Conservative government “pursued poisonous culture wars” between cyclists and drivers, says new transport secretary – as Labour vows to “take back streets” for all road users

Infrastructure is essential. Paint is not infrastructure. 

I'm guessing the previous idea of banning cars completely didn't work out?  But you still seem to be hoping ("...it so easily could be made redundant.")  I don't think this one will fare any better (in isolation - more effective road policing and holding drivers to *some* standards are parts of overall change).

"Everybody admits that the problem is the behaviour and consequent murder/maiming of others by aggresive and inept drivists."

Well - that is a problem; certainly "lack of safety" is a commonly-cited reason for people not cycling.  However it's maybe not "the" problem (in fact the roads are actually statistically very safe in the UK compared to history / the rest of the world).  I suspect even if we could convince non-cyclists that nobody ever dies they still wouldn't cycle - it just doesn't feel pleasant or convenient to most.  And of course there are other reasons (already have a car, have built my life round it, driving gives me status etc.)

There are loads of things which are "obvious" and appear to be "open goals" but which just ... continue not happening.  Politics, yes - but that's basically the question - how to create the path from here to there?  Some otherwise "clearly true" bright ideas are simply not going to get over the first barrier ("why should I do something which seems to negatively affect me?").

If you didn't already I recommend the recent talk by Chris Boardman (mattw just posted this) which spends a lot of time on exactly this point - overcoming the barriers to politicians and bureacrats doing the right thing, and how to put this effectively to ordinary people.

Also - one of the "pull" factors of cycle infra is in fact "the stuff we then don't need to do because no motor vehicles" e.g. not having to stop at so many traffic lights (per junction, on a route).

chrisonabike wrote:

"Everybody admits that the problem is the behaviour and consequent murder/maiming of others by aggresive and inept drivists."

Well - that is a problem; certainly "lack of safety" is a commonly-cited reason for people not cycling.  However it's maybe not "the" problem (in fact the roads are actually statistically very safe in the UK compared to history / the rest of the world).  I suspect even if we could convince non-cyclists that nobody ever dies they still wouldn't cycle - it just doesn't feel pleasant or convenient to most.  And of course there are other reasons (already have a car, have built my life round it, driving gives me status etc.)

A desire to see more active travel is understandable but perhaps rather peripheral to the main issue, which is the death of circa 1800 people a year on the roads and the serious maiming of another 30,000 per year. (The problem exists over the rest of the humansphere, as over one million are killed annually by motorised road transport, and a similar large pro-rate number maimed).

Although this is a cycling forum it doesn't exist in a cultural vacuum where all that matters is getting people to cycle and buy the associated products whilst getting healthier. Even so, those ambitions would surely be furthered by dealing with the major problem of carmageddon and the associated motornormativity.

The fundamental issue is the nature of the car and similar - overpowered, far too fast, far too heavy and far too easy to obtain and drive in any old fashion one likes. But it would be an easy begining, relatively speaking, to deal with a core part of this fundamantal problem, which is the freedumb for carloons to do all that damage to others.

The other highly damaging aspects of motornormativitiy could also be addressd but as a lesser issue and one that'll take a lot more time & effort to arrange - a root & branch revision of the laws governing the power, speed, weight and access of and to cars.

Cycling infrastructure and all the issues of bad design and wasted costs is a distraction - a rag-bandage on the gaping wound of carmageddon.  It'll fix nothing of much consequence. Cyclists will still get killed on "their" infrastructure, just as peds have been killed on "theirs" for decades.

motonormativity is the cause of many of these deaths, people who shouldn't be driving are encouraged to by a lack of alternatives and a society happy to turn a blind eye until something goes wrong.
Law enforcement is just shutting the barn door once the horse has bolted, you can try and whip drivers into saints all you want but it'll never be as effective as reducing the number of drivers and increasing the physical separation between them and other road users.

Car Delenda Est wrote:

motonormativity is the cause of many of these deaths, people who shouldn't be driving are encouraged to by a lack of alternatives and a society happy to turn a blind eye until something goes wrong. Law enforcement is just shutting the barn door once the horse has bolted, you can try and whip drivers into saints all you want but it'll never be as effective as reducing the number of drivers and increasing the physical separation between them and other road users.

The best way to reduce the number of drivers is by removing the worst of them.

It certainly wouldn't hurt, but a) nature continually produces new fools and b) I suspect this is a "law of diminishing returns" - there are a (relatively) small number of drivers who cause a lot of mayhem but there are a vast number of "careful, competent " drivers but with a non-zero chance of doing something fatally stupid (because humans) and that may sum to the bulk of the number?

Ergo while policing is a part of it first try to reduce or at least better manage the interaction of humans in cars with those outside them - ideally also making those non-car journeys more attractive than driving (virtuous circle - getting less driving, so less problems, and more support / demand for further reducing the space allocated for driving etc.)

Of course "UK- style road safety" did the first part by "removing the vulnerable road users" entirely if possible but if not diverting them and giving the direct routes to motor traffic. The exact opposite is the better way.

chrisonabike wrote:

It certainly wouldn't hurt, but a) nature continually produces new fools and b) I suspect this is a "law of diminishing returns" - there are a (relatively) small number of drivers who cause a lot of mayhem but there are a vast number of "careful, competent " drivers but with a non-zero chance of doing something fatally stupid (because humans) and that may sum to the bulk of the number? Ergo while policing is a part of it first try to reduce or at least better manage the interaction of humans in cars with those outside them - ideally also making those non-car journeys more attractive than driving (virtuous circle - getting less driving, so less problems, and more support / demand for further reducing the space allocated for driving etc.) Of course "UK- style road safety" did the first part by "removing the vulnerable road users" entirely if possible but if not diverting them and giving the direct routes to motor traffic. The exact opposite is the better way.

I agree, though I think that removing the worst drivers may actually result in a better driving culture and thus improve things overall. e.g. if drivers think that there's a very good chance that they'll get caught using a mobile phone sooner or later, then they'll be less likely to do so

But apparently the mainstream in the UK has been basically happy with the death toll for years - we actually had one of the safest road systems, so much that it never impacts enough people. Heck even the US has folks who are broadly happy with their much worse death toll.

Great if enough people cared but I'm not sure this has been a major selling point for change anywhere since the 70s and NL's "stop de kindermoord" campaign (when they definitely did have shocking death toll).

As Chris Boardman points out people care about themselves and issues immediately affecting them. If you want support for "taking away" eg. driving convenience (lower speeds, less road space, making some routes one way) you have to offer some reasonably immediate benefit. Putting that in terms of "safe independent mobility for children" is probably the best selling point. I don't think saying "we're nicking more drivers" convinces people.

I just disagree with your last point - indeed I think it's a "perfect the enemy of better" point. In fact what the Dutch situation shows is you can have a major impact on safety (while still having mass motoring) - so much so that even with the greatest percentage of trips cycled - by far - in the "development world" - by fit, unfit, young, old, disabled people etc. - the rate of KSIs in crashes is still globally very good. (If you sent a similar number of children and pensioners out cycling on UK roads I don't think it would be pretty... but it doesn't matter because they just don't! )

chrisonabike wrote:

But apparently the mainstream in the UK has been basically happy with the death toll for years ....... As Chris Boardman points out people care about themselves and issues immediately affecting them....... I don't think saying "we're nicking more drivers" convinces people. 

The death & maiming toll has not been publicised to the degree it should be. I doubt that many would be happy with it if they knew about not just the numbers but the details. Motornormativity (news)papers over the awful & gory details - so perhaps the real issue centres on the conspiracy of various agents, particularly the gutter press, to portray all this death and maiming as normal-so-acceptable and "no ones fault - they're accidents".

People who are involved - victims, families, friends and even perpetrators - with the vast numbers of deaths & maimings will certainly be caring about themselves, as would others who are enabled to see and imagine themselves in such circumstances.

chrisonabike wrote:

In fact what the Dutch situation shows is you can have a major impact on safety (while still having mass motoring) -

You keep ignoring the motornormativity effects on all of those besides cyclists. The notion that seprate infrastructure will somehow solve the bigger problem of carmageddon ignores the damage they do to themselves and each other, along with the damage to cyclists 99% of whom probably don't live and cycle anywhere near such seprate cycling infrastructure.

Cugel wrote:

The death & maiming toll has not been publicised to the degree it should be. I doubt that many would be happy with it if they knew about not just the numbers but the details. Motornormativity (news)papers over the awful & gory details - so perhaps the real issue centres on the conspiracy of various agents, particularly the gutter press, to portray all this death and maiming as normal-so-acceptable and "no ones fault - they're accidents".

I agree - it's not publicised as it could be. BUT ... a) although there definitely *have* been conspiracies (eg. see the original PR triumph in victim-blaming - the US invention of "jaywalking") now I'd say it's less conspiracy more natural tendency of newspapers to publish "news" - *car crashes* just doesn't interest people apparently. b) ... and groups have been trying for time eg. Roadpeace, the Road Danger Reduction Forum etc.

Again - it's all very well to identify cars as the problem (even some politicians and councillors know that) - how do you get all those "careful drivers" to drive less, sometimes drive more slowly and give up "their" parking space?

EDIT split response so less lengthy...

Cugel wrote:

You keep ignoring the motornormativity effects on all of those besides cyclists. The notion that seprate infrastructure will somehow solve the bigger problem of carmageddon ignores the damage they do to themselves and each other, along with the damage to cyclists 99% of whom probably don't live and cycle anywhere near such seprate cycling infrastructure.

Nope - or at least I hope not. The "solution" is not "just" cycle infra (though that's necessary it isn't sufficient).

In fact the bigger part is the Dutch "Sustainable Safety" approach. That actually isn't "just bikes" or even just infra. It has delivered safety improvements for pedestrians and in fact drivers. Examples that do exactly what you're asking about are a) a ban on motorists overtaking into a lane of oncoming traffic (which can be physically prevented eg. like a motorway there's a barrier so you can't be tempted) b) pedestrians are even further from motor traffic because there is a cycle path between them and the road. (There are many more...)

Apparently NL is rated one of the safest places in the world for pedestrians - but maybe that's a coincidence? Or something to do with the windmills...?

There's also the effort to give people choices and make those attractive relative to driving eg. public transport improvements.

Getting people out of their cars and stopping them polluting, making noise, taking up space as well as killing people is in fact hard and needs lots of levers pulled. (But without pieces like cycle infra this gets nowhere).

Of course like everyone you and I work on "feeling" but you can of course go and experience NL, or other places. And look at the numbers.

Again the "Dutch way" has been proven to work - and deliver improvements in a step-by-step way so most places can indeed start from where they are now. In several different countries.

Still waiting on any large place just making driving disappear, or legislating peace on the streets...

Cugel wrote:

...

You keep ignoring the motornormativity effects on all of those besides cyclists. The notion that seprate infrastructure will somehow solve the bigger problem of carmageddon ignores the damage they do to themselves and each other, along with the damage to cyclists 99% of whom probably don't live and cycle anywhere near such seprate cycling infrastructure.

Separated infrastructure is an imporant step in getting people to travel via non-car means and thus it enables more questioning of motornormativity. This is one reason why I am a fan of e-scooter trials (despite all the problems with them) as it re-frames the narrative about how people get from A to B.

Indeed. Unfortunately like LTNs what was a simple term for a useful tool seems to have been seized upon by people and mischaracterised as the entirety of a plan for change. So "it can't work because it can't go everywhere". Either that or people use "perfect the enemy of better" arguments "people are still killed by motor traffic in NL therefore their changes were useless".

While there are apparent "solutions" which are false dawns in isolation * some things appear *necessary*. Without making "more cycling" a goal at the start I suspect something like it will emerge when people attempt to show how we can in practice get people out of cars / enable cheap and efficient *private* transport (which people seem to want).

There are some other ideas but I don't believe they exist large scale in reality (or their effects are minor). We need to guess what the "side effects" of these might be ... (Obviously there's a weird South African who's very keen to say the answer is autonomous taxis, seen some support here also...)

* Some ideas would limit improvements to a very low level ("shared space" / "shared use paths" without any further changes) or quickly hit diminishing returns / don't address some element of the problem (just focusing on "police it better" because a) we would need a LOT of police b) humans just go wrong from time to time c) doesn't address issues like people just don't want to cycle in fast or heavy traffic, and they'll still be driving.

chrisonabike wrote:

Indeed. Unfortunately like LTNs what was a simple term for a useful tool seems to have been seized upon by people and mischaracterised as the entirety of a plan for change. So "it can't work because it can't go everywhere". Either that or people use "perfect the enemy of better" arguments "people are still killed by motor traffic in NL therefore their changes were useless". While there are apparent "solutions" which are false dawns in isolation * some things appear *necessary*. Without making "more cycling" a goal at the start I suspect something like it will emerge when people attempt to show how we can in practice get people out of cars / enable cheap and efficient *private* transport (which people seem to want). There are some other ideas but I don't believe they exist large scale in reality (or their effects are minor). We need to guess what the "side effects" of these might be ... (Obviously there's a weird South African who's very keen to say the answer is autonomous taxis, seen some support here also...) * Some ideas would limit improvements to a very low level ("shared space" / "shared use paths" without any further changes) or quickly hit diminishing returns / don't address some element of the problem (just focusing on "police it better" because a) we would need a LOT of police b) humans just go wrong from time to time c) doesn't address issues like people just don't want to cycle in fast or heavy traffic, and they'll still be driving.

The problem is that a lot of people who are making a lot of noise about LTNs etc. are the people who realise that the dream of the private motor car is no longer practical and are desperately trying to stop any progress.

I definitely wouldn't trust the word of that South African bloke who appears to be Trump's dancing monkey. He created and pushed the whole "tunnel" company purely to sabotage cities from improving public transport - he knew it wasn't going to work, but just wanted to stop public transport from working well too.

In short, when people stop listening to the tripe that is shared on FaceBook and the like, they'll realise the actual state of things when they hop on a bike/scooter and just happily breeze past all the drivers stuck in traffic.

Cugel wrote:

Loadsa money for "cyling infrastructure" would be a waste of money, not because such "infrastructure" is useless but because it so easily could be made redundant. 

Everybody admits that the problem is the behaviour and consequent murder/maiming of others by aggresive and inept drivists. No one who wants to ride a bike is frightened by the road tarmac or white lines.  It's the carloons that are putting them off.

The carloons also murder and maim each other, peds, children playing, their passengers and those of other motorists, untold numbers of wild beasts and other people's dearly-loved pets. They are the fundamental cause of vast costs to the NHS, police and other public services; and a serious menace to the mental state of a vast number of the families & friends of the murdered/maimed too.

********************

The Answer, then, is so bluddy obvious - detect and prosecute the carloons, making oodles of money in the process from fines & car confiscations to pay for the costs of detection and prosecution. Extract more value from these criminals by making them public service slaves, rather than putting them in gaols costing taxpayers a fortune.

In reality, the only objection to such an approach is one of politics: no political party is brave enough to risk the votes of carloons and their supporters in implementing a true war not on motorists but those motorists who are a clear and present danger to everyone else, not least to other motorists and even themselves.

Quite. We don't want a war on motorists, we want a war on dangerous and inconsiderate motorists.

hawkinspeter wrote:

 Quite. We don't want a war on motorists, we want a war on dangerous and inconsiderate motorists. 

Nay sir, and twice nay.  Picking on the dangerous is not enough, not nearly. They should all be tarred with the same brush, every one of them and deported to that Australia, leaving the roads clear for me.

mike the bike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

 Quite. We don't want a war on motorists, we want a war on dangerous and inconsiderate motorists. 

Nay sir, and twice nay.  Picking on the dangerous is not enough, not nearly. They should all be tarred with the same brush, every one of them and deported to that Australia, leaving the roads clear for me.

I hear Rwanda has some accommodation available.

Road.cc's sister site already went...

https://off.road.cc/content/feature/discovering-rwanda-on-an-epic-bikepa...

World championships there next year. I understand it will be very safe...

John Forrester has never been right

KHAN!

You think the expansion of the 20mph speed limits have been a failure? You do know that the numbers of serious injuries on London's road network have fallen since these lower limits wer introduced and the LTN schemes widened don't you? In what way has Sadiq Khan been a failure?

OldRidgeback wrote:

In what way has Sadiq Khan been a failure?

Not creating space for more drivers, and stopping them speeding and killing people.  Funny kind of failure, but that's how some people view the world.

Sounds too much like "Share the roads"...