Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Chris Boardman says it’s “ridiculous” for government to continue building roads

British Cycling policy advisor claims it’s “not logical or sustainable” to continue to favour cars over other modes

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.

 

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

78 comments

Avatar
HKCambridge replied to Matt eaton | 9 years ago
0 likes
Matt eaton wrote:

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.

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.

Avatar
Airzound | 9 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
userfriendly replied to Matt eaton | 9 years ago
0 likes
Matt eaton wrote:

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.

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.

Matt eaton wrote:

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.

No, no ...  4 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.

Matt eaton wrote:

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.

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.

Matt eaton wrote:

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.

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?

Avatar
IanW1968 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Nobody reads these massive posts, the right choice is obvious and doesn't need a lecture.

Avatar
Matt eaton replied to HKCambridge | 9 years ago
0 likes
HKCambridge wrote:
Matt eaton wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Avatar
userfriendly replied to IanW1968 | 9 years ago
0 likes
IanW1968 wrote:

Nobody reads these massive posts, the right choice is obvious and doesn't need a lecture.

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?

Avatar
Matt eaton | 9 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
JeevesBath replied to Matt eaton | 9 years ago
0 likes
Matt eaton wrote:

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.

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....

Avatar
userfriendly replied to JeevesBath | 9 years ago
0 likes
Matt eaton wrote:

OK, I'm going to duck out and go to bed. Getting a bit shouty for my liking (not aimed at anyone in particular).

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.

Matt eaton wrote:

It just takes a lot of vision to see how an authoritarian approach would work.

A very diplomatic way of putting it.  3 "People who have visions should go see a doctor." -Helmut Schmidt

Matt eaton wrote:

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.

JeevesBath wrote:

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....

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.  4 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?  39 Maybe that's just me then ...

Avatar
JeevesBath replied to userfriendly | 9 years ago
0 likes
userfriendly wrote:

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.

That's it! "Cycle-through" McDonalds is the way forwards  21

Avatar
Sedgepeat | 9 years ago
0 likes

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?

Avatar
Skylark | 9 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
userfriendly replied to Skylark | 9 years ago
0 likes
dogcc wrote:

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.

This! When I become dictator you can be one of my members of cabinet.  1

Avatar
Skylark replied to userfriendly | 9 years ago
0 likes
userfriendly wrote:

This! When I become dictator you can be one of my members of cabinet.  1

Really?!

Avatar
userfriendly replied to Skylark | 9 years ago
0 likes
dogcc wrote:

Really?!

There is of course this little hold-up of me having to become dictator first.  39

Avatar
Matt eaton replied to JeevesBath | 9 years ago
0 likes
JeevesBath wrote:
Matt eaton wrote:

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.

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....

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.

Avatar
JeevesBath replied to Matt eaton | 9 years ago
0 likes
Matt eaton wrote:
JeevesBath wrote:
Matt eaton wrote:

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.

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....

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.

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.....

Avatar
Matt eaton replied to JeevesBath | 9 years ago
0 likes
JeevesBath wrote:

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.....

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.

Pages

Latest Comments