Cycle Un-friendly Councils

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

Quoted message said:

I use my MTB locally on the section of the West Highland Way between Milngavie and Drymen

<snip>

Quoted message said:

So then no points for Stirling District Council. Anybody else have local authorities with
dual personalities. Iain

In discussion with the local councils Road Safety Officer re cycling proficiency classes for yr 6
pupils, I was informed that one of the local road planners was a fat sweaty bloke who, upon stuffing
a Big Mac down his gob and crawling from the office door to the car he was being given a lift in,
informed the driver that cyclists were all a bloody nuisance and planning for them was a pain in the
[censored]!!!...I'm considering making a nuisance of myself at his office in the hope that his fat [censored]
hurts so much he can't sit on it!!! Dave. Merry Christmas ;-)

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

Quoted message said:

I use my MTB locally on the section of the West Highland Way between Milngavie and Drymen, and in
Mugdock Country Park.The WHW (this section) has "NO CYCLING" signs. Mugdock Country Park also has
many paths where cycling is banned. One path in particular crosses a boggy area on a boardwalk.
They erected twin vertical boards about 18" high at regular intervals to prevent cycling on this
section.

It's not called a boardWALK without a reason! I expect there have been incidents of walkers being
intimidated by local kids racing their bikes along it without regard for anyone but themselves, so
sadly these 18" boards had to be fitted - but hey you could learn to bunny hop 19" and your problem
will no longer exist!

(iarocu) said:

I use my MTB locally on the section of the West Highland Way between Milngavie and Drymen, and in
Mugdock Country Park.The WHW (this section) has "NO CYCLING" signs. Mugdock Country Park also has
many paths where cycling is banned. One path in particular crosses a boggy area on a boardwalk.
They erected twin vertical boards about 18" high at regular intervals to prevent cycling on this
section. This path is the only off road cycle route linking the park to the nearest town. The
alternate road routes would not be suitable for young children. This path blocking policy is at
odds with the councils web site which has a policy to promote cycling. As far as I know these "No
Cycling" signs are not enforcable. I certainly ignore them and I have never had any problems. But
no doubt some cyclists are deterred by these signs.

Not legal in Scotland, because in Scotland a bicycle is legally a kind of walking stick. In any case
the Land Reform act allows you to cycle more or less anywhere.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; 'I think we should trust our president in every decision ;; that he makes and we should
just support that' ;; Britney Spears of George W Bush, CNN 04:09:03

"Adrian Boliston" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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

It's not called a boardWALK without a reason! I expect there have been incidents of walkers being
intimidated by local kids racing their bikes along it without regard for anyone but themselves,

So the majority who use mixed paths with consideration for other users have to suffer. Speed could
be reduced by having right angle corners to slow the kids down. Or even an alternate cycle route
alongside. so sadly these 18" boards

Quoted message said:

had to be fitted - but hey you could learn to bunny hop 19" and your problem will no longer exist!

If only. The layout is 1 18" board with a gap of 2 or 3 feet then a 2nd board. Some people might be
able to bunny hop that height and distance but not me. Iain

Quoted message said:

So then no points for Stirling District Council. Anybody else have local authorities with
dual personalities. Iain

Get the official line on how bad your local authority is here...

nationalcyclingstrategy.org.uklocal authority performance.htmlOpen ↗

And for an insight into the reality behind all that pro-cycling bull*[censored] printed in Local Authority
Local Transport plans see here...

thebikezone.org.ukcoaco.htmlOpen ↗

Enjoy!

Howard.

Ps. the following article is also relevant...

Joanna Walters The Observer Sunday December 22, 2002

Cycling is declining at such an alarming rate in Britain that a whole generation of children may
never experience the health, financial and social benefits it offers.

Schools and councils up and down the country routinely encourage children and adults to get off
their bikes rather than onto them, senior government advisers told The Observer yesterday....

As the Government admitted last week that road congestion could worsen by a fifth over the next
decade - and then two days later launched a major campaign against 'couch potatoes' and child
obesity - experts warned that cyclists were becoming an endangered species on Britain's roads.

But that is not because people in Britain do not want to cycle. Almost half of British households
own a bicycle and cycling for leisure is slowly increasing as more off-road tracks are built - but
cycling as a form of transport and a way of meeting the Government's recommendation that we get of
30 minutes of daily exercise is disappearing.

Pro-cycling groups blame not just the 30-year legacy of road-building and car culture, but the
reluctance of local and national politicians to give priority to the bicycle on the road, growing
antagonism between motorists and cyclists and safety fears. One senior consultant to the Government
said: 'There is a reluctance by politicians to do anything that is seen as anti-car and that
translates to building cycle lanes. The commitment in most local authorities is weak compared with
towns and cities on the Continent, and nationally the Government does not push things like
congestion charging and speed-limit enforce ments that help cyclists,' he said.

'Developers and road engineers do not account for walking or cycling until the last minute when they
are planning new roads, hospitals, schools or supermarkets, and then the facilities are often token
and appalling.'

Cycling campaigners and consultants said that badly designed cycle lanes put in by councils paying
lip service to pro-bike policies were at best useless and at worst dangerous.

'So much of what has been put in for cyclists in this country is truly awful. If you judge the
record by miles of cycle lane it sometimes looks good on paper, but often it is just a white line
down the middle of the pavement or a tiny green stripe squashed in the gutter that is out of the
normal line of sight for a car driver and then stops abruptly as soon as you get to a junction - and
in some ways that can be more dangerous,' said the consultant...

A comprehensive picture has yet to emerge but senior advisers to the Government have criticised the
lacklustre, and in some cases regressive, approach of East Lothian, Carlisle, Birmingham, the London
borough of Westminster, Lincolnshire, Liverpool, Norfolk, Milton

(iarocu) said:

I use my MTB locally on the section of the West Highland Way between Milngavie and Drymen, and in
Mugdock Country Park.The WHW (this section) has "NO CYCLING" signs. Mugdock Country Park also has
many paths where cycling is banned. One path in particular crosses a boggy area on a boardwalk.
They erected twin vertical boards about 18" high at regular intervals to prevent cycling on this
section. This path is the only off road cycle route linking the park to the nearest town. The
alternate road routes would not be suitable for young children. This path blocking policy is at
odds with the councils web site which has a policy to promote cycling. As far as I know these "No
Cycling" signs are not enforcable. I certainly ignore them and I have never had any problems. But
no doubt some cyclists are deterred by these signs. So then no points for Stirling District
Council. Anybody else have local authorities with dual personalities. Iain

i am sure this sort of action sounds familiar to many.

but how involved are you and other cyclists with the council? i suspect they had numerous moans
about cyclists and took action tp address whatever the perceived problem was. if no-one came forward
and said 'hang on, this is daft', you can hardly blame them for going ahead.

i know from experience that motoring groups, oap groups and residents' associations watch local
council agendas like hawks. cycling groups and individuals just don't.

naturally, those that get involved will have their views taken into account far more easily than
those who don't.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:58:46 +0000 someone who may be "[Not
Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

i know from experience that motoring groups, oap groups and residents' associations watch local
council agendas like hawks. cycling groups and individuals just don't.

In Edinburgh the complaint is that cycling groups are far too organised and effective.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Quoted message said:

but how involved are you and other cyclists with the council? i suspect they had numerous moans
about cyclists and took action tp address whatever the perceived problem was. if no-one came
forward and said 'hang on, this is daft', you can hardly blame them for going ahead.

i know from experience that motoring groups, oap groups and residents' associations watch local
council agendas like hawks. cycling groups and individuals just don't.

Ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha.......

Having run the cycle liason groups for the East Riding of Yorkshite Council I can assure you many
authorities just see these as being talking shops to keep the local cycle campaigners quiet. Usually
absolutely NO notice is taken of the objections/reccommendation put forward by the cycling reps.

True what you say about resident's groups and so on though. Strange thing is LA's often seem willing
to go out of their way to pander to these groups. For example, when I worked for 'Deaf Eric' we were
lowering the speed limit on a busy section of road and we had cyclists representatives saying 'just
don't put in central traffic islands as most drivers will cut up cyclists at them'. The local
residents were saying 'put islands in, the needs of cyclists are less important then slowing drivers
down. They they go in (of course) and the residents then complained about being nicked for ignoring
the new speed limit and yes, the road becomes a no go area for cyclists due to drivers racing past
them at the pinchpoints... I could give many more examples but a look at my website is the best
place to read about them...

One valid point you make is that most cycle campaigning work is done by a few dedicated individuals
when then get written off by LA's as being nutters. What is really needed is lots more letters to
LA's and other groups from cyclists who are not associated with cycling groups and so might just be
regarded as being 'normal' members of the public with legitimate concerns. (Well as 'normal' as a
cyclists can be in the eyes of the average car-centric traffic engineer...).

On 18 Dec 2003 11:01:33 -0800, [email hidden] (Howard)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but how involved are you and other cyclists with the council? i suspect they had numerous moans
about cyclists and took action tp address whatever the perceived problem was. if no-one came
forward and said 'hang on, this is daft', you can hardly blame them for going ahead.

i know from experience that motoring groups, oap groups and residents' associations watch local
council agendas like hawks. cycling groups and individuals just don't.

Ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha.......

Having run the cycle liason groups for the East Riding of Yorkshite Council I can assure you many
authorities just see these as being talking shops to keep the local cycle campaigners quiet.
Usually absolutely NO notice is taken of the objections/reccommendation put forward by the
cycling reps.

agreed. cycle 'forums' are a complete waste of time - a safe ring fenced talking shop for the
lobbyists to let off steam and let the highways dept get on with the real business of building roads
and speeding traffic flow in peace.

if cycling is to be reflected in decisions and infrastructure then cyclists need to be there at the
Planning + Transportation cttee mtgs; making deputations and speaking to cllrs.

Quoted message said:

True what you say about resident's groups and so on though. Strange thing is LA's often seem
willing to go out of their way to pander to these groups.

residents' assocs are often easily linked to specific wards. often one of the easiest channels for a
cllr to *think* he is feeling the temperature of local opinion.

Quoted message said:

For example, when I worked for 'Deaf Eric' we were lowering the speed limit on a busy section of
road and we had cyclists representatives saying 'just don't put in central traffic islands as most
drivers will cut up cyclists at them'. The local residents were saying 'put islands in, the needs
of cyclists are less important then slowing drivers down. They they go in (of course) and the
residents then complained about being nicked for ignoring the new speed limit and yes, the road
becomes a no go area for cyclists due to drivers racing past them at the pinchpoints... I could
give many more examples but a look at my website is the best place to read about them...

have read your site and we have communicated via email in the past.

Quoted message said:

One valid point you make is that most cycle campaigning work is done by a few dedicated individuals
when then get written off by LA's as being nutters. What is really needed is lots more letters to
LA's and other groups from cyclists who are not associated with cycling groups and so might just be
regarded as being 'normal' members of the public with legitimate concerns. (Well as 'normal' as a
cyclists can be in the eyes of the average car-centric traffic engineer...).

exactly. until lots of individuals contact their council + their cllrs the few that do will be seen
as oddballs. cllrs have a wider constituancy to represent and will naturally ignore the 'outliers'.

what gets my goat is the number of posts to newsgroups, email lists, cycling magasines etc along the
line of 'look what my [censored] council just did'.

i write this as a fairly senior [in job, not age] local cllr who is less than optimistic of
achieving much for cyclists while they remain so apathetic. maybe it's different elsewhere but here
when i speak up for cyclists i am perceived as speaking pretty much for myself rather than any wider
part of the community.

Having been a Councilors for some years, in West Yorkshire, i have to say that cyclists are lazy
self centred and unwilling to work.

BUT they also moan groan and whinge worse than others.

We set up a forum for cyclists to meet Cllrs and officers, it has been attended by Chairman of major
committees, the number of cyclists dwindled and letters etc to cycling clubs go un answered.

An opportunity to develop a major cycle route through the district was only saved by the hard work
of horse riders, as only one other cyclist turned up to meetings.

The cyclists are out there, in sufficient numbers to influence decisions but they just can't
be bothered.

PHEW, feeling better already.

Martyn

Martyn Bolt said:

Having been a Councilors for some years, in West Yorkshire, i have to say that cyclists are lazy
self centred and unwilling to work.

That would explain why we're more likely to be house owners, to own a car, to be high-rate
taxpayers, and in fact to have just about any other indicator of affluence you like to name except
satellite TV ;-)

Quoted message said:

BUT they also moan groan and whinge worse than others.

That wouldn't be about the cycle "facilites" provided at great expense would it? Can't
imagine why...

Quoted message said:

We set up a forum for cyclists to meet Cllrs and officers, it has been attended by Chairman of
major committees, the number of cyclists dwindled and letters etc to cycling clubs go un answered.

What did the forum do? Did it result in a better approach to cycling? Did it take on the issue of
"faciltiies" designed to shunt us out of the way for the benefit of drivers? Did it take on the
issue of excessive speed? Did it tackle the problems of pinch points and traffic calming, and the
dangers they pose to cyclists? Or was it intended to be a rubber stamp for shared use footways and
off-road tracks?

More to the point, have you contacted the CTCs Benchmarking team yet? It seems to me that they are
The Men when it comes to helping councils develop cycling strategies.

Quoted message said:

The cyclists are out there, in sufficient numbers to influence decisions but they just can't be
bothered.

You should see my outbox. Full of letters and emails to MPs, newspapers, the Dft... I'm currently
writing the travel plan for the primary school of which I'm a governor.

Maybe your local cyclists' judgement was that the effort was better expended elsewhere. Or maybe you
have a particularly supine CTC DA. Or maybe there's something else going on.

I didn't volunteer for one of my local council's groups because the experience they asked for was in
leisure riding, particularly Sustrans-type routes and bridleways. That does not describe me at all.
I cycle every day, it's my normal mode of transport, almost exclusively on roads. If they'd given
any indication that my experience was welcome I'd have signed up.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:59:56 +0000 someone who may be Martyn Bolt
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Having been a Councilors for some years, in West Yorkshire, i have to say that cyclists are lazy
self centred and unwilling to work.

That will be why one of the most effective voluntary lobbying groups on transport in Scotland is
SPOKES, the Edinburgh and the Lothians cycle campaign. As well as undertaking vast amounts of
lobbying work they build and maintain some cycle paths. Indeed the North Edinburgh network of such
things, the largest in the UK, was started by SPOKES volunteers and then taken on by the council.

Quoted message said:

We set up a forum for cyclists to meet Cllrs and officers, it has been attended by Chairman of
major committees, the number of cyclists dwindled and letters etc to cycling clubs go un answered.

What lesson do you draw from this? Were I running the forum I might draw a simple lesson, we are not
doing anything useful for them, so they decided to spend their time on more productive activities.

Where I live the council have installed huge amounts of largely useless cycle lanes on the roads.
Lanes which encourage bad road positioning in many cases. Were the council actually interested in
cycling then they would have spent their time and my money on a programme of removing or taming
roundabouts, which are a great source of problems for cyclists. Not only will they not do this, they
continue to build the things, thus making cycling more difficult and dangerous.

How many of the Councillors, officers and Chairman of major committees have read Cyclecraft?

Quoted message said:

An opportunity to develop a major cycle route through the district was only saved by the hard work
of horse riders, as only one other cyclist turned up to meetings.

Cycling clubs, mentioned by you earlier, are unlikely to be interested in what sounds like a leisure
path. They are more likely to be interested in things like removing anti-cycling features in roads
(like roundabouts) and maintaining the roads properly (fixing potholes).

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Give the councilor a break, his points seem valid.

In the end it comes down to the level of commitment between the two parties and it is in both
parties interest to care. A two way process between the Council and cyclists, not a "talking shop".
We have one that works in Perth & Kinross and I much prefer P&K to Stirling Councils' attititude,
(whom the original message was complaining about.)

Just zis Guy said:

Martyn Bolt said:

Having been a Councilors for some years, in West Yorkshire, i have to say that cyclists are lazy
self centred and unwilling to work.

That would explain why we're more likely to be house owners, to own a car, to be high-rate
taxpayers, and in fact to have just about any other indicator of affluence you like to name except
satellite TV ;-)

Quoted message said:

BUT they also moan groan and whinge worse than others.

That wouldn't be about the cycle "facilites" provided at great expense would it? Can't
imagine why...

Quoted message said:

We set up a forum for cyclists to meet Cllrs and officers, it has been attended by Chairman of
major committees, the number of cyclists dwindled and letters etc to cycling clubs go un answered.

What did the forum do? Did it result in a better approach to cycling? Did it take on the issue of
"faciltiies" designed to shunt us out of the way for the benefit of drivers? Did it take on the
issue of excessive speed? Did it tackle the problems of pinch points and traffic calming, and the
dangers they pose to cyclists? Or was it intended to be a rubber stamp for shared use footways and
off-road tracks?

More to the point, have you contacted the CTCs Benchmarking team yet? It seems to me that they are
The Men when it comes to helping councils develop cycling strategies.

Quoted message said:

The cyclists are out there, in sufficient numbers to influence decisions but they just can't be
bothered.

You should see my outbox. Full of letters and emails to MPs, newspapers, the Dft... I'm currently
writing the travel plan for the primary school of which I'm a governor.

Maybe your local cyclists' judgement was that the effort was better expended elsewhere. Or maybe
you have a particularly supine CTC DA. Or maybe there's something else going on.

I didn't volunteer for one of my local council's groups because the experience they asked for was
in leisure riding, particularly Sustrans-type routes and bridleways. That does not describe me at
all. I cycle every day, it's my normal mode of transport, almost exclusively on roads. If they'd
given any indication that my experience was welcome I'd have signed up.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Wallace Shackleton said:

Give the councilor a break, his points seem valid.

Valid in what context? If the council are setting up bodies to design new shared-use paths, it's not
surprising that local cyclists want nothing to do with them. You will note that I did acknowledge a
number of possible interpretations. In my view laziness or apathy on the part of cyclists is not the
most plausible explanation for their failure to get involved with council-run cycling forums. As you
say, it works in some places. I have no reason to believe that the cyclist community is the thing
which is substantially different, whereas councils are known to vary greatly.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

It is up to the cyclists to say that these facilities are useless or just plain dangerous by the
methods you outlined earlier, perhaps apathy is the reason.

However the thought crossed my mind that perhaps the council contacted the local (Racing) Cycling
Clubs, who would want nothing to do with shared use footpaths etc.

Mountain bikers would not be all that interested either.... perhaps the council should have
contacted the local pavement cyclists club, the people who "really need" to be educated or helped
back onto the roads when they rightly belong.

Shared use footpaths can be a good thing, in the right places ;-)

So long as there is two way contact between cyclists and the Council Forums do work.

Just zis Guy said:

Wallace Shackleton said:

Give the councilor a break, his points seem valid.

Valid in what context? If the council are setting up bodies to design new shared-use paths, it's
not surprising that local cyclists want nothing to do with them. You will note that I did
acknowledge a number of possible interpretations. In my view laziness or apathy on the part of
cyclists is not the most plausible explanation for their failure to get involved with council-run
cycling forums. As you say, it works in some places. I have no reason to believe that the cyclist
community is the thing which is substantially different, whereas councils are known to vary
greatly.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Not Responding said:

this, however, is not my experience. i get masses of post demanding better car parking, faster
roads etc. i get *no* representation requesting better conditions for cycling.

I am (in theory) represented by 3 councillors. I wrote to all 3 of them a couple of years ago
requesting better conditions for cycling (following the inappropriate installation of bollards on
the Bath-Bristol cyclepath, on which cyclists were not consulted).

After writing to them a second time requesting a reply, one of them replied essentially saying that
he was not interested. The others never bothered to reply.

So you will understand that I am a little cynical regarding the value of contacting councillors on
cycling matters, although I usually turn up to evening cycle forums and consultations when I know
about them.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Wallace Shackleton said:

Shared use footpaths can be a good thing, in the right places ;-)

The circumstances being an area where pedestrians do not go, there are no driveways or street
furniture and no junctions, and maintenance of the path is up to carriageway standards, including
winter gritting...

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:48:18 +0000 someone who may be Wallace
Shackleton <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

It is up to the cyclists to say that these facilities are useless or just plain dangerous by the
methods you outlined earlier,

And if the council does not listen?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen scribed with passion and wit:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:48:18 +0000 someone who may be Wallace Shackleton
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

It is up to the cyclists to say that these facilities are useless or just plain dangerous by the
methods you outlined earlier,

And if the council does not listen?

See if the local press will?

--
Ian

catrike.co.ukcatrike.co.ukOpen ↗