A newly published study into the impact social media has on policymaking in the United Kingdom has concluded that cycling campaigners may “unwittingly undermine their own discourse” online and can be viewed as “rude” and impossible to please by some councils.
The research article published last week, first reported by the Guardian, is titled ‘Does social media influence local elected leaders? A study of online engagement methods through the lens of cycling policymaking in the United Kingdom’. As that header suggests, it surveyed council policymakers and local officials on the impact social media campaigning and discourse has on cycling projects, such as building cycle lanes and active travel infrastructure.
While the responses clearly suggested opponents to cycling schemes were the most uniformly hostile, there are still aspects of pro-cycling discourse on social media which may be “counterproductive” to campaigners’ goals of seeing more safe bike lanes built.
The research states that “distilled and intensified viewpoints” on Twitter and Facebook means there is “minimal space or nuance” and even when cycling infrastructure is built councillors feel “overly critical” cyclists can leave them feeling like “nothing we ever do will make cyclists happy” and so can “massively undermine” desire for future projects.
One respondent said, “Cycling campaigners are mostly counterproductive due to their rudeness.”
A second figure said councils “find it harder to advocate for more cycle infrastructure, not because people don’t like it, but because people feel that (from their impression from social media) nothing we ever do will make cyclists happy”.
Another respondent said cyclists on social media “can massively undermine [cycling’s] case, particularly with sceptical councillors”.
Interestingly, despite cycling campaigning apparently annoying the policymakers surveyed, the concerns about “very toxic” and “often abusive” debate around cycling was accepted as primarily down to those opposed to cycle projects, often posting anonymously.
“Misinformation … from the libertarian fringe or organisations,” one respondent described the opposition to cycling on social media. While the council officers suggested pro-cycling voices could be the harshest critics and sometimes come across as “rude”, the opposition to projects is the most uniformly hostile.
Is cycling discourse on social media “counterproductive”?
Although unstated in the research, it would be interesting to see which councils feel their projects were subject to unfair criticism and “rudeness”, to see if complaints were justified or indeed overly critical. For example, was the criticism about infrastructure that’s actually very good but could be made even better with a couple of minor tweaks, or from the genre below.
We’ve reported on numerous cycling infrastructure projects with obvious issues that deserve to be questioned, such as dangerous routing, substandard installation and other very legitimate concerns, so it would be handy to see the context behind some of the policymakers’ comments.
With that said, a “central finding” of the research was the inherent lack of nuance social media platforms suffer from, Twitter and Facebook described as offering “distilled and intensified viewpoints”.
Continuing the more general point about the ineffectiveness of campaigning on social media that applies to not just cycling campaigners, the research concluded: “Whilst there is evidence to suggest that social media does serve a purpose in the activist’s toolbox, this evidence tells us much about the efficacy of legitimate grassroot approaches. For those grassroots activists, direct-engagement rooted in the community (i.e., emails or face-to-face surgeries, alongside council-led consultations) is widely viewed as the best way to affect decision-making.
“Those using anonymous accounts to make representations – either as individuals, or unofficial groups – are not given the same credence as identifiable individuals or recognised community stakeholders. This appears to apply equally for both pro- and anti-cycling groups.
“The evidence presented in this study suggests that despite some utility, social media does not substitute for traditional agonistic methods of local public engagement. It therefore appears that social-media influencers are unlikely to initiate large-scale change. Moreover, the distilled nature of social media means that those seeking to act as critical friends might, unwittingly, undermine their own discourse.
“Although the findings suggest concerted and constructive styles of online engagement with local leaders may yield results, for the normal citizen and ‘passive listener’, they may be better-placed engaging through face-to-face contact, emails, and formal consultation as the best way to influence attitudes. If grassroots activists wish to shift opinion, then this appears to be the best option.”
Ultimately, the respondents, when asked to list forms of engagement in order of effectiveness, almost always put emails and face-to-face chats above posts on Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites.
What do you think? Does the research have a point? Is social media discourse really “massively undermining” cycling’s case? Get your thoughts in the comments…
86 thoughts on “Are “rude” cyclists and toxic online debates really putting people off cycle lanes?”
It’ll always be two steps
It’ll always be two steps forward, one step back, at best, as long as “cyclists” are seen as a minority that should be grateful for what it gets. In the Netherlands, when there’s feedback on new cycling infrastructure, they use it to improve their designs. Urban planners have pride in their work, and probably cycle home each day. Although the Dutch did have the advantage of transitioning from pervasive motonormativity before the advent of social media.
My interpretation – we have
My interpretation – we have no defence against criticism from the pro-cycling groups objecting to substandard infra, because they are usually referencing the fact that we don’t even meet the governments minimum design standard…
Much easier to deal with people whose objection is “we don’t like cycle lanes”
There are doubtless rude and
There are doubtless rude and aggressive pro-cycling campaigners just as there are anti-cycling campaigners and council officials who share the same traits. However, it does seem to have become a standard practice amongst those charged with improving public services to accuse people who ask them to do their job properly of being aggressive, rude, never satisfied et cetera rather than providing proper explanations for their decisions, actions or lack of them. It’s much easier to say “you’re being aggressive and rude so I’m not engaging with you” than actually engaging and finding out what the cause of the (alleged) rudeness or aggression might be. It’s interesting that there don’t seem to be any examples in this report of this supposed rudeness and aggression; is saying “this cycle lane is rubbish” or “you’re not doing your job properly” rudeness and aggression or simply a statement of fact?
Rendel Harris wrote:
This is the methodology the study used (source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03003930.2025.2500932#abstract )
the survey is developed along the following lines (see Appendix I for the full survey). Following obtaining informed consent,Footnote1 first, a series of questions established the participant’s position (location, role and political affiliation). These initial questions were for contextual analysis only. The second phase explored how respondents/their local authority had used social media (Twitter,Footnote2 Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and TikTok) to post cycling-related content. Using a 5-point Likert Scale (Very negative, slightly negative, neutral, slightly positive, very positive), participants were asked to consider the tone of responses in three broad categories: when using the platform overall, when discussing specific cycling-related issues (e.g., new infrastructure), and in relation to specific groups (e.g., cyclists, motorists). The third phase again used a 5-point Likert scale to explore how specific kinds of responses affected support for cycling-related activity within their local authority (i.e., aided or undermined). The fourth phase asked participants to rank the top three modes of engagement which they felt would most likely influence their decision-making/attitudes. A fifth phase asked participants if they have experienced abuse through social media. Where answering yes, participants were asked how this subsequently affected their view of delivering cycling activity. A final open-ended question asked for reflections on how social media affects their attitude towards cycling-related projects.
Thanks for that; so it seems
Thanks for that; so it seems respondents were asked to say if they’d ever been abused and whether they’d received hostility online but it seems to have been left entirely to the respondents’ subjective opinion as to what constitues hostility or abuse. So as far as we know the “abuse” could be anything from “I think that’s a stupid decision” to “I will hunt you down and kill you”.
I’ve always felt there should
I’ve always felt there should be a greater focus on encouraging people to get out on their bikes, rather than creating seemingly random stretches of unconnected cycle lanes that only serve a particular journey. When people become cyclists, they become more aware of the challenges and dangers faced by other cyclists, that was certainly the case for me.
Personally, I very rarely use cycle lanes, likely due to the type of cycling I do. Even when I used to commute into the city centre by bike, I preferred to use the road where I could maintain a more consistent speed. Short stretches of unconnected cycle lanes are more of an annoyance on a journey when they keep starting and stopping. I understand that infrastructure has to start somewhere, but until cycle lanes are better connected and offer decent routes through, it’s going to be tough to get people to see cycling as an option.
The issue is that most people
The issue is that most people don’t even consider cycling anywhere because of either the stigma or because its simply scary and dangerous in their eyes. For many people the only way they would get out on their bike outside of MTB/gravel is if they are completely separated from the traffic.
cyclefaster wrote:
Well that’s great. And the UK has seen plenty of crap infra built.
But … tell me – how do we actually “encourage” people onto their bikes? Probably the greatest example of that was the Covid lockdown … a (mild) active travel “boom”, which came and went. I doubt anyone wants to repeat that.
Activist groups, councils, the government on occasion … all have been “encouraging cycling”. To very little effect – cycling has generally declined through my lifetime.
It is a “chicken and egg” problem or breaking out of a vicious circle as you say – no “less confident cyclists”, no demand for the kind of infra that actually facilitates (everyone) cycling…
Even harder I think we have to achieve driving reduction / making that less convenient at the same time as making cycling more convenient. A double mountain to climb! I think Chris Boardman is good on “where to start” in the UK. It’s “campaign for the children! Safe and convenient independent mobility for kids”.
chrisonabike wrote:
I believe one key issue is that many activist and campaigning groups position themselves as representatives of cyclists, yet, in my view, they often fail to engage with local cyclists to understand their genuine needs and priorities regarding infrastructure improvements.
For me, part of the issue stems from the fact that many cyclists are simply unaware of the existence of these campaigning groups. Campaigners lacking that widespread visibility or not actively engaging with other cyclists (unintentionally or not), means the perspectives of everyday cyclists remain unheard.
“Additionally, some campaigners seem reluctant to embrace differing opinions that challenge or stray from their established agenda. This resistance can lead to an echo chamber, where advocacy efforts only reflect a narrow set of perspectives. As a result, the campaign risks failing to account for the diverse needs and priorities of the wider cycling community.
Survey of policymakers
Survey of policymakers suggests cycling campaigners on social media may “massively undermine” cycle infrastructure projects as councils feel “nothing we ever do will make cyclists happy”…
And the reasons we aren’t happy:
And after forty years of this, you’re upset because we’re angry?! You should be grateful we haven’t burned down the council offices.
Tell you what, you get it right and we’ll send you a bunch of flowers.
“So, we made it worse for
“So, we made it worse for drivers, didn’t make it really any better for cyclists and because this isn’t part of any linked up thinking, cyclists aren’t really using it”. Excellent. More fuel on the anti-cyclist fire and no one is happy. You did hit your arbitrary shit target for active travel though so…well done?
Indeed – but perhaps the
Indeed – but perhaps the following:
eburtthebike wrote:
Unfortunately, in this age, it will be easier to get things done if you talk to who would be receiving votes, rather than asking to be consulted, get no response and complain later.
I did try to engage with
I did try to engage with councillors, but they were, to say the least, not receptive to the message that perhaps they ought to be following their own policies. I’m pretty sure that most of them on the transport committee had no knowledge of transport apart from driving.
guardian wrote:
As with any discussion focussing on objective, fact based, discussion should enhance the understanding of all. We know that generally SM is driven by bias and prejudice, you only go to sites that align with, and reinforce, your own previously held beliefs and often get hounded as “contratrian” of “troll” when you challenge the group think.
However, I do wonder how many urban planners have:
“BREAKING NEWS: Social media
“BREAKING NEWS: Social media contains a lot of people with extreme opinions, shouting loudly and chucking insults at each other, and that puts people’s backs up”
Who knew?
mdavidford wrote:
No it doesn’t, and you failed your 11+.
mdavidford wrote:
Especially on this website as there is no report button that I can see. So really it is the fault of this website for doing nothing about the considerable toxicity here.
Yes – I occasionally think it
Yes – I occasionally think it would be useful to be able to flag when someone here is indiscriminately slinging around unsubstantiated accusations…
#youareallcyberbullies.
#youareallcyberbullies.
Having said that, this website is apparently out of step by having a more “find the email address and complain to the site management” style.
I think it’s about right (very long term average). Certainly there have been the usual silly spats and the odd pile-on. But – for example – even the seekers of interaction seem to have benefitted from their reincarnations (eventually) and calmed down a bit.
OTOH I’ve been around a bit now. And of course some people may simply not want to get into the water. (Not sure how many women read this but I suspect very few of them post. Perhaps they’ve just got more socially expected work to do though?) And some who popped up and got knocked back may just not bother.
Too much double standards
Too much double standards here as nothing is said when established members are name-calling, but as soon as someone new says anything then everyone piles in. Report button is what is needed.
Dz1 wrote:
As far as I’m aware you turned up here for the first time, at least under this username, on the news thread about confiscated ebikes, bragging about how you ride an illegal electric motorbike. You then proceeded to call everyone who pointed out to you that this is not a good thing to do stupid, liars and hypocrites because apparently you know that they all run red lights. I’ve just skimmed through that thread and I can’t see anyone “name calling” you, just telling you you’re in the wrong. So you don’t really have any justification for what you’ve said as far as I can see, but maybe you’re thinking of when you were here under another name?
If you believe that a report is needed, simply email info@road.cc, they’re very good at dealing with people who actually transgress site policy and T&Cs in my experience.
Very minor pedanty:
Very minor pedanty:
It’s the use which isn’t allowed I think? Though I would be happier if there was a bit more effort to dissuade the selling of these. (Not a lawyer but as I understand it under normal UK practice most things – unless specifically banned – can still be bought and owned even if using them “for what they’re for” is only legal in a few circumstances).
* Also they could perhaps have forgotten to mention they’ve had it type-approved as the appropriate type of motor vehicle (moped most likely), have got a licence plate for it, had passed their driving test before 2001 or have taken a passed the CBT course, have taxed it and obtained insurance and wear a motorbike helmet when using it – oh, and that they will have it MOT’d (despite it being unclear how to do that given that motorbike garages are unlikely to understand eBikes and bike shops are unlikely to be able to do an MOT). And that they don’t then ride it on any shared use paths or cycle paths or mandatory cycle lanes (but you can cross them, and then there is the loophole allowing parking in some of those also…) (IIRC).
chrisonabike wrote:
No such thing.
chrisonabike wrote:
It’s the use which isn’t allowed I think?— Rendel Harris
Well yes, but once it’s put on the road it becomes an illegal vehicle and hence the person using it becomes guilty of illegal behaviour. The vehicle can be impounded as being illegal and the rider can be charged with illegal behaviour…the way I expressed it was a bit tautologous though, I admit!
Rendel Harris wrote:
As far as I’m aware you turned up here for the first time, at least under this username, on the news thread about confiscated ebikes, bragging about how you ride an illegal electric motorbike. You then proceeded to call everyone who pointed out to you that this is not a good thing to do stupid, liars and hypocrites because apparently you know that they all run red lights. I’ve just skimmed through that thread and I can’t see anyone “name calling” you, just telling you you’re in the wrong. So you don’t really have any justification for what you’ve said as far as I can see, but maybe you’re thinking of when you were here under another name?
If you believe that a report is needed, simply email info@road.cc, they’re very good at dealing with people who actually transgress site policy and T&Cs in my experience.— Dz1
So you didn’t see these toxic people calling me stupid then? Maybe those posts were deleted or maybe you are not looking hard enough. I respond to these toxic people the same way they did to me.
One person’s rude &
One person’s rude & aggressive is another’s passionate & direct.
Or alternatively, pointing
Or alternatively, pointing out some ludicrous death trap murder strip, even in extremely polite language, gets you branded as ungrateful.
“impossible to please”? Maybe they should trying to please cyclists rather than appease motorists
There was “little Holland”
There was “little Holland” money wasted in my area with a cycle lane that is separated then interrupted by parking spaces, cyclists forced out into the main carriage with no filter, then sort of OK on road, then on-road in the door zone of on-pavement parking, then on and off the pavement again interrupted by parking and junctions with unclear rights of way.
I use a different route that has the occasional painted cycle lane in the gutter because it is safer and continuous. I guess I’d be classed as negative and ungrateful.
anotherflat wrote:
I don’t think any Dutch person would recognise that disaster as anything to do with Holland, little or full size.
The Councillor who decided to
The Councillor who decided to remove the modal filters on Beech Grove in Harrogate accused me of taking a ‘counterproductive approach’ when I contacted him about the decision. I was pointing out the facts about his poor record and failure to fulfil his role as Cycling Champion, not abusing him.
At the weekend, there was a crash where the modal filters used to be, in which a cyclist was badly injured.
Yes it’s important to keep discussions civilised, but the substance of decisions is far more important.
Where decisions disregard the safety of people on bikes, that is a much more serious form of lack of respect, or rudeness.
This “Research” is based on
This “Research” is based on 48 (145 asked) responses from 37 local councils so 1.3 response rate per council.
Its not worth the paper its written on. Any respectable researcher would have binned it.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
That’s a pretty good response rate, having seen quite a few studies which are sent to councils.
Have you actually read the
Have you actually read the paper itself?
Sure, the sample size is small, but it’s still an interesting read and one that provides some insight into how we cyclists can better engage with local officials.
I’m skeptical that militant
I’m skeptical that militant cyclists are to blame for backsliding by councils. If you’re ungrateful for a half baked token-gesture, then who’s fault is that. I’m more inclined to think that this is confirmation bias by councillors who are displeased that the active travel budget isn’t instead being used to fix potholes in front of their driveways
Double reason to bring up
Double reason to bring up this cartoon again today… civility is a good idea but can also be gamified…
Thanks for the reminder.
Thanks for the reminder. Just found this one on there:
https://wondermark.com/c/1567/
What puts me off riding in
What puts me off riding in cycle lanes is that, around where I live they seem to be deliberately designing them to be extra bumpy, making them uncomfortable to ride at speeds higher than about 10mph. I have asked my council if they are doing this on purpose but have yet to receive a reply.
Dz1 wrote:
Maybe they found that when they built nice smooth surfaces they were unfortunately abused by people riding illegal electric motorbikes who thought they were above the law?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Maybe they found that when they built nice smooth surfaces they were unfortunately abused by people riding illegal electric motorbikes who thought they were above the law?— Dz1
Just like all the hypocrites on here who claim they have never ridden through a red light but also like to pass judgment on others.
The fix for “crap infra” is
The fix for “crap infra” is “don’t build crap infra – build good enough cycle infra”.
Applies equally to pedestrians, drivers, cyclists… (probably trains also but we know we can’t get away with that now. OTOH Edinburgh’s tram was fine for the tram users, just … not everyone else).
Did they “build” cycle lanes simply by painting a line down the edge of the main roadway (where it’s often poor quality, chewed up by buses, where all the rubbish gathers etc.)?
Or did they “build” them by putting a blue and white bike sign on a (otherwise indifferently maintained) footway?
Or … was it in fact built by a charity – possibly with volunteer labour?
Dz1 wrote:
Did you just have a chunter or did you request how they had assured performance against LTN 1/20:
Comfortable
4.2.14 Comfortable conditions for cycling require routes with good quality, well-maintained smooth surfaces, adequate width for the volume of users, minimal stopping and starting, avoiding steep gradients, excessive or uneven crossfall and adverse camber.
The need to interact with high speed or high-volume motor traffic also decreases user comfort by increasing the level of stress and the mental effort required to cycle.
4.2.15 Adequate width is important for comfort. Cycling is a sociable activity and many people will want to cycle side by side, and to overtake another cyclist safely. It is important that cyclists can choose their own speed so that they can make comfortable progress commensurate with the amount of effort they wish to put in.
4.2.16 Designers should consider comfort for all users including children, families, older and disabled people using three or four-wheeled cycles. Families are more likely to use off-carriageway facilities. Young children may need additional space to wobble or for an accompanying parent to ride alongside.
And also query the Construction?
15.2 Construction materials
15.2.1 Surface quality affects the comfort and effort required when cycling. Loose surfaces such as gravel or mud can also present a skidding hazard, increase the risk of punctures and make cycles and clothing dirty in bad weather. Cyclists are also affected by ruts and potholes that can throw them off balance. Smooth, sealed solid surfaces offer the best conditions for everyday cycling.
My emphasis.
Thank you for that useful
Thank you for that useful reply. I will remind them of these obligations if they reply to me.
Why wait?
Why wait?
Introduce it as the focus of measured and well constructed follow up to reflect upon your already submitted query and the response that you anticipate they are preparing.
Suggesting that their response, to be complete, should also include the council position on the advisory document and if they do not use it, how they assure similar outcomes?
But let’s get back to your local traffic lights when shall I come over? You didn’t say if you like jaffa cakes but I can bring Yorkshire Parkin if you prefer that. I don’t share it often but for you I’d make an exception so we can get to the bottom of your RLJ problems.
But unfortunately LTN1/20 is
But unfortunately LTN1/20 is “guidelines, not rules”. That would only be the case if e.g. they’d received funding contingent on that standard or had stated that their own policy was that they were going to abide by it.
I used to think that this (and e.g. the Scottish equivalent) should be actual rules. However IIRC even LTN1/20 has some room for fudge / things like low “absolute minumum widths” which tend to become the reality. And also where this kind of thing is most complete (in NL) they’ve managed to achieve very good quality (and generally rather standard designs) almost country-wide through a different feedback mechanism rather than the “design rules” themselves being legally enforced (and a different “philosophy“) – so perhaps that is ultimately the better approach (if it is remotely possible to copy “organisational structure and responsibilities?)
surely all that Active Travel
surely all that Active Travel funded stuff was contingent on LTN1/20 guidance in the schemes, and Active Travel England were supposedly enforcing that ?
I think all they could do (at
I think all they could do (at least initially) was not approve further schemes or additional funding if you failed. I think they had to do that at least initially because they hadn’t got “capacity ratings” e.g. some measure of what councils were actually likely to pull off for active travel.
Boardman has mentioned the experience of one of the Manchester boroughs putting together a very optimistic proposal which then failed – not through bad faith but simply because they didn’t really understand what it would take themselves and what resources they’d need.
More details on what they’re about now here (e.g. new funding here). Apparently over this next year 168.5 million is allocated. That’s not nothing – but it is patchy and spreads rather thin across the country as a whole. Patchiness probably a good sign e.g. not going to fritter money where it likely won’t achieve much. (Although it looks like there’s still a couple of million for e.g. Lincolnshire – what will Reform-lead councils and Mayor do with it?)
the issue is the councils
the issue is the councils will simply claim they are following all the guidance.
Ive seen plenty of consultations for cycling schemes that have claimed to be LTN1/20 compliant and theyd only be if LTN1/20 actually said do the opposite to everything weve documented here.
Dz1 wrote:
A common problem. I once described a recently constructed shared use path as being laid by a drunken chimpanzee with a shovel.
Most cycle infrastructure
Most cycle infrastructure should be intended to encourage those who don’t cycle already to leave their cars at home and ride a bike instead. It’s the attitude ‘there you go cyclist, we’ve built something for you, now stay off our roads that we road tax payers have paid for’ that pisses me off.
Abusing and bullying is not
Abusing and bullying is not the way. If we’re going to persuade councils to give us better infrastructure we need to argue and expolain the case for it rationally. Don’t lower yourselves to the anti-cyclists’ level.
60somethingcyclist wrote:
I entirely agree with your opening sentence. However, you do have to take into account that this report is based on what a very small selection (I think someone said elsewhere forty eight?) of “policymakers and council officials” have claimed happens. It is a common human trait to claim that people disagreeing with one are being abusive when in fact all they are doing is disagreeing; there has been a prime example of a person like that on this website this very day. I think most people will have experienced at some point being accused of being rude or raising their voice with an official when in fact nothing of the sort has happened (police officers in particular are very keen on telling people they are using “an aggressive tone”). Without any specific examples of the kind of abuse being claimed in this research (unless they have been left out of the report above) I would say that the jury is out as to to the amount of genuine “abuse and bullying” going on and how much of that is the perception of the respondents to the survey that justified criticism or complaints amount to abuse.
Public bodies are often
Public bodies are often collaborative, compromising and pragmatic. This is also the way that lobbyists work by applying light pressure – eg cycling UK, cycling forums etc. From the outside this seems a pitifully slow process for a change that many of us see as necessary and inevitable. These outsiders have little use for developing relationships and working with authorities. They also tend to have limited opportunities to be heard. They may take a forthright and direct approach, which over time becomes frustrated. As they are probably preaching to the choir and people that are simply doing their best with limited resources this may seem patronising and aggressive, particularly when put on social media. I’m not sure that this constitutes abuse.
IanMK wrote:
Excellently put.
That slow work (which can be interrupted / reset by electoral change) often will have nothing to show – and indeed involves compromises and “losing battles”. It doesn’t sync well with the short attention cycle of some campaigning / protest. Nor with the world online (I think albeit maybe unconsciously people are often writing “for the writing” at least in part. You “need to have impact”, right?)
What is “pragmatism” here and what is being fobbed off / achieving “victories” which effectively do nothing? (David Hembrow as usual has some concrete suggestions – which probably set a higher bar than what we see in the UK normally. Along with a suggestion of where we should keep campaigning focus in the real world).
What’s the balance of working with authorities vs. working for a particular goal? When should you draw a line e.g. say “on this one we’re out”? I’ll just note that organisations like Sustrans have faced criticism for exactly this…
It can seem that it isn’t merely glacial progress – that it’s a random walk, quite capable of ending up back at the start or indeed moving in the opposite direction. (Even to generally optimistic and positive people).
News article on DM website
News article on DM website today: £ 50 million for a road bridge that goes nowhere – makes family cycle paths look very cheap to build.
Or what about HS2? A Boris
Or what about HS2? A Boris Johnson vanity project. Billions down the drain. It’s justification is based on the false assumption that most businesses in the north and Midlands require good links to London (when in reality, better cross country transport was required). At a time when the nation could I’ll afford it. It makes me weep.
HS2 has been supported by
HS2 has been supported by every PM since Gordon Brown, hasn’t it?
As they should,it should be a
As they should,it should be a no brainer in terms of infrastructure you boost passenger capacity on a key transport link that enables more people to ditch the car and even stop flying needless domestic flights
It also frees up space to allow more freight to be carried via rail from the Midlands, self claimed capital of logistics, to our coastal ports instead of using the A14.
I’ve never understood why successive governments hadn’t had the confidence to state the case properly for it,
stonojnr wrote:
Please sir! I know!
Because the case was very weak.
stonojnr wrote:
I wouldn’t go as far as that – it’s certainly much, much more than another Johnson vanity project (fortunately those never seem to be implemented!) but there are good arguments for other uses of that scale of resources – not least as the costs have escalated as the benefits withered. Probably a good example of a complex discussion unsuited to social media…
Again, the assumption that
Again, the assumption that everything needs to go to or via London. Cross country travel infrastructure, particularly in the north should be a priority. I worked all of my career as a project engineering manager in the north of England, Scotland and the east midlands. I went to London about twice for meetings, but travelled to plenty of other locations in the north and Midlands.
And Boris Johnson (operated and controlled by Dominic Cummings)was the PM reckless enough to implement the scheme, without ensuring proper technical and financial management controls were in place ; although to be fair to him, he was trying to find time to work on his Shakespeare book.
There’s a certain type of man
There’s a certain type of man who’s generally contrarian and needs to be right about everything. This extends to being critical of the good, because you can only be right by disagreeing with something, and you must always be right. Unfortunately, they inhabit the same area of the diagram at high-vis vests and bikes ( of the flat-bar, 4-season tyre variety). You will also find they have a large and vocal presence of social media, where they enjoy being right about everything and failing to recognise friendly fire of any form.
Why are ‘cyclists’ viewed as
Why are ‘cyclists’ viewed as some sort of hive mind. A few loud outliers should not be able to affect policy.
I am a cycle lane lover, no
I am a cycle lane lover, no matter how crappy they can get. Without them, I probably would not have started again cycling as an adult and now I wouldn’t probably commute. I feel safe and I am more distant from car exhausts.
Yes, some of them will be a combination of stupid design, laziness and made in haste, but still better than gambling on the road.
So councils of the world unite and build cycle lanes, do not hide behind silly excuses. Cyclists fill them up, and soon you will see them upgraded.
Thanks for the positive story
Thanks for the positive story!
I would rather councils built cycle paths (though they still have some cycle lanes even in the best nation for cycling). And even more importantly the sooner they get working on safe junction designs the better (see also here, here, counterpoint here – allowing some movements to avoid crossing the road entirely). (But ultimately thinking in terms of different networks … so we can reduce the need for interaction at junctions still further).
I have increasing doubts about the general utility of cycle lanes (not paths) in enticing most non-cyclists to feel confident cycling, and they’re also not well liked by (the few) existing cyclists, for various good reasons.
Sorry my word selection was
Sorry my word selection was erroneous, I meant segregated cycle paths. The more distant from motor traffic the better.
Cycle lanes can indeed be a joke sometimes, as paint has faded off and filled with parked cars.
So yes, we need segregated cycle paths not cycle lanes.
cyclisto wrote:
As you mention erroneous word selection, I’ll mention that using “separated” for cycle paths is preferred over “segregated” as the term “segregated” carries some unfortunate baggage with it.
I like mattw’s use of
I like mattw’s use of “separate mobility paths / tracks”. Because that is maybe less triggering and ultimately what this is all about (even in the place where everyone cycles).
I work for a council –
I work for a council – Highways Authority, and am close to active travel infrastructure provision in terms of my day job. When a Cllr/Member/Portfolio Holder receives a supportive email it is of sufficient impact (against a backdrop of incessant negativity) it is likely they will come to show me and other Managers! It is so important to let them know what is good, that it is/will be used and that you attach them to that success. Othewrwise you just join the queue of disenting voices that harden Cllrs towards anything positive. Even criticism can be presented in a way that provides some positivety.
I couldn’t agree more, but
I couldn’t agree more, but what do you suggest when everything that council has done “for” cyclists, is total and utter crap? I don’t live there any more, but that was the case in South Gloucestershire.
Yes it can and I am a great
Yes it can and I am a great believer in what I know as the “sh*t sandwich”, when delivering criticism I do so constructively and I always bookend it with good points. Being constantly negative just gets you lost in the noise. That said, when I think about some of the local cycle infrastructure, it unfortunately takes significant effort to come up with two good points to act as bookends to a potentially long list of constructive criticisms. Can I ask, do highways engineers and such like involved in designing some of these schemes go and cycle through them a few times after they have bedded in or are they just left as a theoretical exercise as I am convinced they would never incorporate some features ever again if the actually had to use them for real?
LeadenSkies wrote:
You might want to reconsider that belief, as apparently the evidence is that it doesn’t work (except as a way to make yourself feel better about the situation)
Thanks. Interesting reading.
Thanks. Interesting reading. My initial experience of receiving feedback at work was almost wholly negative, few positives and destructive rather than constructive. To me the shit sandwich was an improvement. I thought I was doing it right but if I think about it critically, and think about how I probably come across now rather than through the lens of my early experience, it makes a lot of sense. I can quickly think of examples where people haven’t responded well to feedback given and their responses fit with that described by the article. One member of my current team responds particularly badly to my feedback, I thought it was him and a poor attitude but maybe it is my feedback style that is to blame. Looks like I need to rethink. I work in emergency response, where chains of command are regimented and poor performance can have life or death consequences. It would seem a bit more difficult to fit that style of feedback to post incident debriefs in the minutes after a stressful incident is resolved. I guess I need to think about how to make it work as it’s here that I have the problematic staff member and I would love to resolve the problem to benefit the overall team performance which is suffering. Thanks for sharing and commenting, it’s made me realise I need to change and become a better manager / leader to get the best from my team.
Samtheeagle wrote:
Resisting the urge to call that out as being a bit fragile, there’s not much to congratulate my local council for except collecting the bins. Maybe I should send them an email of congratulation lest the portfolio holder for waste collection tars all household waste producers as being rude and hard to please?
I do think many cyclists get
I do think many cyclists get frustrated when it feels like bicycle infrastructure isn’t being designed by people who actually ride bikes. Too often, it seems geared more toward appeasing drivers than meeting the needs of cyclists. Chris Boardman made a great video “who is this bike path actually for” a few years ago that touches on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyd_KGUh10g
I mentioned in another post that cyclists sometimes insist on being “right” at all costs, and I’ll admit I’m not always innocent of that mindset myself. Our local council recently made a big deal about a planned new cycle route connecting the city centre to the university. Unfortunately, it completely ignored the most direct and obvious route—one that already had both a road and a path. Instead, they planned a “safe and convenient” segregated cycleway that adds 2.5km to the existing on-road route. It’s hard not to feel like convenience for actual cyclists was an afterthought.
All very true, and after
All very true, and after years of being ignored, is it any wonder that cyclists get upset and annoyed. Rather than blaming the cyclists for being like that, maybe the local authorities should take some responsibility for creating that mindset. If they actually listened to what we said, instead of just pretending to, we wouldn’t be so angry and annoyed.
eburtthebike wrote:
It’s almost as if they don’t like people calling out their incompetence
I’m in various local groups
I’m in various local groups on social media. In one group, someone was complaining bitterly about a new cycle lane along a busy road. It has dotted lines, so it isn’t even a requirement that car drivers keep out of it. I pointed out to the complainant that this is the case. I also said it’s a typical example of a cycle lane cyclists won’t use as it’s so poorly designed. It’s placed right in the door zone for any parked cars. I said it was a perfect example of a tickbox approach to delivering active travel requirements, a cycle lane not designed by a cyclist and that’s so poorly conceived, all it achieves is inconveniencing everyone.
The person moaning was in agreement.
councils feel “nothing we
councils feel “nothing we ever do will make cyclists happy”
My eyes can’t roll far enough.
Cyclists’ general contempt for cycling infrastructure is a reflection on the poor quality of said infrastructure. To suggest that cyclists as a group suffer from mass OCPD is a weak excuse for doing a shit job.
Not specifically councils,
Not specifically councils, but:
People: cyclists are thugs – giving back-chat to motorists. And crazy risk-takers – voluntarily putting themselves into situations like riding with fast motor traffic!
Also people: cyclists are such snowflakes! Can’t stop whining about minor things like us putting a lamp post in the middle of a narrow cycle path! I’d have no issue with sending my children running along a rubbish-filled gutter protected by a line of paint from trucks…
People: these entitled cyclists seem to expect things to be more convenient for them than for everyone else!
Also people: OMG they want to charge me a couple of quid to park in town / they stole my parking space!
110 comments covering a wide
110 comments covering a wide ground, but (admittedly I’ve only skimmed a significant proportion) none pointing out that there is a question being begged here.
Are the cyclists being rude? Or is it just that there is a defnite bias against cyclists, who are generally seen as smug, self-righteous, law-breaking, selfish idiots who expect the VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE who are GOING ABOUT THEIR RIGHTUL BUSINESS to MAKE ROOM for their LEISURE ACTIVITIES even when THERE IS NO SPACE and THEY DON’T EVEN PAY ROAD TAX? If that’s the presumption you bring to an interaction, then any criticism will be taken to be rude because of the underlying assumption that the cyclist has no legitimate business criticising.
I’m reminded of the old saw that women talk more than men, and men can’t get a word in edgeways, but all studies point to the opposite being true and men dominating every conversation in which they participate. Unless I am given evidence that shows cyclists offering criticism are genuinely ruder than everyone else, many of whom assert councils are doing a terrible job (see pretty much any social media thread about any local authority decision — especially bins — where the fatness of brown envelopes is frequently mentioned), then I’m going take this with an entire salt mine worth of sodium chloride.
ravenbait wrote:
The study itself actually finds the opposite:
And yet the conclusion stated
And yet the conclusion stated is that cycling campaigners are to blame.
Sigh.
I caught a thread the other day in which two vehicles smashed into each other and there were still people blaming a non-existent cyclist. A thread elsewhere on the video that was falsley claimed to be Cycling Mikey being struck included a comment opining that the cyclist should have been smeared to a paste. It seems cyclists are one of the few remaining socially acceptable targets for hate and fantasy violence.
In that context, a little blunt language is hardly the worst behaviour on display. Nor do I accept that we have to be better than everyone else in order to earn being treated as human beings, before anyone is tempted to start down that route.
ravenbait wrote:
I’d say every group of people includes those who are rude, and cyclists are not immune. I’d say there are far more people being rude to and about cyclists in public consultations than cyclists being rude.
HOWEVER, just because cyclists are no more rude than the general population (or motoring advocates) doesn’t mean that those who are rude in the name of cycling aren’t more of a hindrance than help.
I’ve noticed it for a variety of causes that people are passionate about, including ones that I firmly support – activists who enjoy being an activist and getting into spats with those with different opinions more than the cause. They’ll pat themselves (or each other) on the back for the slam-dunk, mic-drop argument they made, and forget that if they want meaningful change, then they have to persuade people to change the minds, not impress their friends. Worse, when people spend too much time in that environment, the quality of the debate drops. This isn’t about being polite or rude, it’s about being too lazy to come up with arguments that stand up to scrutiny from those who don’t currently agree with you.
FionaJJ wrote:
A very good point. (And probably not what many – myself included – are mostly on here for. Although it’s extremely unlikely the uninterested are going to drop by and engage…)
Is it that – while “the battle” or “supporting a cause” is attractive to some people, actually for some kinds of change that might be … largely irrelevant? Most people aren’t debating opponents to be argued with. Because they won’t even have heard of my very important cause or will barely think about it. Because they have dozens of their own far more salient concerns and interests (for or against) in their lives.
Sure – as Chris Boardman pointed out once you get to the point of action and “to make x better ‘your’ parking space will need to go” then you’ll need to argue and convince…
Reminded me of this article suggesting it is more “recruitment exercise” than persuading authorities to “fix something”.
I agree that particularly
I agree that particularly online discourse has dropped in quality. I can hardly bear to read most social media discussions these days. It’s impossible to pick apart the trolls and bots from the terminally outraged. However, I still take issue with the way this is being spun to read as though cyclists are uniquely aggressive and mean, and strongly suspect that what would be seen as assertive and passionate coming from someone else is interpreted as rude and counter-productive coming from cyclists (c.f. how women’s communication styles are interpreted by male colleagues). You can see it in the way people react to cyclists perfectly reasonably riding in primary: “Bloody cyclists think they own the road.” But driving around at 10mph in rush hour taking up enough space to fit five or six people merely to transport one is perfectly fine, and the reaction of those who believe so to things like LTNs (if they’re so worried about the impact of traffic, how about they support campaigns for active travel? No?) demonstrates the inequity in all of this.