bilboburgler

Guys, I could really do with some help. Our lovely local village of Otley is a gateway to the Yorkshire Dales, close to Leeds city, Haworth, York and Saltaire. I'm trying to get the local council to provide us with bicycle paths to get more people riding, reduce obesity and make the town even more pleasant to visit. The attached link (and more links at the the bottom of each page) gives you an idea of opportunities.

http://bilboburgler.hubpages.com/hub...aths-Yorkshire

Any smart ideas on what else we should develop before I start bothering politicians??

PatrickLondon

Are these any help:

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/resources
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki

flanneruk

Couple of suggestions.

1. "Politicians" is a rather odd word to use for members of your town - or even Leeds City - council. Your ward councillors especially are simply members of the community who for some inexplicable reason are happy to get 1 am calls about overflowing dog poo bins. I'd strongly suggest you start off by getting to know the relevant councillors and environment officials. A substantial proportion of both, though probably adverse to spending money, will be emotionally on your side. Understanding their views, and establishing a decent relationship with the right people BEFORE a formal campaign, makes all campaigns more effective.

2. Do you really understand which councils you want to influence? I THINK you mostly need Leeds City approval and cash, and Otley's strong pressure (from memory the town council's got bugger all budget and planning authority, but nothing gets approved if the town's not on side)- but doesn't your plan involve North Yorks as well? Do you really understand the objections (your website reads as if you don't, and are - like far too many businessfolk - rather comtemptuous of them)? You'll get nowhere unless you can see your project through the eyes of the people who have to approve it, and those who have to pay for it.

3. Have you got models from Sustrans of how others have succeeded in getting paths going? Do you really need a 100% path: huge sums can get sucked up in striving for the perfect solution in, say, crossing a main road when you could just stop the path for 20 yds and leave the bikers to dismount for 30 seconds.

4. For the next decade, public-sector cash is going to be scarce. But look at UK sponsors for the Torch Relay and the weirder bits of the Jubilee and you can see there's a ton of other cash waiting to be prised out for a good enough case. Apart from lottery money (still huge) and local charitable foundations. Where I live, Big Society solutions get off the ground much faster than pitches for taxpayers' cash, and we've been amazed at how much sport-related cash there is for the grabbing.

5. Is obesity really the Killer Pitch? Don't know what the area footpaths are like, but doesn't walking fight obesity as effectively, for far less (footpaths cost the public purse virtually nothing). Might other pitches - like easier access, faster travel into Leeds, prettier landscape - tick other boxes and mobilise other (additional) support?

6. Do you have a project team? Half a dozen with mixed skills (like a lawyer, a Lib Dem or Labour party member, a countryside guru, someone who knows everyone in the town - like the key fundraiser for the school parents' association, or the primary school head - and someone plugged into sport cash networks) will get a wave going astonishingly fast.

Good luck. Being a one-man campaigner can be a real pain

flanneruk

One other thing. I mentioned leftish Party membership, because your town council is almost 100% LibDem or Labour. But where I live, the great resource in your kind of project is the huge, underestimated, mass of middle-aged Green Tories, especially those in semi-retirement.

The best network their way to little-publicised charitable foundations (or their own philanthropic stash) faster than you can say "no bloody time for eco-wimps, but no-one's going to change the view from our house while I'm alive. So bugger affordable housing"

caroline_edinburgh

This isn't meant to be disparaging at all, but does somewhere the size of Otley really need cycle tracks? I've only ever noticed them in big cities.

bilboburgler

Guys thank you so much for the feedback and Flanner you have it about right all the way. Your input has been invaluable.

Caroline, for me the issue is that I spend a lot of time biking in mainland Europe and there I see levels of 40% of all journeys by bike. Kids, old ladies, business people just use the bike. They are allowed to ride safely and the level of accidents per journey are very low.

In the UK I find riding a bike a nasty experience, I see car drivers getting frustrated and I see car parks full of cars and roads full of cars queuing to get to places.

I talk to people about why they do not ride short distances. Women, men and children explain that they find cycling is dangerous, often before they have even tried. I know that there is a clear connection between the numbers of people who ride bikes and the safety, the more riders the safer they are.

I don't want segregation, in fact I think the idea of going from 2012 with nothing to 2013 with segregated bike paths is crazy, but I do think riding a bike on the road should be safe for all and more should do it and that requires safe bike paths.

They do exist in big cities and in Europe they are everywhere, I can send so many links. My site www.mybikeguide.co.uk just opens a little window on the world.

caroline_edinburgh

Hi bilbo. I do understand what you mean about people thinking cycling on the roads is unsafe. When I lived in London I wouldn't have dreamed of cycling as it seemed far too dangerous; and in Edinburgh I did it for a bit but gave up as it felt too dangerous even with some cycle tracks. My point was just that I have only seen cycle tracks in big cities, so I'd have thought your chances of persuading the powers that be that they need them in a small town are not great. But I may be totally wrong - maybe there are lots of small towns with cycle tracks?

tipsygus

Bilbo around here in Kent we have footpaths with cycleways as an integral part. A line and pictogram painted on the pavement. Possibly a cheaper way of doing things.

annhig

bilbo - I know that this applies to London, but it might give you some idea of the procedures involved.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpar...ions/2766.aspx

ssachida

Hi bilbo,
I'm a cyclist in London and I've found that cycle lanes are generally more dangerous than regular traffic lanes. Here's why:
1. They provide a false sense of safety.
2. Cycle lanes often run adjacent to parked cars; leading to accidents when door open or cars pull out without signalling.
3. They often end abruptly, requiring the cyclist to suddenly merge into fast moving traffic.
4. They run along the edge of the road which also has rain drains and other metal grills and covers. These are both slippery when wet and instinctively cause a cyclist to swerve ... into traffic
5. People think nothing of using the cycle lane to park or stop to unload
6. At junctions, cars pull into the cycle lane before stopping to see if the road is clear.



I could go on... I avoid cycle lanes even when they do exist. That said, the bus+cycle lanes are pretty good.

A few years ago there was a drive to increase the number of cyclists to work. One thing that helped quite a bit was a cycling guide/mentor. People in various areas signed up to be mentors and offered to join up with the newbies in that area and cycle in with them. This showed them a good route, safe cycling practices and generally gave them confidence.

The safest thing a cyclist can do is behave like a car: Cycle in the middle of the lane, obey all traffic signs, and ignore the frustrations and honks of the car behind. Do NOT cycle on the edge of the road unless a car/van can safely overtake you in the same lane. When cycling is introduced to an area, it's as much about training the car/van drivers to accept cyclists as it is about training cyclists about safe and , yes, considerate riding.

Good luck!

PatrickLondon

>>The safest thing a cyclist can do is behave like a car:<<

Amen to that. Always make sure you're setting a clear line, try to match your speed more or less to the flow of traffic in general (not difficult on a lot of London streets), signal your intentions clearly (I have direction indicator lights on my bike now) and never try to sneak up on the inside of a big lorry. Wobbling along with your earphones in, or darting in and out of lanes as some mad couriers do, is asking for trouble.

bilboburgler

Yes guys I agree about the safety issues of bike lanes, the problems of people parking in them, undertaking into them or opening car doors into them.

I've also done a hub on stupid bike lanes. I could share the link but you've seen them, 5 metres long and end in a fence.

I also agree about taking a straight line but in my own riding, I add to this by
1) wearing a bright top with lots of dangling bits and pieces so air movement makes me very noticeable and bigger
2) no bike helmet, partially out of bloody-mindidness but also I believe that drivers are less careful about bicyclists in a helmet

My issue is more about getting those who could ride and don't ride, yet one more excuse (it's raining, it's hilly, I have a flat) is that no one else rides. The stats show that the more people ride the safer they all are so I need these non-riders to start and for that they need the extra perceived safety of bike lanes.

A guy called Graham Smith wrote this short article

UK suffered from national guidance* on road and housing layout which, from 1977 until 2007, helped create the situation we are trying to deal with. Even though most of the nation's roads are more than 40 years old, the thinking behind that guidance has influenced every street in the country. The former guidance, known as ‘DB32’ effectively 'laid the ground' such that housing, as well as retail, employment, health and recreation became formed into bigger and bigger independent clumps, accessible most easily by car and segregated by fast roads.

This resulted in strange conundrums, (based on - Commission for integrated Transport.)

e.g.

the UK’s overall road safety seems good

yet pedestrians are more than twice as likely to be killed in the UK as in the Netherlands
… perhaps because more of our pedestrians are travelling in cars, leaving the remainder exposed to greater danger.

We also travel less by bike than many other nations,

each year cyclists in the Netherlands cycle more than ten times as far as Britons yet
We have the lowest level of cycling among EU15 countries (2000)

We have (created) a nation which, almost alone in Europe, uses the car for an increasing proportion of journeys,

with more passengers in them,

yet we own fewer cars than other European countries with large populations. we have (often) poor bus services. England is denser (population/area) than the Netherlands.

Where

Not a huge lot can be done with the rubbish of 40 year's worth of development, and old engineering habits will take a while to change. But in the remainder of our older streets, we can change. The streets where cycle provisions are most needed, i.e. the busiest streets because they are used for most journeys, are the ones where less traffic and lower speeds are most needed. Slowly some of these are being changed to 20mph streets, but that isn’t slow enough for most people (not only current cyclists) to feel the street is safe enough.

How

One way to narrow a street is to take a painted, kerbside cycle lane and make it into a ‘built’ lane, halfway between footway and carriageway. Then this means the ubiquitous yellow lines can be painted outside this ‘hybrid’ lane. The highway is visually and physically narrowed, which will result in less traffic. In the normal maintenance of these busy streets, let’s guess between 10 and 20 years, most of them could benefit from a segregated provision. The maintenance programme is in continuous progress. Today London’s ‘cycle super-highways’ are mostly painted; in a couple of decades they could all be ‘hybrids’, at ‘no’ extra cost. The extra cost is an extra kerb, and the thinking to put it in place.

My issue is
1)

annhig

yet pedestrians are more than twice as likely to be killed in the UK as in the Netherlands
… perhaps because more of our pedestrians are travelling in cars, leaving the remainder exposed to greater danger.>>

I am surprised that there are not more fatalities caused by cyclists to pedestrians in Holland. on our recent trip the bike appeared to be king, and an king unfettered by rules and regulations at that. Delft was the worst - they would bear down silently upon us from all directions giving no thought for age or infirmity. [we had my 80 year old mother with us]. sometimes I thought that we were going to end up in a canal.

bilboburgler

I guess bikes are less likely to kill than cars/trucks

ssachida

>>the more people ride the safer they all are<<
hear hear.