Guardian article claiming that over zealous cycle campaigners have negative impact on new infrastructure project
So what are we meant to do? Sit quietly, dof our caps and be grateful for whatever shit infrastructure they decide they can be arsed to design and build?
Basically they want to go back to the 90s when any bit of paint was signed off by sustrans to be part of the NCN, leaving a legacy of awful.infrastructure.
God dammit!!! Angry now...
Having just cycled to work along some Sustrans 'infrastructure' I couldn't agree more (with the OP, not the article). Supposedly shared use means gates, daubs of paint to denote who supposedly goes where, angry dog walkers looking at me like I have no right to the path and my favourite, random concrete bollards sprouting out of the tarmac on blind bends. Obviously the path disappearance for both walkers and cyclists at any junction with an actual proper road with real traffic that might be inconvenienced by our presence is a given.... and they wonder why we are slightly 'forceful'? FFS.
The two local cycle advocacy groups near me are amazing. Lots of positive praise for anything done well; long-term plans for what is needed; regular bike rides with councillors. And incredible patience with anti-infrastructure people on Facebook. I'm in awe!
I recognise the attitude described in the guardian article in some of my friends. We need to criticise productively rather than haranguing.
Just read the article. Rubbish clickbait junk written after five minutes on his local facebook page whilst waiting for his takeaway coffee.
Agreed, the article is complete toss. Only the last paragraph related to the original headline. The rest is pretty much going on about the complete opposite of the headline
The problem I've found is that when you raise a concern about a proposal the response is an initial brush-off in the hope you'll go away. You're then stuck with going through a complaints process which is inherintly confrontational. As that want to resolve a specific point of contention. Whereas I'm looking for justification for the design decisions made (that legally they are required to make under CDM).
By this time the design is often"fixed" and it's too late!
And yes he article is click baity rubbish, but it's now in 2 mainstream papers (guardian and independent).
It's not a bad article, But you actually have to read the academic paper Peter Walker is quoting from which Crazy Legs posted on the cycling UK thread earlier.
Effectively saying that pro-cycling campaigners who want Holland style infrastructure and hence criticise what councils can actually afford have a counterproductive impact.
Edit: this thread.... And ratherbeintobago who posted the link
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/bike-forum/cycling-uk-rebranding-again/#post-13582444
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03003930.2025.2500932#d1e115
It's not a bad article, But you actually have to read the academic paper Peter Walker is quoting from which Crazy Legs posted on the cycling UK thread earlier.
Yes, the original academic study is referenced towards the bottom of this thread:
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/bike-forum/cycling-uk-rebranding-again/#post-13582444
Effectively saying that pro-cycling campaigners who want Holland style infrastructure and hence criticise what councils can actually afford have a counterproductive impact.
Reminds me of the old design saying "best is the enemy of better"
I was pondering this the other day. Like most cities we have some great cycling infrastructure, some average and some some crap. While I'd like more of the great I'm happy with the average because the crap really is crap and often dangerous.
There's some debate on BlueSky at the moment (including with Peter Walker, the Guardian journo who wrote that article).
A lot of people saying that campaigners are so used to meeting intransigence and indifference within councils that their requests / demands for literally any infrastructure at all eventually just get perceived as moaning.
Cycling infastructure will never be enough. What we need dealing with are driver behaviour and excessive numbers of cars. No government will tackle this as it might upset drivers who mostly have a vote and there are more cars then bikes at the moment.
The road I live on has a wide pavemment split between cycling and walking and it is often parked up residents cars and people parking for the Metro. The council were proposing to double yellow lines down one side to keep cars of the cycle lane. The residents vetoed it (except for us?)
The government councils really need to face down the car lobby and take back the streets.
im not sure how you read that article and concluded that. The article made a lot of sense to me - there is definitely a vitreolic element of the cycle campaigning community who seem to do more harm than good.Guardian article claiming that over zealous cycle campaigners have negative impact on new infrastructure project
So what are we meant to do? Sit quietly, dof our caps and be grateful for whatever shit infrastructure they decide they can be arsed to design and build?
Basically they want to go back to the 90s when any bit of paint was signed off by sustrans to be part of the NCN, leaving a legacy of awful.infrastructure.
God dammit!!! Angry now...
its entirely possible to have civil discussions about active travel that engage people positively without abuse, threatening them or their families, outing personal addresses, etc.
And yet in this thread we have people saying the are “angry now” for this being pointed out - and others saying “and they wonder why we are forceful” and the article is “toss” despite being based around actual research about perceptions of those you are trying to debate with.
Based on this thread, with people who are actually among the more educated of the community it’s hardly surprising if the toxicity is a problem. Even within the cycling “community” there isn’t universal agreement on what perfect looks like for infrastructure, and certainly not what good enough is like.
i will (and have) happily lobby for better consideration of active travel. If I was even getting close to the sort of behaviour the article referred to I’d expect to lose the argument.
The article is appalling and makes no sense.
The title leads the reader to think that in circumstances like.....
Dr Alexander Nurse, a reader in urban planning at the University of Liverpool, found multiple concerns about a “very toxic” and “often abusive” debate about cycling
....the cycling campaigners were responsible yet reading the rest of the article suggests that actually all the threats and the abuse of councillors and their families comes from
Such extreme opposition, the report concluded, generally seemed to be less a reflection of actual local sentiment than, as one person called it, “misinformation … from the libertarian fringe or organisations
There is then a few paragraphs about terrible abuse of councillors stemming from the libertarian fringe groups (and we all know who they are, certainly not pro cycling!) and finally we get to the actual group named in the title literally right at the bottom of the page....
“Interestingly, we also found that well-meaning but overly forceful advocacy –particularly from pro-cycling campaigners – can sometimes undermine the very schemes they are trying to support.
Well meaning but overly forceful advocacy seems a pretty balanced approach against groups who are threatening councillors children but there is not one jot of information in the article about how such actions are undermining these cycling infrastructure schemes. I will definitely read the report the article is based around so i guess it worked there but the article itself tells us absolutely nothing.
This is about humans irrespective of choice of vehicles. The most aggressive people on bicycles are as bad as the most aggressive drivers. Overly aggressive attitudes are counter productive IMO.
Having said that I wouldn't cycle on the road by choice so I am probably part of the problem for choosing my car.
Except that an aggressive car driver can put 70 people in hospital.
Effectively saying that pro-cycling campaigners who want Holland style infrastructure and hence criticise what councils can actually afford have a counterproductive impact.
I've been involved in some community consultation on active travel infrastructure near my home and office.
A stretch of road with University (20k people on site daily, and talk about a target group for cycling and walking), two primary, one secondary school (again, all of whom walk in different directions on this road plus parents driving between them at school time), three nurseries, all the local shops etc.
Last year, even with poor infrastructure and works blocking them for most of the year 10,000 cycle trips were made and an estimated 100,000 walking trips made. It's one of the busiest areas for active travel, with huge room for improving on that along a 1 mile straight, flat route. It connects to wider infrastructure too.
So, I'm intrigued what my response should be to the council is who are proposing:
- areas of shared use,
- not adjusting roundabout (because local business on the road need to turn HGV's around there rather than using longer routes)
- making active travel users travel further than cars,
- significant section hidden from sight below a 4m high bank and on flood plain because they don't want to narrow the road too much.
- not implementing a 20mph at the uni entrance and crossing area
Mainly due to budget.
This from the council who have wasted tens of thousands on FIVE remakes or of other cycle infrastructure....
At what point do I move from 'constructive friend' to 'angry at how crap and unsafe the proposals are'...?
Reminds me of the old design saying "best is the enemy of better"
Assuming that campaigners are opposing "better" of course...
IME a reasonable proportion of the cycling infrastructure we get is worse than none, I can understand why people might become a bit more animated. Is it always counter productive to prevent Local authorities to wasting their money on new death traps?
Guardian article claiming that over zealous cycle campaigners
No, the report that's included in the article suggests that some elements of pro-cycling lobby on line can be just as rude and obnoxious as those who're anti new cycle infrastructure.
So what are we meant to do? Sit quietly, dof our caps and be grateful for whatever shit infrastructure they decide they can be arsed to design and build?
Point made.
The report goes on to say, most councillors treated on-line commentary (what the report is focused on) as noise, having realised that it doesn't tend to reflect wider public attitude, however the very strongly held opinions of both the car lobby and pro-cycling lobby have behaved in ways that are pretty rubbish, the very pro cycling lobby especially makes it hard to persuade recalcitrant councillors There are examples of both sides of the debate doxing councillors, threatening their families and so on.
There are examples of both sides of the debate doxing councillors, threatening their families and so on.
Could you provide the quote from the report supporting this claim please. Since I see just the one reference to doxing the councillor (it doesnt seem to mention which side) and one about being threatened in person (who then mentions out they are worried it might happen when out cycling so I am guessing probably from the anti crowd).
It would have been nice to see example quotes from both sides (unless its hidden in the word document which fails to open). The problem is some cycling infrastructure isnt just pointless (such as one near my house which is about 3m long) but actively dangerous to anyone using it (example near me which has the cyclist on the pavement for a 30mph limit but after the road speeds up to nsl just ends with a really crappy option to join the road).
Which runs into the "nothing pleases the cyclists" issue. Whilst I would hope most people would spot how pointless the first example is the second one would actually require someone trying to use it. Even driving, which is part of the problem, past it its not obvious just how crap it it.
Rubbish clickbait junk written after five minutes on his local facebook page whilst waiting for his takeaway coffee.
By Peter Walker, author of Bike Nation among other things.
There are examples of both sides of the debate doxing councillors, threatening their families and so on.
Milkstone & Deeplish active neighbourhood - after the filters were set on fire on night 1 of the trial, councillors were allegedly threatened if they were reinstated. And the Oldham one that didn’t even get to the trial before people were allegedly threatened.
I think the issue with all of this is that it’s not so much expectation of perfection, but that someone comes up with a half-arsed design then gets upset when the obvious glaring problem e.g. stopping short of a dangerous junction is pointed out.
It’s worth noting that councillors are more likely to take notice of face to face meetings or emails than social media.
As always, get involved in your local active travel group - in Greater Manchester this is https://www.walkridegm.org.uk/
I think the issue with all of this is that it’s not so much expectation of perfection, but that someone comes up with a half-arsed design then gets upset when the obvious glaring problem e.g. stopping short of a dangerous junction is pointed out.
You now I really think you may have hit on something there. I'd always thought it was a lack of will to try to do the best,then derogate from there to what is possible and affordable, but maybe it's just ingrained incompetence. Highway designers are so programmed to follow the DMRB, which is heavily motor vehicle biased, that they cannot comprehend that someone may want something suitable for going to the shops using a different means of transport.
*DMRB: design manual for roads and bridges, that highway authorities are obligated to comply with. Doesn't mean they cannot do over and above legal minimums!
Highway designers are so programmed to follow the DMRB, which is heavily motor vehicle biased, that they cannot comprehend that someone may want something suitable for going to the shops using a different means of transport.
Don’t forget there’s also a widespread councillor misunderstanding that bike infrastructure is ‘for cyclists’.
It isn’t, and those who are already cycling (the least risk averse, often young men) don’t (necessarily) need infrastructure. Infrastructure is for the ⅔ of people who would cycle (to work, school or the shops) but are put off by the perceived and real risks of mixing with motor traffic.
Doesn't mean they cannot do over and above legal minimums!
True, but when doing more than the bare minimum costs more and councils are extremely strapped for budgets, the bare minimum is what we’re going to get. This was why LTN 1/20 was so important.
You now I really think you may have hit on something there. I'd always thought it was a lack of will to try to do the best,then derogate from there to what is possible and affordable, but maybe it's just ingrained incompetence.
There's a related issue in that comparatively few people cycle - and even fewer people the further up the chain of command you go. The more wealthy / powerful you are, the more likely you are to have a company car or all-expenses-paid travel so why on earth would you cycle?!
As a result, few Councillors / MPs etc can even begin to understand cycling (other than it's sometimes worth appearing on a bike at a charity ride somewhere cos "votes"). So the idea of catering for utility cycling, building cycle infrastructure, enabling safe routes to schools etc is a mystery.
Well everyone drives to school, that's the normal thing, why would we build a cycle lane?! It's a genuine lack of comprehension as to why such a thing would even be needed.
I really admire the campaigners like Chris Boardman who systematically and calmly dismantle these arguments day in day out; I can easily see why some campaigners get to the fist-banging / shouting / frustrated stage. I sometimes wonder if that's a council tactic - basically force someone into a corner of frustration and bureaucratic indifference, wait until they lose their rag and then promptly claim that they're unreasonable and argumentative and you're not going to deal with them anymore.
Strangely, it only seems to be applied to pro-cycling people. If any anti-cycling people do that (such as protesting the very idea of a cycle lane), the council will immediately back down and apologise profusely for even thinking such a thing.
If any anti-cycling people do that (such as protesting the very idea of a cycle lane), the council will immediately back down and apologise profusely for even thinking such a thing
If anything, local anecdote suggests it’s the militant drivists who are more likely to indulge in unreasonable/destructive behaviour, e.g. setting fire to planters or moving them with a forklift, or cutting down ANPR cameras.
True, but when doing more than the bare minimum costs more and councils are extremely strapped for budgets, the bare minimum is what we’re going to get. This was why LTN 1/20 was so important.
Not read the article given various mentions of it being clickbait rubbish but from our local bike campaign group seem to be the sort who think every road should be a huge 20ft wide cycle lane and that cars should be banned from any road apart from motorways. Also that cycle lanes MUST be seperate from the road and have those bumper things you shove on a bowling alley for little kids so the balls don't fall off.
I can see that they mean well but their expectations (come across as demands sometimes) are totally unrealistic in a historic city where space is limited. Which then annoys the "its my right to drive a car when/where/how far I like" lot who get all Reform and start labelling all cyclists as Just Eat riders who don't adhere to any rules of the road etc.
The whole thing is absolutely mental given where I live is the most bike friendly place I've ever lived but it seems some people are just afraid to ride a bike on a road and as a result expect/demand off-road cycle lanes to be built everywhere.
A vicious circle.
See the huge bell mouth junctions onto new estates that are a nightmare for pedestrians
These should be narrowed (to reduce turning speeds) with a continuous footway across the entrance. Instead we get gems like this (a retirement village plan in Macc)
https://bsky.app/profile/owlernook.bsky.social/post/3lqctmbk2kc26
it seems some people are just afraid to ride a bike on a road
Yes, that’s exactly the problem. Over and over, ⅔ of people say they’d cycle instead of driving short journeys (with the health and environmental benefits this brings) if they didn’t have to mix with motor traffic - the perception of danger is as much of an off putting factor as the reality. The effect of protected infra is shown over and over, whether in the Netherlands, Copenhagen, Paris or London.
Reducing though traffic in residential areas helps create safe walking/cycling routes without building lanes, but of course that’s just as contentious as it brings out the shouty “its my right to drive a car when/where/how far I like” minority.
At what point do I move from 'constructive friend' to 'angry at how crap and unsafe the proposals are'...?
The point that you want the recipient of your communication to assume you are just too hard to deal with and ignore you.
Instead we get gems like this (a retirement village plan in Macc)
That’s an interesting design I’ve never seen implemented in real life, clearly an artists impression. Out of interest though why does it offend you?
The wording should be to the effect of requiring the highways engineer to send one of their grandchildren/children along the provided facility un-supervised before sign-off is complete.
I have some sympathy for your position, and certainly many designers need to leave their office and ride/walk what they use. The emotional attachment of “let your (grand)child ride it” is probably a useful tool in an internal meeting, perhaps even face to face meeting between stakeholders and planners where the tone can be gathered but with so much communication by email etc it is easy to see how the recipient could get a message like that and perceive it as aggressive, involving family members that the sender may or may not actually know exist. Touching a nerve is sometimes helpful, but kicking someone in the balls rarely gets a “let’s talk through your concerns” response.
I am sure it’s possibly to follow the rule book and design great infrastructure, maybe even great infrastructure that doesn’t cost more than bad stuff. Clearly it’s possible to design shit infrastructure and follow the book. Telling people who are paid to follow the book, that the book is wrong and they should follow your process instead is probably not going to be well received. Few of us like to be told we are doing a shit job, especially by people with fewer qualifications! Then add in the complications from dealing with other “lobby groups” all demanding their particular take on how the book should be interpreted - pedestrians who don’t want shared use because cyclists are scary, horse riders upset that bikes get provisional and they don’t, cyclist who tell you paint is not enough to protect from 2 tons of steel, cyclists who tell you that they have every right to use the actual road and segregation even with paint sends the wrong message to drivers, shop keepers upset at loss of parking, drivers upset at interruption to their flow, NIMBYs who don’t want some development and thing traffic angle might be a good argument, property owners who want the minimal installation disruption…
meanwhile your boss just wants something that complies with the rule book, is cheap to install etc. He pays your wages and if career progression etc is possible it’s likely because you delivered quickly, on budget etc not because you came up with an innovative road design.
That’s an interesting design I’ve never seen implemented in real life, clearly an artists impression. Out of interest though why does it offend you?
The wide / flared / bell-mouth type junction is designed to allow minimum speed loss when turning. A driver can come off the main road and swing the car quickly through the turn without losing momentum.
That makes it very dangerous for anyone already crossing it. They're on a wide crossing (so more time spent walking across it), drivers are just thinking about making the turn as quickly as possible.
The wide / flared / bell-mouth type junction is designed to allow minimum speed loss when turning. A driver can come off the main road and swing the car quickly through the turn without losing momentum.
This. On the entrance to a retirement village, where there are likely to be people with mobility/hearing/eyesight issues etc.
The zebra continuing across the junction is good (if not supported by UK practice at the moment, though trials are ongoing), but really the layout should reinforce the Highway Code change that pedestrians crossing the junction have priority over cars turning in, which means a narrower entrance, with (ideally) the raised footway continuing across it.
There's a related issue in that comparatively few people cycle - and even fewer people the further up the chain of command you go. The more wealthy / powerful you are, the more likely you are to have a company car or all-expenses-paid travel so why on earth would you cycle?!
Quoting myself here but whatever algorithm I triggered by writing that threw up this article:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07352166.2025.2507951?src=exp-la
It's a study (done in Canada) explaining how the limited experience of officials to existing transport barriers such as cost, disability, access, perception of (or actual) risk etc is a real barrier to them choosing the "right" schemes.
How everyone defaults to "build a new road" because everyone drives. In the case of public transport (and active travel), this results in a disconnect between the people making the decisions and the people most affected by the decisions.
I see your point, although to understand that I think you'd need to understand the rest of the road layout which is not in the artist's impression. It's also true that a "bell mouth" junction provides better sight lines for the driver. Obviously you can make the surroundings and the road different shapes so you still get the sight lines but a sharper, narrower turn, but in my experience someone will plant hedges, massive signs or park vans there, or even groups of pedestrians standing so the benefit gets lost. There is an island in the middle which not only provides some refuge but also prevents right hand turns cutting the corner.That’s an interesting design I’ve never seen implemented in real life, clearly an artists impression. Out of interest though why does it offend you?
The wide / flared / bell-mouth type junction is designed to allow minimum speed loss when turning. A driver can come off the main road and swing the car quickly through the turn without losing momentum.
That makes it very dangerous for anyone already crossing it. They're on a wide crossing (so more time spent walking across it), drivers are just thinking about making the turn as quickly as possible.
As @ratherbeintobago says - this isn't all bad (although he is the one who posted it here as an example of bad!): it could be better by creating a raised section for the crossing, yet it has immediately got someone on social media asking for the person responsible to be banned from crossing design! I don't know if they were a driver or a cyclist, but it kind of proves the point in the original article: there are many views on how road design should be done and some people are prepared to state them in hostile ways. Wouldn't it have been more constructive if "Owler Nook" had written "I'd love to have a chat with however created this image to see if there's ways to make the crossing design safer". But of course that wouldn't get the same number of clicks/likes/shares!
There's a related issue in that comparatively few people cycle - and even fewer people the further up the chain of command you go. The more wealthy / powerful you are, the more likely you are to have a company car or all-expenses-paid travel so why on earth would you cycle?!
I'm not sure your analysis of who cycles is correct. Certainly your suggestion that decision makers have a company car is probably misplaced. Cycling as a "sport" or "leisure" activity (rather than transport) is a very middle class thing. Plenty of mountainbikers who never ride from home. Plenty of roadies who never ride shared use paths. I think its actually just a case of engaging their brain - if 99% of the infrastructure looks the same they expect it to look that way. When asked to add (or check its been included) to tick the active travel box, then you can easily nod along. You don't (usually) get promoted in these sort of roles by being a PITA and trying to think outside the box.
@poly I don’t think Owler (who is a prominent local AT campaigner) was being entirely serious, nor was he doing this for clicks. He’s also posted up the site plan in that Bluesky thread.
@poly I don’t think Owler (who is a prominent local AT campaigner) was being entirely serious, nor was he doing this for clicks. He’s also posted up the site plan in that Bluesky thread.
im sure many of the people aren’t entirely serious when they say things that made the surprising headlines in the OP. I’ve probably done it myself - but it’s easy to see how if you are on the receiving end you’d feel that it was hostile.
BTW I’m not on Bluesky - I’m not signing up to another social platform and am finding the self inflicted demise of Twitter (I used to check it twice a day at least) a positive thing - not least because I’m less likely to take one image and try to critique it in 144 characters.
I’m not signing up to another social platform and am finding the self inflicted demise of Twitter (I used to check it twice a day at least) a positive thing
I can wholeheartedly agree with you there.
True, but when doing more than the bare minimum costs more and councils are extremely strapped for budgets, the bare minimum is what we’re going to get. This was why LTN 1/20 was so important.
with Ltn1/20 being "guidance" the default position I've found with most highway authorities (local and national) default to "it's only guidance and too ambitious/hard/big/expensive (heaven forbid reallocating road space) and we understand up with blue signs on a 2m wide existing pavement hemmed in by a wall and 60mph traffic, as it meets "minimum standards".
It took 9 years of complaining/campaigning and quoting CDM regs to get the council to re-line the main road near me, offer they surface dressed it,and repainting the 750mm wide lanes on the road... They made a conscious design decision to not consider whether the old lining complied with current standards and guidance.
Eugh that quote and comment thing didn't work. Sorry