Will the parliamentary inquiry on cycling lead to action or does history tell us infrastructure is just for those with motors?
Apparently - but only if you ignore the dire summer of 2012 - we're in the middle of a bike boom. No doubt the report for the 'Get Britain Cycling' parliamentary inquiry will mention this boom and the cyclists of this sceptre'd isle will be lavished with bicycle infrastructure to keep the boom going.
Sadly, politics doesn't work like that. Or, at least not for cyclists. Between the years of 1928 and 1938 the number of cyclists in the UK doubled from 5,343,000 to 10,123,000. Now, *that* was a boom. What did the UK Government do for cyclists during that boom? Diddly squat, unless you count 95 miles of crap cycle lanes beside the newly-minted trunk roads of the day. In the 1950s there was another boom: a petrol-powered one. Billions got spent on motorists. Motorists - despite still being a minority on the roads - were well used to being feather-bedded. In the 1930s the motor industry had been especially cosseted because it was expected that car production would be shifted to military vehicle production; bicycle factories, such as the Raleigh plant, were also converted for armaments production but Sturmey Archer gears couldn’t power tanks.
H.R. Watling, director of the British Cycle and Motor-cycle Manufacturers and Traders Union told a parliamentary committee in 1938 that the UK made two million bicycles each year and that there were 15 million bicycles in use. (This trade organisation later split in two, although shared the same building in Coventry; the bicycle half of the organisation is now the Bicycle Association).
The peers on the parliamentary committee asked Watling for his views on 'cycle tracks', i.e. bike paths.
“I have no objections to the principle of cycle tracks. We have every objection to the cycle track as at present produced…the provision of a cycle track is, at best, a palliative…The cycle track to-day is of very little value because it is poorly constructed; there is only a small mileage of it, and furthermore, although it is provided for the cyclist yet the track is actually used by various other people, such as perambulators, pedestrians and the like. In other words the cycle track to-day is not sufficiently inviting or sufficiently well constructed to induce the cyclist to use it.”
Article continues belowAdvertisement
He could have been speaking at the current inquiry; not a lot has changed.
So, today, what *will* Get Britain Cycling?
Presumed liability won’t Get Britain Cycling. Cycle training won’t Get Britain Cycling. Separated cycle tracks won’t Get Britain Cycling. Subjective safety won’t Get Britain Cycling. Health messages won’t Get Britain Cycling. Better cycle security won’t Get Britain Cycling. Selling more bikes won't Get Britain Cycling. ‘Go Dutch’ campaigns won’t Get Britain Cycling. 20mph zones won’t Get Britain Cycling. Taming cars won’t Get Britain Cycling. High-level political support for cycling won’t Get Britain Cycling. Millions more cash for cycling won’t Get Britain Cycling.
That is, not on their own. It’s a mix of all of the above, and more. Much more. There’s no simple solution. It’s not just about infrastructure. If it were, Stevenage would be a hot-bed of cycling in the UK. It’s not just about looking at what’s been done in New York, Groningen, Seville, Copenhagen and Chicago. We need to learn from those cities, for sure, but there’s no one-size-fits-all template that works for all cities. And cycling isn’t just about cities. We also need to tame the car in the countryside, too. None of this will be easy, we’re up against more than 100 years of planning for the car. And, let’s face it, the majority of people - including lots of industry executives who read this bike trade website - are glad there’s been this 100 years of planning for the car. People may not be happy to be stuck in their cars but even when given a gold-plated alternative, they may not use it. Inertia is like that.
I gave evidence to 'Get Britain Cycling'. The evidence I gave has been said, by others, many times before. The evidence others gave has been said many times before. Really, there’s nothing new under the sun. Thing is, words are easy to say, it’s action that counts. Finally, will we get this action?
Add a new comment
You need to be logged in to post comments. If you do not have an account then please register.
Comments
4 comments
Money. MONEY. MoNEy. mONeY. Whichever way you write it, it comes down to money. The will of the government is dictated to by the stuff. If they spend the stuff on all the points mentioned above.... then that is a lot of money. BUT.... What will THEY get back (if cycle use explodes)? LESS MONEY IN FUEL TAX! So what is the point (to them) to spend loads of money (which they haven't got) to REDUCE the amount they would receive from us?
Kevin Vardy Feb 8th 2013 at 12:30PM
0 3Good point kevin.. Sadly I can see the logic of this argument, and unfortunately a lot of governments including our own (and their cronies in big business who pull the strings) do not see cycling as an economic activity worth cultivating. As we no longer have a large cycle manufacturing sector in the UK this does not help our cause either. It is clear to anyone with a brain however that quality of life, clean air, good health, climate change, people friendly cities and so on are far more important issues than making the rich even richer..I am a keen cyclist of course, and do often cycle to work in the better weather, but quite frankly in the winter the idea of riding 8 miles in the pitch dark on narrow country roads in the freezing cold and rain, with enormous potholes disguised as puddles, whilst being menaced by a bunch of half-witted cretins barely in control of their overpowered tin cans doesn't really do it for me. My solution? Move to a civilised and warmer country! Lets face it, Britain is crap at trying to be sensible like the Dutch or Danes, who just get on with it because it makes sense. Cycling is seen by the tin can brigade (virtually the whole population) as a pastime for the (at best) eccentric, and the transport of last resort for the impoverished, who are also treated with contempt in this god-forsaken country. Much as I applaud the fantastic work done by all the cycling advocacy groups, Sustrans (of which I am a member) and many others in the UK, I am frankly not optimistic about the future of cycling in this country. Our numbers may grow, but until we are taken seriously as voters we will continue to be despised and ignored, and judging by the appalling standards of driving I witness daily, many more of us will end up maimed or dead before our time. Fight the power. Si.
Simon Payne Feb 11th 2013 at 8:07PM
0 1Sad to say Si, that I can't disagree with anything you say. In fact your are right. You are spot on with the view that cyclists are seen, by the majority, as a "menace" In fact that is exactly what a woman said to me and my wife after she had tried to overtake us both on a very narrow lane with a car oncoming. I couldn't believe the stupid .... after being made to stop by the oncoming car who glared at her for being an idiot, she carried on and I could see her shaking her head. She stopped in a car park and my wife cycled up to her as she got out of her car WITH A BABY! for goodness sake. My wife politely asked why she could not just slow down and wait until the oncoming car had passed and she blurted "I'm not talking to the likes of you... your all menaces!" My wife did stay calm and tried to ask again but she waved her away, " I don't need to justify myself to you .. your just a menace." I can laugh a bit about it now but it so exasperating.
Kevin Vardy Feb 11th 2013 at 10:33PM
0 0All too familiar a scenario I'm afraid Kevin. Like many cyclists I have car too, but I fail to see why everyone seems to be in such a hurry..What is so important that people see the need to rush around all the time? And if anybody tells me fuel is too expensive, well I really do lose my sense of humour! Where were the old bill when some idiot passed me (I kid you not) at well over 100MPH on a wet road on sunday? If folk can afford to waste fuel by speeding it is clearly too cheap. It is certainly a lot cheaper than beer. But I am ranting (as usual!) If I had to name one thing that really does get folk out of their tin monstrosities to sample the delights of cycling, it has to be traffic-free paths. I never thought I would say this, but I am now convinced that the only way to get people riding in any significant numbers it is to separate them (if only by a few feet in some cases) from motor traffic. The tremendous success of many Sustrans routes on old railway lines and the like bears this out, and having seen many superb cycleways alongside roads in Germany and Holland, I think this is the only way forward to convert the nervous wannabees into cyclists. Lets face it, a cycleway is no more expensive to build than a pedestrian pavement, and many roads already have these anyway. All that is really required is for planners to start seeing cycling as a solution not a problem, and provide good quality facilities that folk will actually want to use, not crap cycle lanes that nobody wants or uses. Ride safe. Si.
Simon Payne Feb 12th 2013 at 9:11PM
0 0