Cyclists "maim thousands a year", apparently; A whole lotta love... for cycling: Robert Plant on why he loves his bike; Bernal back riding outside; Active travel funding cut for tory councils; "Today's nonsense" from Jeremy Vine + more on the live blog

hawkinspeter wrote:

Don't bother listening to politicians - just watch what they do.

Good advice although I don't think any of those in the story have given any false indications that they're remotely positive about bikes...

chrisonatrike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Don't bother listening to politicians - just watch what they do.

Good advice although I don't think any of those in the story have given any false indications that they're remotely positive about bikes...

Precisely the opposite:

"Though the evidence points to the contrary, both councils have made noises about being supportive of active travel measures."

Almost all councils have transport, health, pollution, congestion and climate change policies that prioritise alternatives to the private car, which describe cycling in glowing terms, they just never actually get them down off the shelf and look at them.  As the CUK rep where I used to live, South Glos, I regularly used to quote these policies to the councillors, but it was less use than Canute trying to stop the tide.  They all have these pro-cycling policies, just no intention of actually carrying them out.

Hypocrite; thy name is tory.

My local tory councillor just looked dumbfaced and shook his head when I asked him if he was aware of his own councils active travel policy document.

Imagine if businesses were run like government? You recognise a potentially catasrophic problem, declare a (climate) emergency, write policy documents to head off the crisis (like gear change) and then set no short/medium term targets for implementation.

My elderly parents live in Windsor and sadly the council's car is king view seems true. Probably so they can make more money - the OAP parking discount has been significantly reduced and limited to a named car park in the borough. The council has also installed what could be the UK's shortest cycle path (if you're cycling at 20mph it would take a second to start and finish it) near the hospital. 

I live in a small market town where parking is free. My local town council turned down funding for active travel because some local shop keepers were worried about loss of parking spaces. That's despite the evidence from around the world and DfT, that says footfall and spending will increase if you make the environment more conducive to walking and cyling.

This lunacy goes much deeper than just making a few extra quid on parking, it can only be incompetance and poor leadership.

IanMK wrote:

This lunacy goes much deeper than just making a few extra quid on parking, it can only be incompetance and poor leadership.

I think it goes beyond that. I'd love someone to do a deep dive into this in the UK*.  My take - there are several factors keeping politicians big and small from doing anything much.  I believe there are arguments / ways round these but I think they loom large:

1) No-one's calling for it.  That's obviously not true but while there are lobbying groups, companies and even local governments (eg. Manchester) asking for change these are drowned out by the bigger voices and the "crisis" issues of the day.

2) It's a long term change.  Politicians think - probably rightly - it will take a lot of years to get unambiguously positive results to show.  They might not even be around to reap the rewards.  It's easy to reverse initial changes as we've seen with many Covid-era cycle lanes.

3) We're talking "transport change" - that will affect the majority of people.  Major political risk!  Also any of the changes needed can immediately be thrown back at you by political opponents as a negative.  Because this entails "fewer motor vehicle journeys" or "paying a more realistic amount to drive".  Ideally "and more rules / enforced safer driving".  So in the short term "less convenience" and "changes". 

4) By the nature of cycling it's unlikely any one organisation gets to make huge pots of cash - or certainly less when compared to e.g. (electric) cars, road transport or rail.  A few organisations making a killing seems to be required for major changes (Big Bung theory).  Yes, cycling overall generates money.  It certainly saves money too.  Maybe cycling's just too efficient?  Or too decentralised / democratic?

5) (Mass) cycling is not "exciting".  It's not new technology.  Cycling's slow!  It mostly doesn't involve anything very grand to look at.  It's not so easy to sell as an improvement compared to "now you can go at 70 mph in total comfort while checking Tiktok".  It's not all going to happen spectacularly in one place, like a garden bridge or an airport or a faster rail line. (Because we need a network of standard boring infra).  So you're trying to sell "we're going to spend quite a bit of money cleaning up everyone else's mess.  At the end of a multi-year period of disruption we hope you the public will change your lives and take on making some extra effort".

6) Cycling seems to be more than just a "marmite" issue.  More like the "drugs" issue; there are some incredibly loud voices on this subject attached to ideologies.  Some of those are very rich / powerful groups.  It's interesting to note though that if you succeed cycling stops being a party political issue cf. The Netherlands.

So although all the numbers say "this is an open goal politically" and there may be majority support it's a gamble that looks like the pioneers can only lose.

* I'm aware of a few historical and current analyses (care of Carlton Reid, Ian Walker and a few others).

Aren't you forgetting taxes? Not to be confused with taxis, although their drivers can also be part of the problem. . 

Surreyrider wrote:

Aren't you forgetting taxes? Not to be confused with taxis, although their drivers can also be part of the problem. . 

Hmm.  Last week Grant Shapps - supposed to be in change of transport, no? - was asked about what happens as electric vehicles come in and taxes on fuel / VED fall. He basically shrugged and said that it was a matter for the Treasury.   You'd think that would be an important part of his purview if not under his control?  Now I know it's politics and all (he'd just wriggled round P&O questions) but it seemed very much like "we can get to that if we get through the next election - if not let the others worry".  So why waste energy and maybe make a mess on a long-term issue?  Going with the flow (people are already buying them and more will) on electric cars is enough already!  There's the push of events too - like the cost of living going up, so the chancellor's bunging in a fuel duty reduction.  That probably doesn't help anyone very much and the environment / future the least but "something must be seen to be done".

Everyone in the road transport business know road user charging is inevitable, particularly as EV numbers grow. Grant Shapps isn't quite as stupid as some of the other cabinet members (nearly, but not quite) and he even he knows that road user charging will be as popular with the electorate as a sexually transmitted disease. He wouldn't say so as he knows the upset it'd cause.

It does irritate me how, in all the media articles about the benefits of BEVs, the main benefit is usually given to be dramatically lower running costs, centred on how little it costs to recharge compared to petrol/diesel, 5% VAT on domestic elec, the zero VED, etc. I've yet to see an article that projects a few years to when the tax-take from ICEs is transferred wholesale to BEVs, as must surely happen. What do the numbers look like then?

Edit - found one article... 10p/mile tax
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/electric-cars-road-...

Which will make the ABD et al all get even madder, thinking that cyclists are using the roads that 'they paid for'...

Yeah - I get that.  Fact of life but it's a bugbear of mine that many important issues just can't be discussed in good time or sensibly. Those ones that everyone thinks (and maybe right) that the first person to bring them up or propose tackling them will lose.

Oh it does indeed. In Windsor, they decided to do a U-turn on LTNs cos some vociferous people spouted s*#t.