. If you are lucky enough that there is a train that will get you there and back (bearing in mind that most races are on a Sunday) you will need to hope that the operating company will carry your bike as most have limitations. If you want to be highly competitive (not me BTW) there is also a lot of extra gear to take along which you simply couldn’t do on a train. Riding double-bike at BMX races would be impossible as would having a spare bike at CX races.
Renting a surfboard would limit you to surfing at only the more tourist friendly beaches and in some locations only during peak season. Keeping a board in a locker would limit you to surfing at only one beach. Fine if you just want to have a dip now and then but for serious and competitive surfers it just wouldn’t work.
Paying someone to transport you and your gear – OK, this would work but we’re basically talking about using taxi’s to get everywhere. The cost would be prohibitive for most people and it’s no improvement on driving yourself if you do it all the time. If you had the funds you could hire a full-time profesional driver, at which point you may as well be allowed to drive yourself.
All this is against the backdrop that anyone who has a job that requires them to drive would have the ability to use the car for all of these things there is an inequality that I can’t reconcile. The fact that you would have a better chance of sporting sucess (or even the oportunity to be involved in a sport in the first place) as the son of a builder than the son of a factory worker doesn’t seem right to me. It’s rather a mute point anyway really as those who hold the power would not tolerate measures such as this and any government that introduced such restrictions would guarantee that they woud not be re-elected for a very long time.
Matt eaton wrote:
I do agree
No doubt about that – I never said it would be easy. But it is a much more pragmatic and realistic approach than fantasising about banning private car use for journeys of an arbitrary distance (difficulty of enforcement was mentioned) or banning private car ownership altogether.
Of course it’s still unrealistic at this point, as it would require either a much more authoritarian government (which actually gives a toss about the well-being of its populace) or an informed public that can be trusted with making reasonable decisions about its future. Neither of which I can picture in the Greatest of all Britains (or really anywhere else, for that matter). But it is the most elegant solution I can come up with, and I’m still quite fond of the idea. 🙂
People I know who go to a race track do seem to always go to that race track, possibly simply for the reason that it’s the only one within a reasonable distance. They seem quite happy doing it.
Freedom of the roads? With few exceptions such a thing exists only in the imagination of people who make car adverts. In most people’s reality freedom of the roads translates to freedom to be stuck in traffic.
Again, if you’re pursuing your hobby at that kind of level, you will have to accept that there is a cost involved, and it’s unfair to expect society to cover it for you. Hire a van with driver and you’re sorted. You could also consider pooling with other athletes, splitting the costs. And if you’re doing it professionally your team will have the facilities in place and you’re not going to have to worry about it to begin with.
For the rest of us, public transport will have to be made more convenient, completely agree. But that is a good thing for everyone, and like with everything else, with rising demand there is no reason why the supply couldn’t be increased.
Yes. But not everywhere. Everywhere you can not reasonably get to by other means. The question is how we define ‘reasonably’. I’m of the opinion that the vast majority of people aren’t being reasonable about their car use. At all. Your opinion may of course differ, and that’s fair enough (that is, until the day I’m elected dictator – at which point the only opinion that matters will be mine)
No.
The point is that you don’t need to be driving every day (unless you’re doing it professionally, already covered above). The professional driver does. Which is why he would get a licence and you would not.
Regarding prohibitive cost, the cost is already there. And it’s currently handled in two ways: 1. by splitting it across all of society, most members of which have no stake in your hobby, and 2. by simply not paying the rest, which is how we end up with a decade long backlog of roads in dire need of fixing that – at best – will be patched up for a few months until winter weather and road over-use will destroy them all over again, or – in most cases – simply won’t be fixed at all. Instead the money goes into contracts to build new roads, as the article mentions, meaning profit for a few and shite roads for those that don’t stand to gain anything from those projects.
That is a very good and valid concern. I suppose I would answer this with enforcement – being granted a licence on vocational grounds would entitle the motorist in question only to use of the licence in context of their job. Caught doing a private shopping run? Joy ride? Kiss your licence and job goodbye.
And given a vastly reduced number of vehicles on the roads, this isn’t at all unrealistic even without throwing more money at the police. Enforcement of all kinds of (new and existing) regulations would suddenly become commonplace, as opposed to being a scary bed time story driving instructors tell novices nowadays before having a good laugh about it afterwards.
This all sounds more draconian and inflexible than it would be in reality. Take the case of the current law of a valid licence plate required for driving a car on public roads – there is an exception to that for cars to be moved between garages / car sellers etc. There are more examples like this. Again, if a reasonable case can be made for driving without a valid licence (wife in labour, parrot dying on your chest), fines and penalties can be mitigated or even lifted. I’m a socialist authoritarian, not a monster. 😉
userfriendly wrote:Again, if
What I was sort of getting at, and didn’t make clear, was that this would introduce a massive gulf between pros and high-ranking amateurs. You’d also need to define what constitued a pro; someone who rides for a living? or would having some sort of commercial sponsorship be sufficient? Being part of a team you are given new jerseys once a year by a local shop?
If we had the public transport infrastructure in place such an idea could work but, on the other hand, if our public transport links were that good would we need to worry about private car ownership and use at all? I often think about using public transport rather than taking the car but I never actually use it as it is either impossible, unviable or just more expensive than using the car. A day return to London from where I live on the train is £180. Cost of fuel is about £25/£30. Even going right into the centre and paying £10 congestion charge and, say, £20 for parking I’m quids in. Want to take my bike to get arround town? On the train forget it (OK, folders are a solution); in the car no problem.
I think the solution is much simpler: make the car the less attractive option in most scenarios. If I could take the train to London with a good chance of being able to get a seat for £40 return and take my bike without any hassle I’d never even think about using the car. Why would I?
Matt eaton wrote:
What I was
Sorry, I’m not sure I fully comprehend the gravity of that situation. 🙂 Especially when compared to the benefits a massive decrease in car use would have for a) the population’s health, b) the country’s finances, c) the state of the roads, d) the environment, … are you sure that it’s that much of an issue?
If everyone keeps using their cars for every single journey, from driving to work (alone) to nipping to the shop down the road, there won’t be any uptake of other modes of transport. If there is no interest in other modes of transport, no investment in a better public transport infrastructure will be made. At some point you have to say “okay, we may have to force people a bit here …”
Yes, I know. But that’s the consequence of prioritising private motorised traffic, not an argument for keeping it that way. Largely do away with private motorised traffic – whether by the methods suggested above by yourself and other people less authoritarian-minded than me or by introducing my rather splendid idea of making driving licences temporary and limited – and the situation will change immediately: there will be a vast amount of money to be poured into public transport infrastructure and a demand for it too, prices will come down, the health system will stop bursting at its seams, road traffic accidents vastly reduced. People will be happier and healthier, more comfortable with their bodies and their brains will get more oxygen. Society can progress. Songbirds everywhere. Rabbits copulating in the streets. Reality shows are taken off the air. The Sisters Of Mercy release a new album. We terraform and colonise Mars. Mars!
Well. That’s my plan anyway.
userfriendly wrote:
If
Umm, by the same thinking why build quality cycle infrastructure when so few cycle? It’s a bit of a case that you have to build it in order that people can come. If private car ownership use disapeared overnight my £180 train fare would suddenly become a £1800 train fare. The train companies would, in time, provide more services and major stations would grow to cope with demand but the train operators would be able to charge higher fares still given the lack of competition from the car, using their recent capital investment as justification. Conversely, improve rail services and lower prices to the extent that it becomes the more attractive option and many people will forget about the car. Make short journeys accross town quicker and easier by bike and people will move away from the car here too. When they realise that they barely use the car and it’s costing them rather a lot to keep it taxed, MOT’d and insured they’ll get rid of it without being forced. The carrot really needs to be in place first and the stick reserved for those too stubbon to take the easy option.
One more point: I know it doesn’t apply to a huge portion of the population but in some remote areas personal motorised transport really is the only viable means of travel and I can’t see good, regular public transport being extended to such places.
Matt eaton wrote:Make short
The carrot and stick are a bit more closely aligned than that. Most places don’t have masses of unused roadspace, because of induced demand.
So often you cannot put in high quality cycle facilities without taking away from something that already has use of that space. It’s usually cars.
HKCambridge wrote:Matt eaton
Excellent point, and you would have to take space away from cars. Part of making it comparitively easier to get around by bike is making it more difficult to make unnecesary car journeys. Things like closing town centres to motorised traffic, removing through traffic on residential roads and setting up one-way systems with cycle contraflows are examples of this. To my mind these measures all come under the ‘carrot’ banner; tempting drivers out of their cars by offering a faster, cheaper and more efficient option that they feel safe using. There’s a bit of ‘stick’ in there too.
Matt eaton wrote:
Umm, by the
I’ll happily grant you that, but – from the perspective of those who decide how to spend our money – it is still a valid question. To massively increase spending on cycling infrastructure in a car-fixated society like ours would be a highly unpopular political action to take – and if you have a government willing to do that (ha, as if!) you might as well go the whole hog and do something more unpopular but so much more effective.
Why ‘more effective’ you ask, wouldn’t any increase in cycling no matter how small be a victory already? No, it wouldn’t – I very much doubt that even if we did ‘build it so they come’ that they would actually ‘come’ to the degree that you and I would deem desirable.
Yes, it would certainly increase the percentage of people that are willing to get on a bike every now and then. It has done that in other countries. But, and here I’m obviously speculating / guessing / talking out of my arse, I would suggest that the British are so much more fixated on their cars that this increase would have little to no effect. Instead of 1% of people cycling we may get 3 to 5%.
Would that be a good thing? Of course it would be! Would it be anywhere near enough? No. It would have very little impact on the problems that could be tackled and desperately need tackling. We as a society need to perform a swift and radical change, and you cannot – feel free to point me to examples to the contrary – rely on a population to suddenly see sense and a) come to this conclusion on their own and b) actually be prepared to get off their arses and do what’s necessary to implement that change.
This is why I’m only half kidding about us needing an authoritarian approach. I would love to live in an ideal world where adults are actually behaving like adults and citizens are informed citizens capable of collectively making responsible decisions. We’re not living in that kind of world, at least not yet. And while there is a point to be made that the status quo is not to be radically attacked because capitalist democracy is the best of all possible systems and all that humankind needs is just a little bit more time (how many millennia are we talking about then?), there is a very real possibility that we might screw up this planet and ourselves well before.
Yes, yes, I know. This is a road cycling forum. I’m stark raving mad, obviously. Must have banged my head on someone’s bonnet.
No, no … 😀 regulation! Statist here, remember? If I take everyone’s licence away and only give some of them back, grudgingly, why would I forget to heavily subsidise public transport and tell the companies not to be greedy dicks? I would obviously dictate their prices, and they would go down not up. If they come back and tell me that this makes them unable to operate profitably, I’ll be swinging the renationalisation hammer. Screw their profits. We need sustainable transport.
See above. I think you have way too high an opinion of the population’s capability of making reasonable decisions that go against their ingrained desire to keep being lazy. Undoubtedly some will, yes. Equally undoubtedly, most won’t. They will just moan about those anti-car fascists and demand to keep their perceived right to put on weight, waste resources, pollute the environment, kill other road users, and destroy the public road network. Like sheep to the slaughter.
Absolutely. I did say in my initial post about this that every applicant is free to provide valid reasons, and if they are indeed deemed valid the applicant will be given their licence back. It’s not a black/white all or nothing approach. Private car use should be allowed within reason. I just don’t trust this populace (any populace really) to democratically decide what ‘within reason’ means because, frankly, most people are selfish lazy cunts with the attention span of a retarded fruit fly – how do you think we constantly end up with governments like this one?
userfriendly wrote:honesty
But this is self-reinforcing. The reason people live 20 miles away from their place of work is that they know they can drive there.
I hear people say things like ‘oh, well you’re lucky you only live 3 miles from work, of course you can cycle’, as if where I live and where I work were decisions taken entirely independently of each other!
HKCambridge wrote:
But this
Well, you’re answering this yourself. Over time this will “self-reinforce” itself back in the opposite direction. And fairly quickly too, I would imagine. 😀
The thing I like about CB is
The thing I like about CB is he’s an ex-pro who’s prepared to get stuck into the general cycling debate and help the ‘average joe’ cyclist. A lot of other pros/ex-pros either say nothing or make a badly thought through statement and then beat a hasty retreat.
Shades wrote:The thing I like
That’s a bit harsh. CB is a fantastic spokesman who happened to be an ex-pro. That gives him some profile and some credibility with cyclists and politicians. But just because you can whack out 350w for hours on end is unrelated to whether you will be a good cycling advocate or have something useful to say on topics related to general cycling. Or even want to. A lot of elite sports people don’t want anything to do with this sort of thing because being an elite athlete quite often requires monk like lifestyles that that squeeze out and deliberately ignore anything unrelated to their performance.
CB is a bright lad. He pioneered a lot of aero kit and styles. Built a business and also happens to have the gift of the gab and has something useful to say. Having a lucrative business and getting gigs on ITV 4 or the beeb that also increase your visibility means that CB also has a income stream and the time and inclination to do this stuff. Just because other ex-pros don’t doesn’t mean that they are lacking in any way. They may well be working out what to do to keep themselves or their families in cake or bread.
The number of times people
The number of times people have baulked at the money I might spend on a bike (and I only buy second hand and build them myself mind) for me to point out that I spend about a tenth to a quarter of what they do in a year getting to work for them to go – oh yeah – and then continue to suffer the tube or drive anyway.
I don’t tell them that one of my high-importance criteria for selecting a job is the bike ride taken to get there. They would think I am crazy, but it is just these criteria that begin to free us from excessive car usage.
I suspect it would take petrol and tube prices to double or triple before people would actually do the math and realise it makes sense to ride more, leaving aside the obvious other benefits.
As for mr CB’s comments, well yes, totally agree. We certainly need roads but we also need traffic to be less ‘private’. But then telling motorists that a car is a privledge not a right will get you taken out the back and put up against a wall!
alotronic wrote:
I don’t tell
Yup. “Dear Madam/Sir. Thank you very much for the job offer. Sadly I’m unable to consider it, mainly due to the reason that the distance between my home and your offices is less than 10 miles. I wish you all the best and good luck with your future endeavours.”
Aye. Fascist. 😛 😀
alotronic wrote:I don’t tell
OT, I now, but: the small business (office work) I work for, is moving in the new year so my boss is out there looking for new space.
He is keen to have somewhere that will make his commute (by car) easier. He lives on the other side of the city, so I guess we’ll be moving nearer to him (or, further from me).
I asked about bike parking (which we have, at present), and he informed me its not a priority. He said if we move much further away then I’ll just have to start driving again (public transport not an option for crossing the city, in my city).
He pulled a face when I said I’ll just have to get up earlier but will continue to cycle.
I talked about it with my LBS, and they suggested I just make sure to bring the bike into the office on the rainest, muddiest day, cos then they’re sure bike parking with ‘miraculously’ appear very quickly…
If we build new roads they
If we build new roads they should have a modern cycleway attached. Cycle lanes in urban areas are a mess in the uk, stopping and starting, disappearing and turning up across the street, people parking cars across them etc. How can transport policy change the problems created by out-dated street planning that was never really meant for motor traffic in a lot of towns and cities ?
Proposals for Gosforth High St in my neck of the woods are pretty typical – really the streets just not wide enough for the volume of cycle and car traffic, there’s no good parking for deliveries to businesses. The street was built for horse and cart traffic originally. So at best we end up with a narrower road for motor vehicles and a safe cycle lane, which would cause mayhem at rush hour and if you are on a cycle you suddenly get thrown out onto a busy dual carriageway at the end of the street
http://newcycling.org/news/20140315/gosforth-high-street-our-view
Refocussing transport funding towards cycling and pedestrians would be great, but I just don’t think I’d like to see that money spent on schemes like the one above, there’s got to be some better way ?
The argumentts for for
The argumentts for for reducing the dominance of motorised traffic are well documented, logical and compelling to any right minded person.
However they dont make serious money for anyone, so whilst we have a goverment put in place by money all the words on here or any other forum are wasted.
IanW1968 wrote:
The
That’s why we need a different government. 🙂 Vote userfriendly!
It’s well established now in
It’s well established now in various studies, reports etc that the current level of private vehicle use is unsustainable.
But the reality is, most people would rather suffer the cost and delays than give up their car. Just look at how many motorists will fume about ’empty buses using bus lanes’ while they’re stuck in a queue.
“You can take a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink” springs to mind.
And how about the roads that
And how about the roads that are wearing out? So many roads have terrible pot holes they make roads in Gaza look like bowling greens. We need investment in both roads to maintain them and investment in cycling infrastructure as well to ease people out of their cars onto bicycles. There are tough decisions to be made as to where the cash is spent.
Nobody reads these massive
Nobody reads these massive posts, the right choice is obvious and doesn’t need a lecture.
IanW1968 wrote:
Nobody reads
Oh I’m sorry … I’m having a conversation with someone here, who I would assume does read my “massive posts”, seeing how he replies to the points made within, and he writes long posts himself which I enjoy reading. And given several people ‘liked’ our posts makes me think we’re not the only ones reading them.
But thank you for presuming to speak for everyone, oh wise one. I presume you get something out of that kind of thing. Ah well, each to their own, eh?
OK, I’m going to duck out and
OK, I’m going to duck out and go to bed. Getting a bit shouty for my liking (not aimed at anyone in particular).
I think we’re all largely on the same page. It just takes a lot of vision to see how an authoritarian approach would work. Very bold moves also require a very holistic approach, considering the whole transport network, work culture, schooling and probably a lot of other things I haven’t thought of. Basically changing the whole stucture of the nation. All well and good but undoubtedly a conversation too complex for the comments section.
Matt eaton wrote:OK, I’m
Agree that we need a bold vision, but it’s all well and good for armchair policy makers to suggest things in forums and accuse the Government of not delivering. We still have a democratic system in place, not a dictatorship. If someone is so committed to changing things, then I suggest that they run for Parliament on a ‘bikes before cars’ manifesto and see how many votes they get….
Matt eaton wrote:
OK, I’m
Sorry, my bad. I felt it was rather rude of him to barge into a casual conversation and only contribute a one liner of “your lecturing bores me”, hence my shouty-ness. Probably should have ignored it. Note to self: need to work on that.
A very diplomatic way of putting it. 😉 “People who have visions should go see a doctor.” -Helmut Schmidt
I’m not actually suggesting a power grab by an authoritarian party or individual. I’m just very pessimistic about anything changing for the better in this current docile consumerist society. Hence my saying that if anything were to change significantly it would have to bypass the democratic process.
It goes without saying that you won’t get any significant amount of votes for running on what is essentially a green leftist platform. UKIP on the other hand are getting a terrifyingly high amount of votes nowadays – just goes to show what the priorities are for a lot of people. “Feed my resentments but leave me alone with this sustainability crap.” Childish stubbornness paired with stupidity and a “me me me me” sense of entitlement.
If one were to run for Parliament, sustainable transport should probably be the last thing mentioned. But promise them “beach bodies, more money, quiet neighbourhoods” and you might get somewhere. 😀 When asked how you plan to achieve that, that’s the moment you’ve been practising your manic villainous cackle for all those past years. You haven’t? 😕 Maybe that’s just me then …
userfriendly wrote:
If one
That’s it! “Cycle-through” McDonalds is the way forwards :))
JeevesBath wrote:Matt eaton
Agree that we need a bold vision, but it’s all well and good for armchair policy makers to suggest things in forums and accuse the Government of not delivering. We still have a democratic system in place, not a dictatorship. If someone is so committed to changing things, then I suggest that they run for Parliament on a ‘bikes before cars’ manifesto and see how many votes they get….— Matt eaton
We don’t necesarily need a ‘bikes before cars’ manifesto. More reasonable would be a manifesto promising quieter neighbourhoods, safer and less congested roads, cleaner air and a healthier population. None of these things are massivly left-leaning and I can’t see any reason that anyone wouldn’t want these things. Even the most hardened petrolheads would like to see less congestion.
Matt eaton wrote:JeevesBath
Agree that we need a bold vision, but it’s all well and good for armchair policy makers to suggest things in forums and accuse the Government of not delivering. We still have a democratic system in place, not a dictatorship. If someone is so committed to changing things, then I suggest that they run for Parliament on a ‘bikes before cars’ manifesto and see how many votes they get….— JeevesBath
We don’t necesarily need a ‘bikes before cars’ manifesto. More reasonable would be a manifesto promising quieter neighbourhoods, safer and less congested roads, cleaner air and a healthier population. None of these things are massivly left-leaning and I can’t see any reason that anyone wouldn’t want these things. Even the most hardened petrolheads would like to see less congestion.— Matt eaton
Agreed, I’m sure every driver would like less congestion. But I’ve also had countless conversations with motorists (in a professional capacity) who all think that their journey is necessary and it’s the other people that should be getting off the road first. All the things in your alternative manifesto are desirable, as long as no-one has to change their behaviour, at which point it becomes “inconvenient” to them.
Sorry, not having a go but I’ve had too many arguments with members of the public in the past who are unwilling to change their behaviour and therefore I’m automatically pessimistic about any real change occurring…..
JeevesBath wrote:Agreed, I’m
I agree with you completley and I’m equally pesimistic. For any real change it will be necesary to play the political game. I think that the key to changing behaviours is to lead people to make the choice to change themselves; try to force it and you will meet such strong resistance that your aims will never be acheived in a democratic environment.
Here’s an example that I think would work in the real world, although I concede only to a limited degree: removing VED (or road tax for those living in the ’30s). Replace this with duty on fuel so that drivers actually pay duty according to how much they use the car (and thier actual emmisions) rather than for the simple fact that they own it. It’s fairer to motorists and reduces the fixed costs of motoring; who could say fairer than that? With fuel prices increased drivers will be led to consider the cost of travelling by car in real terms. For some this might mean choosing alternative modes of transport, others may simply drive less or be more inclined to combine journeys or car share.
Combine this with other measures to make the choice even easier (cheaper trains, compulary secure bike parking for large employers, legislation to include cycle-planning in every new road build etc.) and we’ll begin to see a shift.
Chris Boardman? The man who
Chris Boardman? The man who didn’t declare to the Transport Select Committee that he sells bikes, the lowest of the range some £500 quid? Who then demanded that all of us must pay £10 a year for cycling, some £650,000,000? That chap? Cycling has no ‘down sides’? Is he ignoring all these http://bit.ly/HSkRAS cycling deaths in the UK not to mention injuries?
Cycling a priority? Why? Without walkers and drivers we all die, without cyclists we wouldn’t notice it at all. It is a simple truth that people like Boardman, Carlton Reid et al just cannot accept.
I have cycled all my life and have accepted drivers without moan, even when knocked off by them.
We need more roads. If it was ok for France, Germany, Spain and Ireland why should our infrastructure be curtailed to keep cyclists happy?
Good sentiments but just a
Good sentiments but just a little short sighted.
Afterall, roads are needed as they lead to places. They need to be upkept. There are probably enough roads to ride on.
What we don’t need is more Motorists. I feel that Motoring should be nationalised as a service. For people to use if and when required. And, that other means of (personalised) transport be heavily promoted instead.
dogcc wrote:
Good sentiments
This! When I become dictator you can be one of my members of cabinet. 🙂
userfriendly wrote:
This!
Really?!
dogcc wrote:
Really?!
There
There is of course this little hold-up of me having to become dictator first. 😕