Or, y’know, don’t. 😉

Either way, The Times “Cities Fit For Cycling” campaign has managed to secure a full-blown all-party parliamentary inquiry into cycling in the UK which kicks off in earnest in December.

This is a good thing.

You can contribute now by taking a minute or two to fill out the (mercifully short) survey on your cycling experiences and what you’d like to see:

http://thetimes.co.uk/cyclesafesurvey

And encourage other people to do the same, particularly those that would like to cycle but don’t.

(You can also submit written evidence personally if you feel a bit more motivated).

Even The Guardian is applauding this campaign:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/nov/06/times-cyclesafe-inquiry

I too think it’s good and have already filled it in
But! I did find it very much targeted at what cyclist can do better/do wrong and infrastructure improvements.

Nothing in there at all about other road users (training/changing attitudes….) 😥
I’m not saying there aren’t tools on bikes ‘cos there are but it’s other road users actions which make me nervous\feel unsafe most of the time.

More and proper thought out infrastructure would be great but it’s not the biggest problem out there IMHO

It does ask what the biggest danger for cyclists is and breaks down vehicle traffic by type?

It’s the lorries, buses and cars which make cycling unsafe, shouldn’t the excise duty be on them?

29erKeith:

I found the survey a bit annoying, asking which cycling traits I find annoying (e.g RLJing etc). I would have liked a box to say that I would find RLJers, pavement cyclists etc annoying, but in reality I come across very little of that and it isn’t half as annoying as being cut up by a car when I’m doing 20-30mph on a bike on the road.

On average, I probably see one bad driving maneuver by a motorist every day (at best cheeky, at worst dangerous), and one RLJer or pavement cyclist a week.

It just looked a bit like the survey had been written by a head in the sand motorist. Why can’t we have a debate on cycle safety without talking about RLJing and pavement riding?

They missed Mo-peds! So i’ve added that 😆

It just looked a bit like the survey had been written by a head in the sand motorist. Why can’t we have a debate on cycle safety without talking about RLJing and pavement riding?

Because it is a survey open to people that don’t cycle too – they need to be given a chance to say what they feel or they will say it is not representative.

Personally I find RLJing mildly irritating and lack of lights very irritating – speaking both as a cyclist and as a driver – so I answered accordingly.

For those that haven’t seen it, the video in The Guardian article is well worth watching. Chris Boardman talking the most sense I think I have ever heard about cycling safety in mainstream media (he starts at 2:20ish):

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kjaHH8YR7Pg[/video]

having completed it just now it must have been a rushed job and not very well thought out. The questions didnt seem particulaly right to cover much of anything. I’m worried if this is the best the times can come up with espeically if it supposed to capture the issues for a parliamentary debate.

I’m worried if this is the best the times can come up with espeically if it supposed to capture the issues for a parliamentary debate.

To be fair they have done a lot of other good stuff such as getting 10,000 people to highlight the worst junctions on their commutes and gathering stories from thousands of readers.

I don’t agree with everything in their manifesto – but I back the campaign because it is the best one we have at the moment.

The biggest issue with most cycle campaigns is in-fighting and bickering that prevents them from putting across a strong message.

Good luck city dwellers. Those of us who live in rural Britain will continue to deal with the same old shit, whatever Parliament debates.

I don’t agree with everything in their manifesto – but I back the campaign because it is the best one we have at the moment

Doesn’t go far enough, we should be aiming higher.

If anyone suggested pedestrians should mingle with traffic, they’d be laughed at. Cyclists are just as vulnerable.

Doesn’t go far enough, we should be aiming higher.

I think articles about “peak car”, the new age of the bicycle and advocating Copenhagen-style cycling are going fairly far for a pretty conservative mainstream newspaper.

Personally I find RLJing mildly irritating and lack of lights very irritating – speaking both as a cyclist and as a driver – so I answered accordingly.

Whilst I’m exactly the opposite!

If anyone suggested pedestrians should mingle with traffic, they’d be laughed at. Cyclists are just as vulnerable.

Not really, (in urban areas) we move at a pace far closer to that of cars than pedestrians.

Not really, (in urban areas) we move at a pace far closer to that of cars than pedestrians.

And weigh approx. two tonnes less. Which is an important factor in the event of a collision.

And what about us in more rural areas, where traffic is often travelling well in excess of 60mph?

Filled it in.

I’ve been impressed with The Times campaign. Was worried it would just be a few weeks long and then dissappear, but they’ve really stuck with it.

I’m all for the infrastructure. Cycling won’t get more popular without it, far too many people scared off the roads. Cycling safely needs to be as easy as walking.

Done,

Didn’t vote for a new tax though, not against paying a bit more through exisiting taxes for properly planned infrastructure everywhere rather than 2% of schemes being cycle specific funded and 98% carrying on as they are. and then the funding being leached by defence spend overruns etc.

to all you naysayers at least they’re asking some questions even iof theyre not the right ones for you

(was a bit Lahndahhn tho)

I’m all for the infrastructure. Cycling won’t get more popular without it, far too many people scared off the roads. Cycling safely needs to be as easy as walking.

I know there’s a lot of uncertainty surrounding segregated infrastructure, but I think this is absolutely right. Sometimes going out on the road feels a bit like going to war. Cycling needs to be relaxed, and fun. It needs to be of a benefit to people, not to the detriment.

I dont actually want to pay more tax for things that wont benefit me.

I’m also very surprised the campaign has lasted as long as it has, and yep it’s the best we have at the moment so good on ’em

cycling infrastructure can be counter productive at times, I am not saying it’s bad, but it can reinforce the “you shouldn’t be on the road” attitudes of some. Which doesn’t help me on the 2/3’s of my commute where there isn’t any cycling infrastructure or the 6th where there is that I refuse to use because it’s so narrow with an awful surface with a driveway or side road every 5-10 meters + Peds. It’s really a narrow pavement with a blue sign every 100m and shouldn’t ever have been a classed as a cycle route

@ Trimix

A lot of the things we pay tax for don’t directly benefit us – unless you fancy a stay in a mental institution/prison/care home/immigration detention centre/want to have all the roads except the ones you drive on resembling black run.

The idea is that there’s a benfit to society which will return to you indirectly in being a resident in a more propsperous, just and secure nation.

I’m all for the infrastructure. Cycling won’t get more popular without it, far too many people scared off the roads. Cycling safely needs to be as easy as walking.

100% agree. I think most people understand the need for this – but some worry that providing segregated paths mean they will no longer be welcome on the real road.

If you look at Copenhagen et al the real situation is that road use still continues and is safer as motorists are more likely to be bike-aware and cyclists too.

(Apparently the guideline in Copenhagen is that they put in a segregated path if a road has 5,000 cyclists a day on it!!)

Done,

Didn’t vote for a new tax though

Neither did I – it was just a useful bait to hook people into the thread 😀

Cycling needs to be relaxed, and fun. It needs to be of a benefit to people, not to the detriment.

100% agree again. As I’ve mentioned before I commute regularly because I am lucky enough to have a great traffic-free route available to me. I can see very clearly the advantage of proper useful traffic-free routes. I could persuade anyone to ride that route with me – and I’d feel safe and relaxed taking them.

agree with a lot here too, very London/big city centric and will make bobbins difference to me

I would pay a small VED/Bike Duty if it would really make a difference (education/attitudes obviously not an easy one), but in reality it won’t stop some tool cutting me up racing his car to the next traffic light to gain them nothing! I’d also insist in the caveat that all cars paid VED a Prius is better than a Range rover yes but it still pollutes a damn sight more than me riding my bike.

Done,every little efforts helps 😀

very London/big city centric and will make bobbins difference to me

Interesting that you say that and then go on to talk about cars cutting you up and racing between lights.

Why so pessimistic that changes in national cycle policy couldn’t help you in that situation? (i.e. get you off that road completely, reduce the traffic speed, give you a head start at the lights, increase the legal burden on the driver, increase the likelihood that the driver cycles or knows someone who does etc)

Done.
I mentioned taxis/minicabs in the “other dangers” section.
A bicycle excise duty? Jeez, are they going to privatize the pavements next and get pedestrians to pay per step!

Why couldn’t they spend some of the substantial amount of tax (ie VAT) they already collect from cyclists for this purpose ?

I know there’s a lot of uncertainty surrounding segregated infrastructure, but I think this is absolutely right. Sometimes going out on the road feels a bit like going to war. Cycling needs to be relaxed, and fun. It needs to be of a benefit to people, not to the detriment.

If the facilities don’t go where people are going, which is usually the case then they are pointless and only make things worse. If facilites go from A to B quickly and safely then fine otherwise forget it.

The biggest single change is driver education. Get drivers to think before they try something, before they overtake, pull out etc.

Remember roads don’t kill people, drivers do.

Why couldn’t they spend some of the substantial amount of tax (ie VAT) they already collect from cyclists for this purpose ?

They could. One of the options was “use existing tax”. And that seems to be the most popular one so far (funnily enough).

The biggest single change is driver education. Get drivers to think before they try something, before they overtake, pull out etc.

The best education is to get them out cycling. Starting on the aforementioned infrastructure … Which I completely agree, needs to be decent. But hey, Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Putting a tax on new bikes to pay for better cycling infrastructure would be like putting a tax on footwear to pay for the upkeep of pavements.

Good survey actually, filled it in….

BUT

Vote for a new Excise Duty on all Bikes to pay for Cycle Lanes!

No. No I won’t. Not ever.
Why?
Well, isn’t that what we’ve been chucking back at car drivers almost forever?

“Your tax disc – It’s NOT road tax. It’s VED. You don’t pay tax for the roads, so you don’t own them”

So we tax cycles to pay for cycle paths. Fine. Then what if someone wants to walk on those paths? We cyclists OWN them, remember….
What happens when someone says “you shouldn’t be on the road, you should be on that path of yours, over there”?
What happens when someone with a new bike who’s paid the tax argues that someone with an old bike that’s not paid the tax can’t use them? (It would happen, you know it would!)
And mostly, because I don’t want bikes to be more expensive than they already are. LBSs are already struggling. And to avoid the tax, I just order from France or Germany……

What we need to do is stop spending so much on widening roads, building more roads etc. We need to CHANGE usage, not just supplement it.

No. No I won’t. Not ever.
Why?
Well, isn’t that what we’ve been chucking back at car drivers almost forever?

You missed my confession Peter: “it was just a useful bait to hook people into the thread”.

No fricking way would I vote for that – not without a SUBSTANTIAL change in how such tax was collected from all road users and what it was used for.

One of The Times manifesto points is to get 2% of the (existing) transport budget spent on the 2% of the population that use bikes. That doesn’t sound like very much but it is a huge increase over what we get at the moment.

The Dutch spend between £10 and £20 PER CYCLIST every year.

Currently the UK spends around 80p. 😕

What traits do you find most annoying in other cyclists: Riding in the gutter
What other dangers do cyclists face: Velociraptors.

What traits do you find most annoying in other cyclists: Riding in the gutter

That’s what I put too 😀

“Personally I find RLJing mildly irritating and lack of lights very irritating – speaking both as a cyclist and as a driver – so I answered accordingly.”

Problem is, since the survey’s a bit crap, it means you’ve also said that cyclists without hi-vis clothing are highly annoying. And lights are a legal requirement whereas hi-vis isn’t.

I did fill it in earlier, and went for “additional fuel duty” to fund things, but it’s still a bit of a tatty survey IMO.

Problem is, since the survey’s a bit crap, it means you’ve also said that cyclists without hi-vis clothing are highly annoying. And lights are a legal requirement whereas hi-vis isn’t.

Yeah I struggled with that one too. I don’t wear hi-vis myself and it doesn’t bother me if other cyclists don’t.

But the unlit ninjas get on my tits because they make the road more dangerous for everyone.

So I balanced it out as the “moderately annoyed” option 🙂

DoctorRad – Member

Putting a tax on new bikes to pay for better cycling infrastructure would be like putting a tax on footwear to pay for the upkeep of pavements.

Sounds like an idea from one of Osbourne’s Tory thinktanks!

You missed my confession Peter: “it was just a useful bait to hook people into the thread”.

Oops. What a pillock. 😳 🙂

Another Survey: this time from The Telegraph and all about how awful it is for poor drivers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/9658616/Have-your-say-on-driving-behaviour.html

Can’t beat a bit of honesty:

http://quickrelease.tv/?p=1782