Council blames Tory Government's slashed active travel budget after only one in three cycling and walking projects receives funding

Back when I commuted this way I generally used Sidmouth Street (pre-cycle lane) rather than Watlington Street for the simple reason that the only sensible route onto Watlington Street involved cyccling across a petrol station forecourt. Sidmouth Street may have spat you out on the inner ring road, but that was all right as I was going to have to ride the inner ring road sooner or later, as I was headed for the station and there is no practicable route to the station across the town centre. Though oddly enough, due to the vagaries of Reading's one-way system, there is a perfectly good route from the station.

This serves to illustrate the major problem with Reading's cycle infrastructure: there are some good bits but no-one has thought how cyclists can get on and off them. And until that happens, they aren't going to serve their purpose.

The whole premise of councils being forced to bid for funding is a farce.  The government should be providing councils with enough money to be doing a proper job of Active Travel, not making them bid for dribs and drabs of funding that they almost certainly won't get. 

Of course, funding for road schemes wasn't cut by nearly as much as Active Travel, so they're saying

"carry on embedding the car culture councils, it's what we really want."

"Carry on Governing" the latest in the long series of British Carry On farces.

There was yet another prediction of climate doom this week "the last chance" to be immediately ignored by the government, who announced more drilling for oil and that they are the party of drivers.  Dystopia doesn't really cover this bunch of *****.

I was under the impression that ATF4 was not affected by the cut to the active travel budget - it will affect the coming years instead.

This road to nowhere is not much use, I shall be using the parallel and quiet next road along to the East (Watlington Street) in about half an hour as it actually joins up with other cycle lanes/crossings.

The next road to the West has a bus lane each direction and the one after that, Southampton Street, has a cycle lane most of the way down (One Way).

Last Thursday night I happened across a student who had tried to get into the cycle lane outside Reading University and not seeing the size of the kerb up from the road to the cycle lane had come a cropper, hit her head, cut her knee and ripped her trousers. I was in a taxi but alighted at my friend's flat and felt I had to go back to ensure she was OK.

Yes, the exact cycle lane Councillor Page announced recently by video where a massive van bumped up the kerb and into the cycle lane behind him!

So, it's safe for vans to enter the cycle lane but dangerous for cyclists. Perfection.

Reading cycle "network" is a dangerous shambles.

I don't know the details of Reading but I suspect they're both right.  However the Green Councillor Rob White very likely has put his finger on it - what actually helps with people cycling is a network of infra *.  That, however, needs not just cash - it needs vision and a lot of political courage because however it's done it will involve:
a) some very visible cycling infra.  So no "quiet streets / byways on the quiet / on footpaths, so we don't trigger so many noisy anti-cyclist types"
b) tackling junctions - which will have some impact on motorists / pedestrians, even if only while rebuilding.
c) not all routes can go "round the houses" - cycling routes must also go where people in cars want to go (because that's where people want to go).  Again likely means some degree of "conflict" with drivers, even if it's just them losing a bit of road width.

I bet it looks much easier to upgrade cycle infra where it already exists, because currently extending it is a battle every time.  Of course every penny spent on cycling will rouse some noisy detractors.  Politicians also see it as handing a weapon to their opponents.  It should of course be the other way round, an open goal for whoever supports it.  That's because cycle infra benefits everyone - the users of it, the local economy more generally, the taxpayer and even drivers...

* The other part is reducing the attractiveness and convenience of driving but we dare not whisper that yet.  Indeed this might be off the agenda for at least another 6 years since the main Westminster parties have decided this is a useful "bread and circuses" issue to assuage the public without having to change the status quo.  Whoever wins may credit this to their pro-car agenda, like the Uxbridge election...