“Why bother about evidence?” Cycling UK responds to Tory MPs’ call to end emergency active travel funding

You might want to double check the maths for the 5.5% calculation - I thinks its 55% or so.

Oops. 37million drivers population of UK66.65million so 55%.

Thanks

Thats why I hold back from the send button until I have checked and checked again.

I really feel that any letter protesting about this should have some citable facts in it. 

Any suggestions for would be scribes.

A useful resource for anyone who intends to write to their local authority / paper etc to help the 'silent majority' speak up for cycle lanes against the shouty minority is https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/ - lots of links to articles debunking myths like "shops will get less trade". And they have a "print your own anti-cycling bingo card".      

Jenova20 wrote:

“However, evidence shows that people who walk and cycle take more trips to the high street over the course of a month than people who drive."

That's a game-changer of an argument right there. These lobby groups will completely ignore that and make up arguments saying the opposite, because people will believe it just to hate on cyclists.

That is exactly what has happened over the past forty years at least.  Such schemes are opposed by local traders, not because trade will fall, it doesn't, but because they'll lose their parking place.  There are quite a few studies which show that local high streets are more dependent on pedestrians and cyclists than drivers, but the drivers will tell you the opposite.

And they shoot themselves in the foot.  A high street not too far from me, which has been blighted with awful traffic making it unpleasant to walk along and dangerous to cross for years,  was proposed to become a traffic calmed area couple of years ago. Many, but not all, of the side streets off it were to  become residents-only parking too. There would have been minimal short-stay parking on the high street (mainly disabled spaces and deliveries/loading  only), widened pavements, more trees, benches to sit on, places to lock cycles etc. The street is lined with artisinal shops, nice bars and cafes and these measures could have given it a european plaza type feel.  Most of the traders joined a campaign to get it stopped, on the basis that there is a Sainsbury's up the road and if people can't park close to their shops they won't come.  

Anyone I know who shops there goes specifically for the proper butchers or vegan stores or bakeries or cheese shop or wine merchants or offies and they might visit a few then have a few pints in a pub or visit a cafe; they definitely aren't weighing up whether it's there or a big supermarket. It's a different thing, not in direct competition.

Once social distancing became necessary, many of the bars/cafes/delis wanted to expand seating making use of outside space but there was no room for them to do so because their campaign got the original plans stopped.

My local high street had protests due to being shut for major roadworks...

All of the restaurants were involved claiming the temporary loss of parking + access (despite the nearby multistory being made free for the duration) would drive them bankrupt as noone could possibly get there...

Just the restaurants have more covers (EACH) than there are parking spaces... Given they are all fairly successful and have overlapping peak times it is impossible for most of there custom to be driving on a simple count of parking spaces, but they appear incapable of grasping this...

Well read the letter, badly written as it is and clearly wasnt proof read by the signatories properly, theres a piece where it suggests motorists and trucks hold opinions...I think they meant truckers but arent truckers motorists too...

Anyway 2/3rds of the letter is just FairFuelUKs (the lobbying group who are the public contact for this All Party Parliamentary group,& btw APPGs have no formal status in parliament) usual gripes about congestion zones and tax payers should pay less tax to drive,but have more say on how their less tax pays for more road building...sorry fairer road policy

The cycling part with its 'plethora' of words (seriously who uses plethora to describe anything let alone cycle lanes in the UK) which say almost next to nothing about cycling, is almost a false flag imo designed deliberately to create/provoke media exposure for the letter and FairFuelUKs aims. A letter signed by MPs complaining about tax or congestion zones (most of whose constituents arent impacted anyway) wouldnt end up as 'exclusive' storys in the newspapers, one that can be said to be about cycling and the changes encouraged by government makes it feel more relevant by editors.

Their gripe about cycling ltns,cycle lanes isnt even sustained in the letter as it concludes we need to develop a fair all road users strategy, and demands reassessment of the national and local road strategies.

If I were Grant Shapps I'd heartily agree with that call and first on the table for reassessment would be the 28 billion the government committed to road building. As the 250million to cycling isnt even 1% of that budget, and FairfuelUK claim cycling represents 4%, of road use, Shapps should now allocate 1billion from the UK roads investment into cycling, hows that for fairness...sadly governments rarely behave like that however much fun it would be,but hopefully they file the letter in the most appropriate place for its nonsense.

That would be the same Grant Schapps that allocated funding to a village in his Constituancy Area for active travel interventions and then pressed the local council to remove them again cos some locals wrote to him.

Awavey wrote:

The cycling part with its 'plethora' of words (seriously who uses plethora to describe anything let alone cycle lanes in the UK)

Me.

Totally agree with everything else though.

I delivered a plethora of baked goods to a friend earlier this evening.

I described it as that to her, and told my better half this too.

ktache wrote:

I delivered a plethora of baked goods to a friend earlier this evening.

I described it as that to her, and told my better half this too.

Well done; I don't feel so lonely now.

Bungle_52 wrote:

If motorists don't like cycle lanes all they have to do is to stop intimidating cyclists on the road and endangering their lives. They could even go as far as treating us with the respect we deserve for helping to cut congestion and helping to save the planet. We could then all use the roads together. Probem solved.

D'y'know, I have a sneaking suspicion that the ones who hate cycle lanes are the ones who do the intimidating.....

I recently e-mailed my local councillors along with my MP thanking them for the LTN measures in my neighbourhood and expressing many of the things you mention.  I feel that they probably usually hear from the vocal minority who are anti such measures so it's well worth doing.  I would recommned including your local councillors too, as they are likely to be the ones in a position to implement local schemes.

I agree that you should contact your local Cllrs as they are the ones voting through the change on a local level. They get plenty of abuse and negative correspondence so positive feedback is probably very welcome. Also contact your 'safer travel' team in your council. (They may be 'smarter travel' / 'active travel') They are the officers who are implementing the schemes. Let them know you support the schemes. And get all your friends to do the same. 

was frozen for the 10th year running at this years budget, so since 2011, worth around 1 billion every year, it fluctuates depending on the price of oil.

brooksby wrote:

"the All Party Parliamentary Group Fair Fuel for UK Motorists and Hauliers"

 

Erm - how many years have they had a freeze on fuel duty...?

Exactly this. The fuel duty freeze should be abolished before the end of this parliament, and only public transport should get any kind of fuel duty discount.

instead we have fuel that costs 15% less than it did 6 years ago. Any other costs people can point at that had had that sort o reduction?

The escalator was stopped at a time when oil prices were rising, so there was a doule increase, but oil prices have fallen and duty hasn't increased. Making driving cheaper than it was, while public transport costs have risen.

wycombewheeler wrote:

instead we have fuel that costs 15% less than it did 6 years ago.

Indeed ... it is only a couple of Summers ago that we transported my daughter to York weekly for a course (around 40 miles from us) and we would make sure to fill the tank at Morrisons just outside the city walls because it was less than £1.30 per litre whereas between £1.30 and £1.36 around us. 

Filled up at Asda near home last night for less than £1.10 per litre. 

This is not the way to disincentivise motor traffic. 

Second after the great war on CFCs.

NPlus1BikelightsNJerseys wrote:

Second after the great war on CFCs.

Chlorofluorocarbons?

What did those poor refridgerator gases ever do to you?

Not me personally, but many Australians developed skin cancer from their effects.