After days of confusing interviews and cringe-inducing conference talks, the government finally officially published its ‘Plan for Drivers’ yesterday evening – and it’s everything you imagined (or dreaded) it would be.
“There’s nothing wrong with driving,” the document begins. “Most of us use a car and, for many, life would not be liveable without their car. For those in rural areas, it is a lifeline. A car can hugely expand the independence of a younger person, as well as keep older people connected to key services and their families.”
But what about walking, cycling, and public transport?
“Walking, cycling, and public transport are necessary in a multi-modal transport system and we support their continued growth, but they are not the right choice for everyone’s journey.
“Being pro-public transport does not mean being anti-car. The easy political choice is to vilify the private car even when it’s been one of the most powerful forces for personal freedom and economic growth in the last century. Used appropriately and considerately, the car was, is, and will remain a force for good.
“It is not right that some drivers feel under attack.”
Ah yes, because it’s motorists who are most in danger out on the roads, that’s right.
The document goes on to say that the government will “explore options to stop local councils using so-called ‘15-minute cities’, such as in Oxford, to police people’s lives” (I’m sure the conspiracy theorists will be delighted), and that it “will restrain the most aggressively anti-driver traffic management measures”.
“We will make it clear that 20mph speed limits in England must be used appropriately where people want them – not as unwarranted blanket measures,” it says, before noting that the government “will take steps to stop councils profiting from moving traffic enforcement”.
> Cycling charity accuses Conservatives of "ill-fated attempt to win" votes with pro-motoring policies "undermining" active travel success
Needless to say, after Cycling UK and National Active Travel Commissioner Chris Boardman criticised Rishi Sunak’s new “proudly pro-car” over the past few days, the plan hasn’t gone down too well with those people tasked with encouraging cycling and walking throughout the UK.
In a joint letter to the prime minister, Ed Clancy, Dame Sarah Storey, Adam Tranter, and Simon O’Brien – the active travel commissioners for South Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, West Midlands, and the Liverpool City Region, respectively – argued that the “most effective plan for drivers will be to get right behind the government’s Gear Change plan”.
“There are some very real challenges in local transport and a key one is ensuring the existing road network does not suffer huge congestion, bringing disbenefits to communities and to the economy,” the commissioners say.
The letter continues:
Every extra person enabled to walk, cycle, or take public transport for their journeys frees up limited road space for those who really need to drive. The length of the UK road network has increased by just over two percent over the last 17 years… In towns and cities, we cannot knock down buildings or cut down trees to make more space for growing car ownership. Put simply, we need to be more efficient with the roads we already have.
[The Prime Minister is] right when he says that many people rely on their cars but this shouldn’t be confused with their aspirations; time and time again, representative polling reminds us that people do indeed want freedom of choice when it comes to transport.
The freedom of choice for mobility in our areas is best provided through high-quality active travel and reliable public transport networks.
The letter also stressed the importance for Sunak not to “vilify” the concept of 20mph zones – which “help support safe walking and cycling to school” – while also calling on the government to provide an update on its consultation to ban pavement parking.
The active travel commissioners also questioned Sunak’s reference to “local consent” in his Plan for Drivers, arguing that “while consultation can bring out strong voices on either side, it should be noted that active travel schemes are broadly popular when polled”.
“We stand ready to help deliver local transport networks that provide people with genuine choices about how they travel,” the letter concluded.
“This will make life easier for those who drive,” Tranter said of the commissioners’ recommendations on Twitter, “and create nice places where people want to live, work, and visit.”
Meanwhile, three-time Olympic champion Clancy said: “Time and time again, people tell me that they want the freedom of choice when it comes to how they travel. Choices that are made possible through the provision of quality active travel infrastructure and public transport networks.
“As Active Travel Commissioner, it’s my role to help improve South Yorkshire’s active travel network. But, to provide genuine choice, that must be based on decisions by local people.”
“Each year in Greater Manchester, 250 million journeys of 1km or less are done by car,” added Paralympic legend Storey. “If even half of these were possible to walk or cycle, that improves the roads for everyone including drivers.”
> Chris Boardman urges Rishi Sunak to stick with "fantastic" pro-cycling plans, admits concerns with language of "war on motorists" policies
However, not everyone was convinced with the commissioners’ apparent desire to frame active travel improvements through the lens of making motorists’ lives easier.
“I understand the sentiment, but we shouldn’t be re-issuing our targets by making them a positive for drivers,” wrote one Twitter user.
“It should very much be a by-product of better active travel. I feel like we’re bowing to an out of touch PM with this kind of phrasing. We need to call it how it is.”
Meanwhile, Lucy Jones summed up the general reaction from people who ride bikes to the language deployed by Sunak during his latest vote-grabbing scheme: “We’ve had a number of female cyclists killed on the roads of London in the last few months… there is no war on motorists. Quite the opposite.”
Quite.
Add new comment
38 comments
I really don't get where this nonsense conspiracy theory comes from - is it to ensure that communities are more discrete and broken up, seperated out to enable better social control, or some such bollocks?
I can only think back to my youth, when everything was available within a short walk or cycle and nobody got upset over it.
I think too many years of edge-of-town hypermarkets have addled peoples' brains.
How are you going to stop inconsiderate driving without enforcement?
'The length of the UK road network has increased by just over two percent over the last 17 years… In towns and cities, we cannot knock down buildings or cut down trees to make more space for growing car ownership. Put simply, we need to be more efficient with the roads we already have.'
this is an important point. Also the politicians and anti active travel voters need to understand 'induced demand'. The more roads you build the more they attract traffic. You cannot solve the problem of traffic by building more roads.
The induced demand argument never covers the fact that even if journey times don't change more journeys get made, more people got to go somewhere and do something that they wouldn't be doing otherwise.
With caveats around the difference between induced demand in cities and on trunk roads in terms of negative externalities.
Just caught the end of "If the streets were on fire" on BBC 4.
Well made.
Good luck to them.
“Each year in Greater Manchester, 250 million journeys of 1km or less are done by car,” added Paralympic legend Storey. “If even half of these were possible to walk or cycle, that improves the roads for everyone including drivers.”
I'm sure that the infrastructure of Manchester could be improved, but I strongly suspect that at least half of the 250 million journeys of under 1km can currently be walked or cycled. People are lazy.
True - but are the Dutch of Rotterdam or Den Haag (both similar population) less lazy than Mancunians? They seem to cycle a lot of short trips?
(Those places are also not regarded as great cycling places in NL, yet still make everywhere in the UK look hopeless).
TBH a lot of why I cycle is I'm lazy too. One of the great selling points of a bike is it's way less effort than walking, particularly if you have things to carry.
From this morning's online edition of AD...
There are several factors in this sort of foolish car use. One is a sort of physical laziness but, as getting in a car to go a short distance then returning actually takes some effort, there are obviously other "reasons" folk do it.
In observing carists about the place I note these:
" Many are so physically decrepid (perhaps through too much car use, amongt other self-neglects, self abuses and self indulgences) that they find walking more than 50 yards hard work. Ironically, they also find it hard work getting in and out of their car.
" Many are car-addicted. They will employ the very slightest of gossamer excuses to get in it and vroom about a bit. They love the personal power amlification and also imagine others observing them with admiration at their heavy right foot and ability to make noisy turns, starts and stops.
* Some are not so much addicted as habituated to the car. Why use your body when the fashion is to use your 4-wheeled prosthetic. Do what others do.
* There's a class of promenaders. "Look at my lovely car with me in it, that you don't have 'cos you don't have my immaculate taste and dosh."
" Don't forget the paranoid. "My car is a metal shell which keeps off the many crims and rude folk from my sensitive and vulnerable person, as well as preserving my little darlings from the savage behaviours of scruffy urchins on the pavements."
* What about the time-savers? "I must go and return at the fastest possible pace as I'm in a hurry to watch the next episode of shouty-people behaving badly; or I must wash my hair as soon as possible."
* There is the need-a-load-carrier. "These pizzas and bottles of chemo-grog are too heavy to walk about with."
Railing against people gets you precisely nowhere, cycling should be the easy choice. If it can't be the easy choice then another mode is needed.
Cultural norms can be changed when there's a good public health reason behind it. People used to drink from untreated water supplies (it was the easy choice) as they didn't know any better, and then there were lots of cholera deaths. Drinking and driving used to be culturally acceptable and of course there were plenty of deaths resulting from that.
However, that does require political will to get people to change their habits though it seems that we have self-serving politicians that seek to increase car usage at the expense of public health.
There's also the conundrum where designing around motor vehicles makes other modes of transport undesirable, so it's a self fulfilling prophecy - people don't want to cycle because we've made it so difficult to cycle.
Exactly this. Motor transport drives several feedback loops because it delivers a large increase in distance travelled per time over cycling / walking (regardless of fitness) and allows you to carry more also (especially other people - so children, older people etc.). However it is extremely space-inefficient and it's a private transport mode.
So centralisation of amenities sets in. Large spaces are required and then devoted to driving / storage of motor vehicles. Because people want their own cars, roads are demanded that go everywhere, with parking. (And of course we use vehicles when we build anything, so creating the roads has another driver...). Other longer-distance modes such as buses, trams, and trains decline - as more people have a car there is less demand for them. (There was also a deliberate choice in the UK to pin our flag to road transport rather than e.g. train - this has happened at least once).
So now you've got local spaces which are not terribly pleasant (wide roads - also lowering urban density) that people prefer to drive through. More - it's literally impossible to obtain most of what you need without a car because it's now too far to walk or cycle and there are no trains / buses either.
As a fellow cyclist it's unsurprising the u turn with drivers. Let's face it Rishi don't give a flying toss as flying is his preferred method of transport this from a man who has always thought himself better than his peers. Evident in his run for party leadership stating only parents who send their children to private schools like his truly love their kids..... Has anyone seen this replacement Boris with a kid that wasn't a photo op....bearing in mind the conference they just had coincidentally timed with the installation of anti terror bollards (conveniently posted around the area said conference was held) and touted as night goer protection 🤔. Tho I think it's time we as community let the police & government know they have zero confidence nor support in them especially when leading parties refuse to release funds to do the common sense things to keep all road users safe! Rant over sorry!
Curious about your user name.. what do you peddle?
I deduce that the Soudal Quickstep comment is the work of Phil Lowe who is their media manager. I was binge watching the 'Wolfpack' documentary series over the weekend and his phone case has a Man City badge on it which matches his accent. I can recommend the series as well on Amazon Prime.
So does the Plan for Drivers amend or replace Gear Change?
And is it the government announcing it for this parliament or is it the party announcing it for the next?
It's a DfT policy paper, so government policy. There's a lot of party politics in it though.
Interesting to see a whole new mandate plucked from a by-election
I have a bad feeling about this one, especially after reading the defence's questions.
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/live-bmw-driver-stands-trial-27825012
I have a bad feeling about this one, especially after reading the defence's questions
So do I! What the jury is hearing is "he couldn't avoid the collision" not "he was travelling at 50% above the speed limit and couldn't avoid the collision". I suspect a suspended sentence and a mild ticking off is in the offing
He used his phone to access two apps ten seconds before the collision, yet 'wasn't distracted'. Presumably if he had been looking up while waiting at the traffic lights instead of at his phone, he would have seen the cyclist using the first half of the crossing on the other side of the road. I notice the reconstruction doesn't emphasize this but instead focuses on how the cyclist would have been 'difficult to see' just before impact.
Regarding Dame Sarah Storey et al , the letter is very well put together, and makes sense for the future of transport planning, but i would suggest that the messages in their letter need to be repeated again and again and again ad nauseum to counter the reactionary arguments and complaints of those who are firmly anti- LTN / 20 mph limits etc. Currently my wife and I get to cycle our 12 yo daughter 3 km each way to and from her bus-stop for school, on mostly cycle-lane and quiet-ish streets in Dublin - it is a wonderful way to start and finish the school/working day for all concerned - i would like more and better infra for a lot more pedestrians/cyclists/public transport users
“Please be aware that permit holders are authorised to use the closed roads."
Which is reasonable, but what qualifies you to get a permit?
Who cares.. what's more important is the thuggish attitude of some cyclists that think they are entitled to confront drivers they think are breaking the law, aka, vigilantes; their road rage behaviour is unacceptable.
There has been "several" reports of abuse. (Not 10's, not 100's). It is probably just one person doing this
Re the Richmond Park issue, obviously no excuse whatsoever for the alleged behaviour if it was unprovoked and the cyclists were just being aggressive because they thought wrongly that the drivers were not allowed there. However, in the interests of balance, some of the people who are permitted to drive on otherwise closed roads in the park drive absolutely appallingly around cyclists. This is particularly the case with the parents of the pupils at the Royal Ballet School at White Lodge near the centre of the park who are permitted to drive up the closed road off Sawyers Hill. They generally use enormous SUVs and drive far too fast for the narrow road which is often crowded with cyclists and walkers. Of course two wrongs don't make a right but the behaviour I've frequently seen from drivers on the closed roads in the park does make one wonder how many of these alleged incidents of cyclist aggression were totally unprovoked...
Male cyclists bashing on cars and throwing water at cars driven by women is not a good look for the cyclists; unless the women are trying to run the cyclists off the road, there is no excuse for the cyclists bad behaviour.
Alleged bad behaviour - it's amazing how often a "too close" tap on a car becomes an unprovoked attack in the later telling.
It's also worth pointing out that (as someone of above average height, and therefore above average length arms), if I can even reach their car to give it a slap, they can't be much more than a third of the minimum safe passing distance from me. Which in itself means they're not exactly innocent themselves.
By the way, it's interesting how you (notoriously anti-all cyclists apart from yourself) have accepted the Royal Parks' (notoriously anti-all cyclists full stop) narrative of evil male cyclists picking on innocent female drivers without question. What was the context of these incidents? When, as happened to me this very morning, the bonnet of an enormous wankpanzer suddenly appears six inches off my right knee it's getting a warning slap, I'm not looking round to check on the sex of the driver first.
More interesting is why the Royal Parks should have seen fit to stress gender in this way at all. I'm sure they have received plenty of complaints from female cyclists about aggressive male drivers (in fact I know they have because at least two of my female riding friends have made such complaints) but I don't recall them ever putting out a tweet stating that they have received several reports of abuse and harassment by male drivers of female cyclists, do you? It's almost as if the Royal Parks have a narrative to push which will enable them to justify further restrictions on cyclists.
Pages