Cycling Development.

Martyn Bolt said:

What tosh, have they not heard of gears? They should have asked how
many clubs we have in the area and how many successful cyclists we
have produced!

Here, here. The terrain is superb for sport cyclists. We are pretty well
served with easier paths for Sunday afternoon cyclists too. The Trans
Pennine Trail, Aire Valley Trail and of course the Spen Valley Greenway
which I read recently is the second most popular Sustrans route and one of
the flagship routes.

Martyn Bolt said:

I saw on another forum that the Govt is not extending the contract for
the English Regiosn Cycling development team.

Whilst that may be a blow to encouraginmg wider cycling can i draw
your attention to a series of reports they have recently put out?

www.nationalcyclingstrategy.org.uk

reviews of all your localo authorities are there, sadly their scores
have been removed, (to protect the guilty?)

I was cheesed off at one stock phrase I kept seeing in West Yorkshire,
the geography is not conductive to high levels of cyling.

Probably one of the best ares in the UK ..............

Quoted message said:

What tosh, have they not heard of gears? They should have asked how
many clubs we have in the area and how many successful cyclists we
have produced!

Martyn

Goverment (any) are not interested as cycling brings in no money
.............

"Martyn Bolt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I was cheesed off at one stock phrase I kept seeing in West Yorkshire,
the geography is not conductive to high levels of cyling.

Standard excuse for not cycling along with the British climate not being
conducive.

Pete

Jack Ouzzi said:

Goverment (any) are not interested as cycling brings in no money

But it does *save* money; reduces road congestion, reduces health care
costs, reduces pollution and increases accessibility. Govt (any) is
aware of this which is why they say cycling is a Good Thing.

It's putting words into practice that has proved more difficult for
all govts. The problem occurs when cycling's requirements compete with
those of motoring; be that in priority, roadspace etc. Our voice is
just not loud enough to compete and win these battles.

"Martyn Bolt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I saw on another forum that the Govt is not extending the contract for
the English Regiosn Cycling development team.

It seems to me that cycling was truly popular (i.e. had mass participation)
at times when cars were unavailable or motoring unaffordable. Further it
became less and less popular as cars became more available and motoring more
affordable. So I think it unreasonable to imagine that government (whether
local or central) can develop cycling without directly addressing car
availability or motoring affordability. New cycle-oriented infrastructure
will not do that (with the unlikely exception perhaps of schemes that
drastically reduce the road space or routes available to cars). High minded
policy statements are laudable but simply ineffective.

I suppose there is a vanishingly small possibility that social attitudes
could be changed to the extent that routine car use became unacceptable.
But with Britain's slide toward the American emphasis on individual rights
and diminution of social responsibility, how can it happen?

Maybe we just have to wait until the oil supply dwindles to the extent that
the masses can no longer afford petrol.

Sorry to sound so downbeat. Must be the dark evenings.

--

Richard

--------------------

Individual replies to [email hidden]

less the Misdirections (and note the underscore after r246)

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 07:10:09 GMT,

Martyn Bolt said:

I saw on another forum that the Govt is not extending the contract for
the English Regiosn Cycling development team.

Whilst that may be a blow to encouraginmg wider cycling can i draw
your attention to a series of reports they have recently put out?

www.nationalcyclingstrategy.org.uk

reviews of all your localo authorities are there, sadly their scores
have been removed, (to protect the guilty?)

Well I think Peterborough (where I am) got a pretty low score (even
though the amount of cycling is relatively high). Every section
is pretty critical.

However there was one bit which caught my eye -
"Unlike the previous townships where good segregated links to the centre
were achieved, there is a worrying lack of coherent links to the city
centre from Hampton, the latest, extensive new township development."

Now the previous segregated facilities are pretty good in that there are
very few junctions with the roads, although the constant dipping to
accommodate subways and the poor surface lets them down, however I feel that
there is too much concentration on the segregated routes in the report as
there is a very decent road (the A15) which every time I have used I have
used it has been nearly empty once you have got out of the town centre.
Although to be fair it is quite a bit busier at the Hampton roundabout and
the last few hundred yards to the shopping centre.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Gippledocks said:

"Martyn Bolt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I saw on another forum that the Govt is not extending the contract for
the English Regiosn Cycling development team.

It seems to me that cycling was truly popular (i.e. had mass participation)
at times when cars were unavailable or motoring unaffordable. Further it
became less and less popular as cars became more available and motoring more
affordable. So I think it unreasonable to imagine that government (whether
local or central) can develop cycling without directly addressing car
availability or motoring affordability. New cycle-oriented infrastructure
will not do that (with the unlikely exception perhaps of schemes that
drastically reduce the road space or routes available to cars). High minded
policy statements are laudable but simply ineffective.

I suppose there is a vanishingly small possibility that social attitudes
could be changed to the extent that routine car use became unacceptable.
But with Britain's slide toward the American emphasis on individual rights
and diminution of social responsibility, how can it happen?

Maybe we just have to wait until the oil supply dwindles to the extent that
the masses can no longer afford petrol.

Then there will be a £25 per month Exercise (not Excise) duty on
cycles with more than half a wheel ......... plus 20p per mile VAT
(Velo added tax) ............ and they will all be electronically
tagged.

I have just read the cycling strategy for Lincolnshire (the county
where we kill most people with our cars) .............. pretty poor
reading!!

Jack Ouzzi said:

Goverment (any) are not interested as cycling brings in no money

Maybe for commuters, but not for tourists:

"Cyclists are more likely to spend money when visiting an area than car-drivers,
as they tend to stay overnight and buy food and drink whilst out and about."

http://www.nationalcyclingstrategy.org.uk/cycle_tourism.html

Jack Ouzzi said:

Quoted message said:

Goverment (any) are not interested as cycling brings in no money

and Marc Brett responded:

Quoted message said:

Maybe for commuters, but not for tourists:

"Cyclists are more likely to spend money when visiting an area than car-drivers,
as they tend to stay overnight and buy food and drink whilst out and about."

Yeah, but that's money that goes into local economies rather than
straight into government coffers via fuel duty. The government shows
very little interest in sustaining local economies, as demonstrated a by
FMD a couple of years ago.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

"Martyn Bolt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I saw on another forum that the Govt is not extending the contract for
the English Regiosn Cycling development team.

It is with somewhat mixed feelings that I heard the news: in the SW, the
ERCDT just didn't bother to consult cyclists, for the very good reason that
they just couldn't be bothered. I don't know anyone in the SW who had any
faith in them, as they just didn't address the problems, nor were they even
interested in hearing cyclists' views. I'm sure they did some good in some
areas, it's just that in my experience they were merely rubber-stamping what
the local authorities told them.

Quoted message said:

Whilst that may be a blow to encouraginmg wider cycling can i draw
your attention to a series of reports they have recently put out?

www.nationalcyclingstrategy.org.uk

reviews of all your localo authorities are there, sadly their scores
have been removed, (to protect the guilty?)

These are the reports from 2003, the 2004 have yet to be issued, and even
when they are, they are just an update on the 2003 report, where they didn't
consult SW cyclists, so they still won't address the problems.

Whilst in most other areas the ERCDT may have some credibility, you'll
forgive me if I, and many other cyclists in the SW, don't shed a tear at
their demise.