Over the past few years I’ve noticed a huge rise in the number of parents, particularly of younger pre-teenage children getting involved with cycle campaigning. This was particularly evident in the discussions at the November 2014 Cycle Ipswich meeting, where several parents commented about the problems that they have with cycling locally with children.

One of the local parents has had abuse shouted at her for cycling with children in Ipswich, with several noting that some people see cycling with children as child abuse. Yet in other parts of Ipswich there are some of the highest levels of cycling to school in the country due to the quality of the cycle infrastructure. There are some schools where letting or encouraging your kids to cycle is seen as a bad thing, however it is simply the lack of a suitable cycling environment, or the head teacher and/or governors not understanding the cyclists often choose alternative quieter routes, that cannot be used by car.

An interesting comment by the local MP Ben Gummer at the meeting was that he felt safer cycling in London, than in Ipswich. My wife on the other hand has the opposite opinion. So if the local politician avoids cycling locally, when they will happily cycling in central London, what hope have we with other people?

Parents are increasingly concerned about the school run, the obesity crisis, and safety on the roads when their kids cycle. There is an increasing recognition that streets could be much safer to allow kids to be able to cycle, whereas currently there are so many barriers to getting good quality, segregated cycling facilities that allow everyone to happily cycle without a fear of being killed or seriously injured at some point on the journey. Fake “20s plenty” school safety zones don’t make the roads safe for kids.

Of course one cheap solution, such as what is happening in Haddington, and Edinburgh, where the use of cars is banned on streets surrounding schools during school arrival and home times, would be much more likely to make it safer for kids.

I believe that the increasing number of people who are considering cycling with children as a mode of transport is helping to fuel the dramatic shift in cycle campaigning that has happened. There is still a long way to go until there is consistency by campaigners, council officials, and politicians in the recognition that the current infrastructure isn’t good enough, and there needs to be a dramatic improvement in the quality of the infrastructure to be able to get more people cycling.

On Sunday I was cycling from near Needham Market back towards Ipswich along National Cycle Route 51, when an incident occurred that reminded me of the Nice Way Code’s “Think Horse” video. It got me wondering what if car drivers had to treat me the same way I had to treat that horse?

As a bit of background to the video and campaign I’ll leave it for Bez/Beyond the Kerb’s excellent and detailed blog post, which is somehow not playing for me on YouTube any more.

The section of the cycle route I was cycling along is a bridleway with a couple of tire tracks. As I approached the horse, rider, and person walking the dog beside them, I slowed to the same pace as them in the hope that they would wave me past.

Shortly after the point in the picture above, the path curves around and then drops down the hill. The horse seemed a bit timid hence why I did just try to pass. The horse rider then turned round and asked me to wait until she’d got to the bottom, which I happily did.

Now going back to the Nice Way Code and the “Think horse” video. Does that mean if I’m at the bottom of a hill and feeling a bit scared by the drivers passing me, I can turn around and say that they need to wait at the bottom of the hill until I get to the top? I wonder how the driver would react? Would being able to do this encourage more people to be able to cycle? Or would drivers just think you are completely bonkers? Maybe it could be seen as a light punishment to all drivers for the few bad ones out there? Surely there can’t be anything wrong with tarring all motorists with the same brush?

[mapsmarker marker=”10″]

Yesterday afternoon I was out on a cycle ride with my wife from Ipswich to Colchester via Hadleigh and Sudbury. Most of the route was covered by either Sustrans or South Suffolk Cycle routes. Some of these routes run along busy B roads, with traffic speeds of up to 60 mph through the use of the national speed limit sign.

At one point I came across a junction where all the signs had been wiped out:

There were also various bits of squashed animal on the roads, some are meant to be quiet back lanes (instead seem to be rat runs), including the NCN1. I’ve not included any photos as it is rather gruesome.

This didn’t exactly fill me with any confidence that cycling along this road, the National Cycle Network Route 13 would actually be safe.

There were many cars that were driven at high speed and/or close past me, and on several occasions I feared that some driver would try and overtake when there wasn’t enough time, especially when there were many curves in the road thus short sight lines. Having cycled along the road before, I knew there was a turn off the B road and it just couldn’t come soon enough as by the time I had got there I was a little shaky. I really couldn’t see how anyone could allow children to cycle along that road, even so it’s part of the National Cycle Network.

This got me thinking about how to prevent these so called cycle routes being introduced in the first place.

Could councils be fined for having a signed cycle route or other direction encouraging cycling where cycle users would have to compete with motor traffic of more than 30 mph? How much would the fine be? Would £1 per metre be enough? How much would that be over a whole county? What happens if the council or police don’t then enforce the 30 mph speed limit? Would councils just ban cycling from many roads instead of reducing the speed limit to avoid the fines?

Of course the alternative is to build a Dutch style cycle track that runs parallel to the main road, thus car drivers can drive as fast as they like without having to deal with cycle users slowing them down, whilst cycle users can pootle along in a safe environment without a fear of being knocked down. It would also make the road feel safe enough that many more people would feel safe enough that they would switch from the car to a bike. I wonder how much it would cost for the councils to compulsory buy strips of land down farmers’ fields to be able to create safe cycle tracks?

Having been to many places now, I’ve started noticing a pattern of a particular itch or tingly feeling I get in my legs to hop on the bike and cycle somewhere, potentially aimlessly. Cycling aimlessly involves hopping on the bike and just randomly cycling wherever looks good. This desire usually comes from the quality of the cycle infrastructure, news about changes, or better said improvements to infrastructure, driver attitudes, and levels of motor traffic. This test will have different results for each person based on what they’ve heard, and their personal preferences with regard to safety, and speed of cycling etc.

I’ll give some examples:
I’ll start with the most obvious one. When taking a train through The Netherlands, I look out the window and see the high quality cycle infrastructure, and would prefer to be on my bike than on the train, even if it would take longer. On another trip I had a day in a town with not much to do, and I couldn’t find anything better than just randomly cycling around the streets and cycle paths. (I was on a budget, thus it was a good way to keep me occupied without spending money). While doing so I felt perfectly safe with no fear of being run over by some motor vehicle.

On a recent trip to New York, I wanted to see what all these bike lanes and tracks were all about, and to see what it like to cycle in the city. The desire to cycle wasn’t aways there, and I even had a couple of occasions where I was pushing the bike, such as around Times Square while cycling along Broadway from Central Park to about 11th Street. However I slowly got to know which streets and avenues where nicer to cycle on thus could switch to those instead. In general the avenues were better due to fewer traffic signal stops, and often being quieter, however the avenues had better cycle tracks (locally called lanes).

In London, I’ve come to know the nicer off road cycle paths and quieter back roads, thus have some desire to out and cycle, however aimlessly cycling randomly is a desire I generally lack due to the lack of infrastructure.

In Ipswich, Suffolk, I don’t get this desire to get out and cycle much. The majority of the roads have to be shared with motor vehicles. Where cycle lanes do exist, they are usually so narrow that I can’t fit in them, never mind having a buffer between myself and the overtaking motor vehicles. Where there are off road cycle tracks, there’s only the occasional one which is high quality. Normally though it turns out to be shared with pedestrians, whether completely shared or a painted line down the middle doesn’t make much difference, or the surface quality is extremely poor, such as the flagship National Cycle Network Route 1 being just mud in places.

There are a lot of MAMILS and other faster cyclists who are happy going out cycling in the Ipswich area in the evenings and weekends, however the level of commuting and

Aimlessly cycling is a desire I don’t get in Ipswich. Rather I have to somehow encourage myself to get out on the bike. Once I’m further out of Ipswich, or in an area where the traffic is quieter or there is cycle tracks (though very few exist – I’m not convinced the overuse of legalised pavement cycling counts) it does get nicer, and I start to enjoy it. Another way of phrasing aimless cycling would be leisure bike riding where you go out on a bike ride just for fun, and not.

I find the desire to randomly cycle is primarily based on the cycle infrastructure and the style of driving in each area. I suppose the test is a variation of The Copenhagenize Index comparing bicycle friendly cities, without the formal categories.

Would you agree with this desirability to cycle aimlessly test?

I’m increasingly finding that many people who want to cycle in Britain, have two options for their style of cycling. Note this doesn’t apply everywhere, however is particularly prevalent in Ipswich, Suffolk and other places that I’ve cycled.

If you are in the mood for cycling slower at a pootling pace, or have kids learning to cycle, you can use some pavements where cycling has been legalised. However when there are higher pedestrian flows, you’ll often have to travel slowly at walking pace, thus negating the advantage of cycling for those sections of the journey. This means the journey time is extended, and made more tedious and less enjoyable.

The alternative used by faster cyclists is to keep up with the speed of motor traffic and to take the lane. This would mean cycling at 20, 30 or more mph. I can manage the odd sprint at 20mph on the level, or 30mph on a downhill stretch, however it’s not something I can manage for longer sprints or whole journeys.

I have had occasions in the past where I’ve kept a fairly constant distance of a couple of bicycle lengths from the vehicle in front, and had the driver behind either honk their horn at me for being in the way, or dangerously overtake to squeeze in between me and the vehicle in front. Thus keeping your wits about you, taking the lane, and travelling at a similar speed to the vehicle in front doesn’t appear to be a valid option either, even so I’ve regularly been told to do this by experienced fast cyclists.

Being able to cycle at a speed between walking pace and motor vehicle pace is the ideal solution, however the current road environment in Ipswich and many other parts of Britain doesn’t make it easy to travel at a comfortable pace. For example being able to cycle somewhere without breaking into a big sweat, at a speed faster than walking pace.

Ipswich has a lot of pavements where cycling has been legalised, however you are generally having to negotiate pedestrians. I’m told that if you don’t like that, then you should be on the road, however I find that to be a horrible experience too, and it’s also dangerous due to the big metal boxes on wheels, that could kill me.

Quiet residential and service roads do allow for the middle pace of cycling, however they are often riddled with pinch points, traffic calming, rat runs, on-street car parking, or busy periods(or just lots of traffic). Thus these roads are often not perceived to be safe for cycling on by many would be cyclists, or parents wanting to let their kids to cycle.

Ipswich does have a few great bits of cycle infrastructure, such as a section of Rope Walk, which has been closed to through motor traffic, and pedestrians respect it due to the wide pavements, and the road like feel of it. There is a downside in that just to the north there is a rat run, which is on National Cycle Network Route 1, as drivers in the morning peak try to avoid a set of traffic lights. In the other direction, there’s a junction which has made it to the Warrington Cycling Facility of the Month.

Ravenswood and Kesgrave/Grange Farm are more recent housing estates in the Ipswich area, which have high quality cycle paths through the areas, limited through motor vehicle access, and some of the highest cycle to school rates in the country. However many of those people don’t venture out of the area by bike. The bike paths are just a 3 metre wide bit of tarmac with a white line down the middle, which simply isn’t wide enough for catering for both fast cyclists, and people wanting to cycle side by side talking to each other.

The new Ipswich Northern Fringe or Ipswich Garden Suburb, as it’s now called, is due to have high quality cycle paths throughout. A high quality cycle route is also needed from the new development in the north to the town centre, however it’s hard to find the best possible route that will be used, as any route that is chosen will need the through motor traffic removed due to the narrow streets and park (which is closed at night) in the way. My fear is that the compromise will produce a route which won’t entice the new residents on to their bikes or buses.

Finally, how do we get some of the current older cyclists, and campaigners who are happy with the current road conditions for cycling and are holding back campaigning for cycling facilities that will encourage more people to cycle, to accept that the current two tier system is inadequate?

Have you wondered how much your local authority would have to spend on cycling if the Get Britain Cycling report was implemented? Particularly the point about £10 to £20 per head of population per year.

Well wonder no longer as I’ve created a spreadsheet with the population for each local authority in Britain based on the last census.

Take a look at this Google doc that I’ve created: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LFoIdkcaxCmN2__mxu_jwb41l4jBnHrVi4kQD_as70I/edit?usp=sharing

You can search for your Local Authority in the Google Doc. How much infrastructure could be built in your area if this level of sustained  funding was implemented?

One of the big problems with the funding of cycle infrastructure in Britain, is that unlike other things it is rare for there to be a dedicated revenue budget for the cycle infrastructure. The City of Edinburgh Council is one of the notable exceptions who have allocated 5% of the transport budget and are increasing it over the next few years.

On the other hand in many other parts of Britain, such as Suffolk, cycle infrastructure is generally funded either through Section 106 money from new developments, or through bidding for specific projects with certain pots of money that get announced from central government from time to time. There is generally relatively little money in the main transport budget allocated to cycling beyond repairs.

With the Section 106 agreements the money from a single development is often so little that it won’t give a single improvement scheme, and the money if often banked until there are several developments that provide Section 106 money before a scheme is implemented. Also recent changes mean that it’s much easier for developers to not pay up, or argue that the demands are too onerous.

With the bidding process for the special pots of money that get announced from time to time, there are various problems with the system. It’s unknown when the next pot of money will be announced nor how much it will be. Often it will be short notice, so there won’t be enough time to draw up the bid in time for the bidding process or spending the money, such as when it’s got to be spent in the same financial year. I have heard of cases where the council officers ask local cycle campaigners a few days before the bid is due, which often isn’t enough time to respond. However councils and cycle campaigners can be organised and ready for this situation to occur.

Updated my "Investment in Cycling" page with LSTF2, Local Growth Fund, and LSTF £2m top-up from last month. http://t.co/7IfmR22Q1C

— Matt Turner (@Mattturner86) May 28, 2014

Matt Turner has a blog post listing all the announcements from central government highlighting investment in cycling, which he keeps up to date. However a lot of the funding is mixed with other sustainable transport funding, which means that that councils don’t have to spend the money on improving cycle infrastructure, thus it’s harder to come up with a figure of how much has been spent on cycling. It is also extremely complicated as to which pot of money can be used by each authority and for which purpose.

There is a hidden cost to the bidding process as council officers have to spend time speculatively writing up potential projects which will often just be rejected due to too many bids or poor quality rushed bids. It would be much better if they were spending their time on projects which were more likely to succeed.

In the past there have been network based plans of improvements, such as the LCN+ in London, however it wasn’t backed up with the regular funding needed to see through the completion of the network and often left out the hard bits, such as junctions. However if there is a single point on someone’s journey where they can’t cycle safely, the transport planners have failed them, as the bicycle user may just give up and revert back to the car as they don’t feel safe enough to ride a bike.

Of course this wouldn’t be a problem if cycling would have a significant revenue budget. This means that longer term plans could be much easier planned in over the longer term, as the transport planners and cycle campaigners know that there will be money available each year for cycling related improvements. It then becomes a problem of ensuring that the improvements are of a high quality, which is a much easier problem to solve than there being not enough money on a regular basis for ambitious improvements. Of course there could still be some form of bidding process for bigger pots of money for bigger projects, however that should be an exception rather than a rule.

Ideally councils would have £10 to £20 per head of population per year, to spend solely on cycle infrastructure so that Britain can catchup with The Netherlands and Denmark. These figures have been mentioned in the Get Britain Cycling report, and by a Lothians MSP. For Suffolk County Council with a population of 668553 at the last census, that would mean £6,685,530 (£6.6 million) to 13,371,060 (£13.3 million) per year available for cycling. Unfortunately Suffolk County Council don’t make it easy to find the transport budget, I can only presume that it sits in the “Economy, Skills & Environment” part, which stood at £77 million in the 2013-2014 financial year, thus hard to say how much of the transport budget it would engulf.