There has
been a lot of debate about segregation recently. Notably on:
With all this ongoing I realised
I’m not entirely sure what my own position is on the subject. I’d reckon most
cyclists don’t know either. Dave Warnock’s post is along these lines – i.e.
trying to find which sides of each argument suits my own position and thinking.
I’d think that most cyclists would broadly agree with Dave’s findings, as I do,
especially the point that waiting for segregation will mean I miss out on the
benefits cycling can offer me today. But I do want every new piece of cycle
facility to be aimed at reducing my interaction with motorised traffic and
think segregation is the only way to go with cycling policy as long as its made
clear that its decent, properly designed, continuous segregation that is
provided. The obvious problem with that is that it would mean relocating road
space from motorists to cyclists & walkers.
One thing
that is never mentioned is that
integrationists are unbelievably outnumbered. Every single potential rider out
there, who doesn’t ride because they fear the road can be considered to be a
segregationist. If the UK implemented the facilities and rules that the
Netherlands has (or even followed the route that places such as New York are following)
then masses of these potential riders would begin to cycle. Why?, because the ratio
between cost and perceived safety would be reversed. It’s nothing to do with
sustainability and CO2, but entirely to do with providing Joe Bloggs and his
family with an alternative way to get from A to B without fear. As soon as it
makes more financial sense for the fearful to cycle instead of drive - they
will.
Take a look
at the Dutch. Dutch cycling policy isn’t about ecofluff and saving the planet.
It’s a fiscal policy pure and simple. It makes financial & social sense to
free your populace to be as mobile and time efficient as possible, whilst keeping
them all healthy, fit, happy and richer.
Vehicular
cycling is a reaction not a solution. I’m a vehicular cyclist, so is every
other cyclist in the UK. Not through choice, but through situation. I have no
other choice but to ride in heavy traffic and mix it with HGV’s, buses and 4x4's
on a daily basis. The only alternative would be to get on a train, bus or car
and immediately see my income eaten up by costs and my quality of life decline
as I not only have less money but I waste time waiting for unpleasant buses that never
come, packed trains that get cancelled or sit in traffic getting fat.
Segregation
as the Dutch have done is a solution not a reaction. It was done ‘in reaction’
to the influx of the motor car, but not as a reactionary measure to survive as
vehicular cycling is. The Dutch implemented segregation to solve the problem
created by motor cars and provide normal people with a way to get about without
fear or unfair costs or being killed at every junction.
Currently
for 99% of the UK population the perceived dangers presented by cycling so
heavily outweigh any of the advantages that even popping to the shops on a bike
is unthinkable, let alone doing their daily commute on a bicycle. None of those
people enjoy paying out for a train ticket that rises in price each year whilst
the service declines. None of them enjoy paying to sit on an uncomfortable noisy bus.
Nobody enjoys burning money through the exhaust whilst sitting in start stop
traffic for an hour each way every day. If these people had an alternative that
would cost them nothing in fares or fuel they would take it. The only way to
provide that alternative is with proper segregated cycle facilities on each and
every major road in the country along whilst eliminating rat runs and making
routes more permeable.
It’s
understandable why some cyclists in the UK are against segregation. They see
segregated paths as being a white line on an existing pavement, poorly dropped
kerbs, no priority over side roads and so on. And rightly so, because this is
what so many of the segregated ‘facilities’ are like in the UK. Here’s just one
example from Manchester. There are thousands more. (having trouble seeing it?, I'll give you a clue, it runs down the righthand side of the Bull's Head Pub) Or how about this fine example from Great Ancoats
View Larger Map
This is
shit. And does not, never would or never will get used by cyclists because not
only it is more dangerous than being on the road itself, it’s also more inconvenient
and unpleasant to ride on. The fear for existing cyclists that oppose
segregation is that facilities like this will be built if people shout for
segregation. It’s a genuine fear and even people who dream of having Dutch
style facilities (me!) know that this is Britain and the cynicism is well
founded.
Segregation
isn’t about facilities like this, it’s about a fundamental shift in the way our
towns and cities are treated by government and councils towards the Dutch
method. I don’t believe it will happen, but I’m free to wish for
it.
Properly
done segregation isn’t about benefitting us existing cyclists, it’s about creating
the only environment in which the other 99% of the population will feel safe to
cycle. The trouble for existing cyclists like myself is that whilst the Dutch
have spent 40 years building the most comprehensive cycle infrastructure on the
planet, the UK has spent 40 years going in the opposite direction. We aren’t
just 40 years behind the Dutch we are 80 years behind them and no living UK
cyclist has got that much time to wait for segregation. Doing ‘A Hembrow’
looks increasingly attractive. In the meantime we can only try to do our best
to improve the situation for cycling in Britain. For me that means suggesting
segregated facilities at every opportunity and making it clear that they should
be a certain kind of segregated infrastructure (not the shit kind).
This is why it's great to see Jim at the LoFidelityBicycleClub begin to setup a Cycling Embassy of Great Britain. I still believe the UK is much too far down the slippery slope, but at least this project might provide a focal point for those who don't see their own position represented by groups such as the CTC/LCC.
