Short Pieces by Steve Kinsella
On cycle training
Many motorists will not get out of their cars and on a bike because they feel safer in a car. And this is because THEY HAVE NOT TRAINED TO RIDE IN TRAFFIC. Many of the dangers and problems are due to bad cycling. Better cyclecraft, more bikes on the road, more respect from drivers - a virtuous circle.
Persuading drivers to change
Quadrupling the number of bikes, by transferring from car mode, represents 16% if drivers. We can ignore the remaining 84%; our objective is to persuade 16% to change.
On freight transport
From before I had my first bike, up to about 1960, nearly all freight was carried by rail, and was transferred into highly manoeuvrable small lorries (with one front wheel) to be taken to final destination. Probably the 'just in time' culture is a barrier to going back to that system. Heavy freight has a limited range of starting points and destinations. We should campaign for freight to be given its own routes and lanes - and returned to railways. And for lorries to be people-friendly (quiet, smooth sided almost down to ground level, driven courteously) - if buses and trams can be, so can lorries.
On Road improvements
Brunel Way, Bristol / North Somerset border
The cultural shift is needed first and foremost with those who plan and design road infrastructure and have the power and political responsibility to initiate change. Top of my list of immediate actions would be reduce traffic speeds at Brunel Way, the Bristol entry, and entering Weston super Mare. These were designed to move motor vehicles as fast as possible with no consideration at all of cycles. Add 'think bike' to the design and a different design emerges. I am concerned with the commuter routes into Bristol from A370 and A38. I don't want cyclists pushed onto dangerous slow little paths to intimidate pedestrians. I would like drivers to reduce speed at the approaches, for the slip roads and entry lanes to be re-angled so they are optimised for 15mph, roundabouts reduced to 1 lane, add traffic signals if necessary, and direction signs be added to the roads that can be read by those travelling at these lower speeds. Instead of these systems being invitations for motors to go faster, they would do the opposite. These schemes (and alterations) are designed by highway consultants - give them a new brief - 'optimise the road for cycle speeds and cycle safety' - and they will do the job. (They may need to take lessons from the Dutch, though). The problem is, as always, having the political will to get this done.
On culture change
A38
I suspect that if each NSCycle member itemises the cycling difficulties they are familiar with we would end up with a very long list. Of course this could be prioritised, but, to me, individual suggestions for improving bits of route represent symptoms of the illness in our transport system and culture. The more one looks, the more symptoms you will see. It is right to examine, count, shout out about the symptoms and deal with the worst. But we need to recognise these are symptoms only and while we deal with some others are springing up.
At root is our culture, which says to the vulnerable road user, "you have a duty to look after yourself". We need to change this to "road users have a responsibility to act in a way that does not endanger or intimidate others." For instance, cyclists should not endanger or intimidate pedestrians, and motorists and lorry drivers should not endanger cyclists.
Roundabout, Bristol Airport entrance
Some people advocate segregating the modes of transport. Segregation has some attractions. If we started from a world without roads we could define 3 modes according to speed - pedestrian, cycle, and motor vehicle, and we can imagine a triple system where every place is linked to everywhere else by three networks, passing over and under but only meeting at interchanges. Good? Two problems - 1) We are not starting from there - but we could try to add segregation to what we have - which is largely shared roads, a large portion of segregated motor routes, a portion of segregated pedestrian routes, and in UK very little segregated cycle route. 2) the second problem is the matter of power. A claim for segregation would no doubt be supported by the motor (read 'oil') lobby. In the inevitable battle for space, who would win? Cycling may have the moral high ground, but its numbers are immensely swamped by the all-powerful motor (oil) lobby - in a ratio of 4 to 96. (If 4% of traffic is cycle traffic). Asking for segregated cycle routes gives the motor lobby what it wants - the chance to say "even cyclists say the roads aren't safe for them - for their own safety BAN THEM FROM ROADS". What sort of culture change would that lead to?
The best chance is to cling on to what we already have - our established right to use the road.