Ambassador you're spoiling us…

OK so I was a "roadie" during the 60s, 70s and early 80s as opposed to a "tester" (time trialist) and a roadie as opposed to a mountain biker since then, and now I find that I am a roadie because I believe that I should be able to cycle in safety on the roads which go where I wish to go, as opposed to being provided with segregated routes. OK so I suppose I am a Roadie, despite having 3 mountain bikes alongside ? road bikes in my cellar and frequently using Sustrans and local authority segregated routes, when suitable, and that is where the problem is with segregated routes, as I have learned from 47yrs of commuting and using a bike as a means of transport as well as sport and leisure, non of the segregated routes are all weather (nor are many of the roads for that matter) So each to his/her own but I know of many roads where a bit of broken line white paint type cycle lane would make a world of difference at little cost.

@wildnorthlands: That's a great document for those who accept that "hierarchy of provision" is enough. I don't, and nor do many others.

HoP says: "We should try this, and if it fails, we should try this less good solution".

The alternative is to say: "Cyclists have differing perceptions of safety, and differing experience. Roadies' needs may be satisfied by traffic reduction and speed reduction. Others may require full segregation. We need to provide both."

Quote:

Channel your energy into helping the existing organisations. United we stand, divided we fall.

As someone who feels the existing organisations have their priorities totally confused when it comes to segregated cycling infrastructure I find this idea rather bizarre. Why would I support an organisation that doesn't really represent my views when there's a one (forming up) that does?

(Please don't get stuck with the following, but I couldn't help getting a feeling there's some parallels with two party politics - don't vote for a small party that best represents you, vote for the big one that's less bad than the other.)

I could post either an emotional or a rational response to this screed, but let's get the emotional one out of the way:

Now you know how it feels.

Those of us who believe in cycle-specific infrastructure, rather than fitting in on existing infrastructure designed primarily for cars, have been "criticised" and "denigrated" by CTC and Cyclenation for years. John Franklin's "take the lane" has been elevated from one guy's opinion into a mantra. Local councils have appreciated the single voice, it's true, but largely because hierarchy of provision is an excuse not to spend very much. (Our own county council has only just woken up, with LTP3, to the fact that cycling is still flatlining in their area and 10 years of HoP hasn't actually worked.)

Only Sustrans has been brave enough to say "hey, maybe we need to do something different" - and not just say it, do it. And look at the mud that roadies have flung at Sustrans over the last 15 years.

Co-operation is good, but that doesn't mean pretending that there's only one way to do it. And that's what CTC/Cyclenation have been espousing. Those who'd like to see real infrastructure change are fed up of being told "shut up, you'll drive us off the road" - yes, you've done exactly that, Carlton, on your own blog. We're not prepared to be muzzled any more.

Does that necessarily mean attacking other organisations? No, of course not. It means that the other organisations - CTC, Cyclenation, magazines and prominent bloggers alike - need to recognise there's a plurality of voices, and that they don't have a monopoly on the right answers.

@tony_farrelly See, here's the trouble: I don't think that Cyclenation has (as you put it) well thought out objectives.
Instead, I think that, much like the CTC, they aim to put better segregated paths pretty much at the back of their priorities.

The point I was clumsily trying to make is that many (most?) existing organisations don't even realise how their "well thought out objectives" can alienate so many people.

Nobody is striving for total and absolute segregation - it simply isn't possible. But don't you agree more DECENT segregated paths would be good?

I never claimed CTC and others don't have large membership. Instead, I stated outright that I have never seen any reason to join them as my perception, rightly or wrongly, is that they don't represent me, or cyclists like me.

That's where the CEoGB is different - they very obviously strive to represent cyclist like me, and that is one of their biggest attractions.

"We, the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain represent the everyday cyclist"

Ohh no you don't.

Who voted for these guys then?

Did they get this mandate in some farcical aquatic ceremony? Did some watery tart throw a sword at them?

WilliamNB the CTC does have 70,000 members doubt they are all roadies (have to say in my dealings with them over the years, met more tourers/ commuters/leisure riders and mountain bikers than anything else - surely British Cycling would be the most suitable organisation for roadies? Mind you they are in the midst of a big membership push to draw in leisure and beginner cyclists which is going to ramp up a lot post 2012 - they're aiming for 70,000 minimum too, and Sustrans has another 30,000 or so (and then there's the LCC). And what about CycleNation? They seem to have a similar set of well thought out objectives (see above), and a network of local activists on the ground.

Looking at it objectively how is the CE of GB going to command the attention of government and policy makers when much larger organisations representing tens of thousands of existing cyclists already seem to struggle to?

I'm not saying it can't be done I'm just genuinely interested to know how it can be achieved.

Carlton, I've made this comment on your blog, but I think you're being a little hypersensitive about "denigration."

Take this comment, for instance -

"It is an express aim of the Embassy to stop riding a bike on an errand to necessitate looking like a mardi gras carnival float."

You think this is "denigration of road cyclists".

Well, it isn't. Frankly I'm baffled as to how you could think it is. It's a comment about making it easier to ride to the shops without using high-viz clothing. That is - quite obviously - not an attack on people who choose to wear brightly coloured clothing.

I think you need to calm down a bit.

Carlton,
Here in Plymouth we get sub-standard "cycle facilities" passed off AFTER consultation with Sustrans & CTC.

The council flatly refuses to acknowledge that anything could possibly be wrong, as both CTC & Sustrans have "signed off" on what was delivered.

No, I don't believe either organisation actually prefers to have sub-standard rubbish put in place, but down here neither are putting up much of a visible fight, either.

In fact, a local CTC official advised me to NOT challenge poor facilities so much!

I'm not anti-roadie, except for those few roadie snobs that sneer down their noses at a Person on a Bicycle like me.
I'm not even anti-lycra and I believe our right to ride on roads must be jealously guarded.

I cycle in (for Plymouth) heavy traffic, on roads the council seems determined to make as hostile to cyclists as they can.

But d'you know what? I'd MUCH rather cycle on segregated and decent cycle paths. Only the existing organisations aren't doing much about fighting for those!

Actually I was a tad unfair there: Sustrans has done an amazing job with the Plym Valley cycle path & Drake's Trail (both NCN 27).

And while I love cycling those routes, they don't exactly help me commuting to work.

And THAT is where the difference lies:
The "old" cycling organisations SEEM content to settle for "reduction of traffic" 1st, etc. and have cycle lanes last.

By the way, will you be asking the "old" organisations what they will do with the cars they take of the road, too? After all, that is their stated top priority!

The "old" cycle organisations have very little to offer a cyclist like me: just a guy cycling on a bike, no special brands, no £2000 carbon frame, no stupidly-priced accessories (displayed as visibly as possible).

CTC may have started as a touring club, but they strike me as a club that caters to the roadies, not to people like me.

Now think about that: I'm a cyclist, and that's how they make me feel, so imagine how alienating they can seem to wannabe-cyclists.

You are right - too much fragmentation simply dilutes our efforts. And you are right, we simply won't get the infrastructure all of a sudden.

But you are wrong in defending the conduct of organisations that have strayed so far from normal people that they may as well almost not exist.

As so many have pointed out, we need to convince non-cyclists to start cycling, and I don't see CTC having a greater chance of making an impact that CEoGB.

In fact, I put it to you that the CEoGB is far more likely to get normal, non-cycling people to try out cycling, even if for no reason other than the fact that so many members of CEoGB are simply PoB's (and proud of it).

So perhaps YOU may wish to not be so divisive in your attacks on anything to do with cycling that falls outside of what has come to be expected in the UK to be the norm for cyclists.

Carlton

Please stop stating humorous comments I make as 'attacks' and please stop playing the victim mentality card.

Road.cc have very kindly offered to publish my response tomorrow (as i'm looking after my wife who is recovering from a back operation) so you'll just gave to wait

All the best

Jim Davis

We at cyclenation (the federation of cycle campaign groups) have been wrestling with how to reconcile these two "factions" (the "Vehicular cyclists" and the "segregationists") We have a new policy document in Draft, and would be interested in any comments. http://bit.ly/erecqA

We'll be posting a guest blog from Jim Davis of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain in response to Carlton soon.

I hadn't realised that it was either or, and not both. So we can either campaign for cycle friendly laws or improved infrastructure, but not both? What is wrong with another campaign group? The biggest factor in stopping people from using bicycle as a means of every day transport, is fear of motor traffic. Offering training, then suggesting that they should wear a helmet and hi viz, just doesn't work. There has to be a better way.

I think that this "CE of GB" is a symptom of the frustration that a lot of people who have experienced cycling campaigning feel. They put in an awful lot of effort to win local victories, which, whilst valuable, are actually pitifully small in scale when compared to what is spent on the rest of our transport infrastructure.

I thought that Cycling England was OK (before it was culled), but to get more people on bikes as part of everyday life a substantial proportion of the DfT's budget needs to be spent on cycling. Imagine what could happen if they spent 5% on cycling.

Carlton, your criticism seems to stem from a problem with CE of GB pushing for separated cycling provision. Two questions.

Can you point to one country in the world where vehicular cycling has achieved a modal share of 5% or more?

Should riding a bicycle as a means of transport be for everyone or is it just for the brave few?

Don't get me wrong though… not saying they shouldn't be pushing for the vision of change they want

Is this new momentum though if it the CE of GB is essentially pushing in the same direction as existing cycling bodies but with the added aim of achieving segregated cycling infrastructure itself something that's likely to divide the cycling community?

The cycling community certainly need to stand together, yes. As a campaigner - who has only recently climbed onto the cycling stage - I do not currently see this happening. We are fractured. Broken our backs? Too heavy a burden to bear?

The main question is this: for cycling to take off in Britain, we need to attract more people into cycling... and "how" is the question here.

Maybe some new momentum is needed.

Maybe change is good.