Good for business?

There's a lot of data around these days pointing out that cycling is good for business and that cycle-lanes drive up footfall etc

But I've been struck by how many new cycle-related businesses have started up in the past two years or so

My attempt to itemize them (much helped by this useful site) came up with:

3 new tour companies: Storybikes, Tartan bike tours and Edinburgh Bike Rides

Loads of new repair shops:  The Bike Garage,  the Bike Smith  Harts  Pedals &  Greasemonkey,

Bike sales:  A couple of  big national players -- Evans and Decathlon -- have opened up and   although the Bike Chain has sadly closed, the Bike co-op is keeping the shop open as a second Edinburgh branch.  There seem to be fewer new, independent retailers, but considering that we have a total of 14 already, perhaps that's not so surprising. One exception might be the redoubtable Laidback bikes, which  has now got a 'proper' shopfront in Marchmont. There is also a new second-hand dealer: Soulcycles.  Their website's a bit primitive, but like a lot of the newer shops, they're using facebook quite effectively to promote themselves.

Even one cafe: Ronde and two pubs:  Ventoux and Tourmalet....

Couldn't some enterprising researcher or journalist work out their contribution to the local economy, jobs, etc and quantify it for us?

Parent solidarity needed?

On Friday, I wrote two posts about cars/driving/traffic near my daughter's primary school.  Well worn territory for me, unfortunately (see 'school run' labels). That same day, the Guardian ran a piece about getting kids to school on bikes.

Nursery run!

All this fed into a couple of discussions on CityCyclingEdinburgh - one about a school which had 'banned' kids from riding to school  and another one where a lot of money has gone into building a turning circle in front of the school, apparently to facilitate car-based drop-offs.  But we also know of schools in the vicinity with really enthusiastic programmes supporting cycling and walking to school.    And in other places, the police and traffic wardens are supporting various initiatives - like adding double yellows to zigzags and banning cars from 300m from school entrances. 

This unevenness leads to the ridiculousness of kids being told in writing that they have to push their bikes to school, while just down the road, the Head Teacher at my school - despite being personally supportive - says that she can't do anything 'beyond her gate' i.e. all the parents who stop on the zig-zags and 'keep clears' and double-park in the road to drop off their kids.

But it's not just that these policies are random and  incoherent, and that enforcement varies greatly, but also that groups of parents feel isolated and  uncertain of what their rights are, or what other schools are doing to change things.

There seems to be some momentum for a city-wide meeting of parents to discuss how different schools deal with such issues and what lessons can be garnered.  I'd also like to have some representation from Council, either from the road safety or active travel teams, as they have a lot of knowledge and experience.

There's a couple of different issues bundled in here - encouraging more kids/parents to use active travel to get to school where appropriate but also making the streets around schools safer in general.  We all know how quieter and safer the streets feel when the schools are on holiday, but it shouldn't be like that. I'd like to see them safer when the kids are on them, not when they're at home or in the park playing!

If you'd be interested in getting involved, or just attending a meeting to share ideas, please get in touch via comments, twitter, or email.

Why people stop cycling...

View Larger Map


This is a lovely intersection that I go through most mornings. There are at least 3 primary schools in the vicinity, and myriads of nurseries. It's also a main throughfare between two much used parts of the off-road network. So lots of bikes, and as you can see, a pretty decent layout for cyclists wanting to cross at the Toucan crossing.

But, earlier this year a neighbour of mine was knocked off here by a supermarket delivery van turning left. My friend was going straight on like the royal mail van.  (Oh, and he thought he was okay, but was later rushed into hospital for emergency surgery). Not nice.

And then this morning, as I coasted up the little ramp on the left, I saw a dad with a bright eyed toddler on the back nearly get left-hooked in exactly the same place by a blue Volkswagon that, just like the Tesco van, some how 'didn't see' the cyclist who had been coming straight down the hill for some distance.

This wasn't a cyclist who had just nipped into the car's near-side or anything else.  The dad had been cycling safely and carefully along. The kid had give me a big wide-eyed look as they went by, clearly enjoying the ride. And it came so close to tragedy.   Just because of inattention on the driver's part.

I really hope this dad doesn't stop cycling his wee boy to nursery, but I wouldn't blame him if he did.

Keep clear?

Yesterday and today I found myself stopping to take pictures of vehicles parked on the 'keep clear' area at the end of Montpelier, where there is a cycle-cut through to Viewforth (googlemap link here).  For those who don't know it, it is one of the main routes to Bruntsfield Primary school with hundreds of little kids coming through every morning, and also the route between the main Boroughmuir secondary school building and a smaller annexe.  So, well used by vulnerable road users.

Yesterday  there was a big scaffolding lorry completely blocking the space, stopped for an extended time, but with engine still running. Another mum on a bike came through just after me and commented that she was worried it was going to reverse into her.  But a look at the cab showed the drivers were stopped for a fag and tea break.  

Today it was 'merely' a white van, but knowing the difficulty that most of the cars that usually use that 'turning circle' have in making a 3 point turn, I'm inclined to think they're also causing an obstruction.

Ironically, both vehicles are most likely connected to the construction work on the school, so found a nice 'safe' spot to keep out of the way until the kids were safely inside.  But the keep clear being blocked means that all those parents who feel a compulsion to drive into the dead-end, so that they can drop their kids at the second gate then had to reverse back over the pedestrian crossing in front of the school.  And their doing that then lead to other parents reversing back over the other pedestrian crossing.  While hundreds of little kids were streaming across and into the school.

The thing is,  if the parents 'learned' that they couldn't expect to turn at the bottom of the road, maybe they would stop driving in there?  Because actually, they're much more of a menace to the kids and parents at the school than these vehicles are 'parked'.

And that's the real irony.  Police and traffic wardens would be happy to ticket these vehicles for being illegally stopped, but my efforts to get some back up which would discourage parents from driving in front of the school have simply led to platitudes in the school newsletter and some clever banners on the railings, with no discernible effect.

Not much has changed...everything has changed.

Two and a half years ago, Edinburgh launched its Active Travel Action Plan.  In many ways, it's not a bad plan.  But it hasn't aged well, and the current review process is showing this up all too clearly.

First,  nothing much has changed. Of the things that I really wanted to see implemented via ATAP, very few have even begun.  Some of these are really small interventions like public bike counters (or just publishing the data that exists!), removing 'guard' railings, cycle contraflows on one-way streets, and tackling footway parking.  Others where we have seen incremental change include a piloted 20 mph zones (which leaves out all the big roads) and  better cycle parking (but not in the city centre!).

However, the star attraction of ATAP (or drawback for some), was the plan for a 'family network' (see map on page 23 of this pdf).  This approach comes in for a lot of criticism for directing cyclists along quiet roads, without doing anything much to improve the big roads that we all need to use to get to school, work and shopping.  I'm not convinced that this is an entirely fair criticism of Edinburgh's plan.  Our family network has the potential to be a lot more than that. Because we already have the extensive off-road network, the network was proposed to link up various bits of the city.  Right now, from where I live in south-west Edinburgh, near the canal, we can cycle to the beach at Cramond, or the Botanics, or Leith, or out to Musselburgh and go most of the way on lovely, well-maintained off-road paths.  But the remaining 10% of our journey is on scary, fast, poorly designed roads.

A few weeks ago, we had a lovely family cycle to Cramond. When we got there, we ran into a lot of people who live around us. They had all driven there so that their kids could cycle up and down the promenade.  Ironically, we'd probably gotten there faster - or certainly not much slower.  But they didn't feel that they could put their kids on the road even for that short section.

The Family Network is supposed to link all those bits up, so that you can go across town with your kids - faster than the buses - and not feel like a bad parent for risking their lives.  On page 22 of this pdf  you can read a list of the connecting bits that are prioritized for rapid completion. One of these has been done - an off-road connector between Leith and Portobello.  By all accounts it is a fantastic addition, and already encouraging new cyclists to start cycling regularly.

But none of the rest has been done.  And my concern is that plans for those mainly involve paint on roads, and that simply isn't going to get the South Edinburgh equivalent of the busy Mum who now cycles from Leith to work in Portobello on her bike, and certainly not if she has her kids in tow.

To look at just one example: the link from the Union Canal to the Russell Road access for the North Edinburgh Path Network. To anyone who knows this route, it is the most obvious, amazing access from South Edinburgh to the North (on the link above chose 'fastest route').  The Council's take on it is that there is an expensive off-road option that involves old railway infrastructure, OR a cheap on road access.  And, if you look carefully at the on-road access (very hard to see because the map is so tiny), it appears to take you on a twisty route through the car parks of various housing estates, Dundee Terrace, and then down the Telfer subway to the Dalry Road.  This is a massive diversion, and no real improvement if it just means paint on roads.  I dare you to find a parent who currently doesn't let their kids cycle on the road, who says this would make the slightest difference to them.

When I asked why not just make the direct route safer for cyclists, I was told 'we'd have to take road-space away from cars'.

There you have it folks.  Why Edinburgh's Family Network and Active Travel Action Plan - as presently being implemented - will never make more than incremental change to the number of cyclists on our streets.

We can have off-road cyclepaths -- where developments permit, or old infrastructure can be amended -- and on-road paint and signs, but we won't redesign roads so as to take roadspace away from cars.

This is where we come to what has changed since ATAP was launched.  Not in Edinburgh, but everywhere else.  In London, Chicago, New York, even Detroit, roadspace is being re-allocated away from cars to bikes, with spectacular results for local businesses and communities.  Edinburgh needs to realize that while their plans are still stuck in the past, the environment has moved on.

A Cycling High Heid Yin?

I was sent this picture earlier today.  It's a salutary reminder of how far we have come.  On Monday, Spokes is holding a public meeting about 'the future of local transport', and an MSP and a local councillor are speaking.  The MSP is co-convenor of the newly created Cross-party group on cycling, while the Councillor is deputy transport convenor, with a specific responsibility for cycling.  It's a long way from local government with no real interest in or commitment to cycling, that led Spokes to cancel their 1980 meeting.

But despite all the remarkable changes -- most visible to many of us in the gritting of cycle paths this winter -- one conversation keeps recurring in different contexts.  And that's people saying - where's the blockage?   Is it the officials or the politicians?

Because somehow, despite the budget commitments, the explicit commitment by many Councillors, the good-natured cycling officers, the transport forum, a much lauded Active Travel Action Plan (ATAP), not much has really changed for cycling in Edinburgh in the 5 or so years that I've been back on the road (I was too scared to cycle here when we first moved here, despite having cycled in Canada, England and Zimbabwe).

The launch of the ATAP more or less coincided with my first foray  into cycle campaigning - at a Spokes meeting, where I suggested that maybe cyclelanes with parking bays painted on top of them shouldn't be counted in our grand total of 'x number of miles of cycle lanes'.  This seemed radical then, but I'm not sure it was, nor that it should have been.  When I pursued the issue, the then transport convenor told me that it was no longer council policy to put cycle lanes in where they could be parked on.

But where have we gone since?  There are no on-road segregated paths.. There are no mandatory cycle-lanes (ie ones that cars must stay out of).  Instead, we get the 'quality' bike corridor, where the painted lanes sometimes go around parking bays instead of straight through them.

I think this captures the issue that people are trying to get at, when they say 'where's the blockage? what is holding us back'?  There are valid points made about budgets, about a shortage of manpower, and many other issues that explain the failure to implement more than a tiny fraction of ATAP so far.

But the bigger question is, why has our vision stayed so stagnant?  Why are hesitant commitments to 'consider' cycle infrastructure only accomplished after great lobbying efforts?  Why is cycling infrastructure still not integrated into all planning?  It remains an after thought, a box-ticking exercise - despite all the good will at Council.

All this leads me to think that we need a cycling champion to overcome these roadblocks.  To knock heads together. To change how we think about cycling and to connect up all the synergies.  I'm not usually enamoured with this very English approach to policy-making, but if the alternative is wasting the enthusiasm and goodwill that is currently present, then I think we should consider it.  I suppose we'd need to call it something more Scottish though - how about a Cycling High Heid Yin?

In the meantime, I'm very much looking forward to this week's Spokes meeting.

A letter to my councillors

My planned blog about cycle advocacy strategies has been hijacked by computer malfunction and the need to write to my councillors.  So I'm taking a leaf out of Dave McCraw's book, and posting my letter here (but do read Dave's too): 


I understand that the Council is taking several important decisions in the next few days and weeks that will very much affect transport and cycling in Edinburgh. As you know, I think the council's made some amazing strides forward in recent years and that we are moving in the right direction.  Indeed, I had a message on facebook only this morning from an old friend in Canada, who was absolutely flabbergasted when he heard that Edinburgh was committing 6% of its transport budget to cycling.  He's trying to convince his city to commit 1% and not getting
very far. So, I know you're doing something right!

Nonetheless, I do wish to emphasize how important it is that any  major shifts in Edinburgh get things right this time, and not require further tinkering and costly remedial adjustments.  In particular, this relates to both Princes Street and Leith walk.  We have a real opportunity here, and it matters that we get it right, if we are to enable cycling  in Edinburgh, with all the concomitant benefits - including for businesses.

I understand that the current plan for the redesign of Princes St and George St basically treats cyclists like cars, but provides some extra segregation on George Street. While the segregated path is obviously beneficial, banning cycles from Princes Street eastwards is really retrograde.  This is not how Copenhagen or any other city has supported and encouraged cycling.  Instead, what we see is the widespread and extensive provision of cycling contraflows, of two way segregated paths, and/or cycling encouraged in pedestrianized areas.  Cyclists are not drivers - they are mobile shoppers who will stop at markets, browse stalls, and pop into cafes.  We want to encourage this, not erect 'no cycling' signs right outside Waverley as a greeting to arriving tourists!

It is thus vitally important that the 'steer' the Transport Cttee gives to the proposed plan is one which emphasizes the importance of making cyclists and pedestrians welcome in the city centre. I used to cycle
down to Princes street a lot for shopping and I look forward to being able to do so again.  But I am convinced that the future of the city centre depends on making this easy, safe, and fun to do, not by restricting access unnecessarily.

I understand that the Transport Cttee is also considering the proposals for Leith Walk.  I have contacted you on this before, and have made my input through the consultation process.  I would simply add at this point, that if we are really serious about making Edinburgh a cycling city, Leith Walk is an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss. It is one of the scariest roads in the city to cycle on, and not very pleasant to walk either (as I did for 5 years), but it has such potential, both in terms of its width and the wonderful shops and neighborhoods.  Again, let's remember all the research indicating how shops and restaurants elsewhere have benefitted financially once
segregated cycle paths were installed.  And remember also that as in London, a remarkably high proportion of residents in and around Leith Walk, are not car owners.  Whether they choose to walk, cycle or bus, these residents will benefit from cyclepaths beside the footpaths.

I'm sure you've  read the London vision for cycling - and compared it to ATAP.  Edinburgh gets mentioned rightly for its financial commitment to cycing, but let's make sure that we spend that money wisely on good quality infrastructure (which is not necessarily expensive infrastructure), rather than risk another farce like the QBC.  While retrofitting infrastructure can be expensive, the Leith Walk proposals are an amazing opportunity to move forward and integrate cycling into our travel plans, in a way that we have rarely been able to do.

Apologies for this long message.  Please don't feel you need to reply, but I do hope you will bear these points in mind when you and your respective parties make decisions, and especially in consultation with your colleagues who sit on the Transport Committee.

All best wishes,

What's so bad about the QBC?

London's announcement seems to have rekindled the debate (on forums, blogs, twitter and even in the comments on my last blog post) about the so-called Quality Bike Corridor (QBC) which runs through south Edinburgh. It's been touted as a great improvement, and much money was spent on it. But since it opened the outcry has been loud and sustained. Even the council leader has weighed in, rather critically in fact.

It has also amplified divisions - or at least articulated them - between Spokes, the doughty cycle campaigners, and a variety of other voices. After reading some of the exchanges, you'd be forgiven for thinking that we were all at each other's throats. That's not really the case - we all respect Spokes' dogged persistence and reliable data.  Many things have happened for the better in Edinburgh because of Spoke's interventions, despite being run on a shoestring of a budget, and entirely based on volunteers.

The basic position though, is that while pretty much everyone agrees that the QBC is simply not good enough to get kids etc cycling safely, Spokes argues that their data suggests it may have nonetheless increased cycling levels, and hence is still a good thing, if less good than it could be.  Others suggest that it is a total waste of money.

I'm not totally convinced that the QBC explains the cycling data, but it may be that Spokes is right that the QBC by virtue of its presence, and the publicity given to it, has enabled some cyclists.

The problem though is that the QBC ought to be the most basic level of cycle infrastructure - the lowest common denominator - while it is being touted as an improvement.  In fact, given that part of the QBC doesn't even have an on-road lane painted on it, it might not merit even that. But, it doesn't have parking bays painted on top of the lane. There are some restrictions on stopping and loading.  Both of those make it better than many other cycle lanes in Edinburgh. But that's not saying much.

Several years ago, at my first foray into bike campaigning, I challenged the then transport convener about the bike lanes that had parking bays on them.  He admitted that they were less than optimal and said that Council policy had changed and that they would no longer build cycle lanes with metered bays on top. The QBC is clearly the outcome of that policy.

Rather than saying - 'Look at the QBC, it's so great!'  maybe we should be saying 'the QBC's a bit better than the lanes elsewhere in the city, but it's not good enough'.

As others have said, it may provide some sort of support for determined/experienced cyclists, but it is not the sort of infrastructure that will get more 'timid' cyclists out, and keep them on their bikes - and that's what we need, and what the Council needs to invest in.  Let's not aim for the LCD any more.

What's the difference between London & Edinburgh?

Reading Boris' vision for cycling in London was a revelation.  Not because I believe it will all happen, or that funding's in place for it all, but because the tone was so different from what we have heard and seen elsewhere.  Edinburgh's put its money where its mouth is and committed 6% of the transport budget - capital and recurrent - to cycling.  And we've already seen the effect of this - particularly in the gritted cycle paths that made such a difference this year.

But Boris' vision simply felt different.  My husband described it as a 'wishlist' for cyclists. But it wasn't just that they bodged in all sorts of good stuff.  Rather, it felt joined-up as a policy.  Not just a tick-list but thinking about what was needed.  I have blogged before about the need to integrate cyclists into urban planning - this plan feels like it really does that, with a commitment to a properly funded junction review, redesign of town centres, and  revising design standards.  While the Scottish CAPS foregrounds 'training', the London vision sees it as merely an add-on to other important aspects of the scheme. We've asked for infrastructure to be joined up, but here not only is infrastructure joined up, but so is the policy.

Despite all that good stuff, the real difference in the London plan to Edinburgh's ATAP was one of tone, and that tone is at least in part a reflection of one important difference.  In London, it is accepted that the most efficient way to get somewhere is not necessarily a private motor vehicle.  And car-parking does not seem to be taken as the same sort of 'right' by residents - or at least that's how the local press portrays it.  I've seen so many more cyclists around - especially lots with child seats, that I think this is changing, but it's not reflected in our public discourse, or in our policy formulation.

London planners and politicians are starting from a different place, emotionally and strategically.  The census data in London showed very clearly that car ownership and use has fallen dramatically in recent years across all demographics and political orientations. Add to that, London's over-used and overcrowded public transport system - again used by every variety of commuter.  Boris' vision is compelling because he sells it as something that is good for everyone - this is a win-win policy.

A lot has been made of the role of cycle bloggers in pushing policy change.  But the other big difference between Edinburgh and London is that in London, the local media is on-board.  In Edinburgh, the politicians continue to run scared of the local media, which - with very few exceptions - is heavily pro-car and loves to bash the council.

I don't think these differences are unsurmountable, but the Council and its officials need to get their heads around the idea that Active Travel can be a 'vote-winner' (as I heard the Deputy Transport Convenor say recently), and, as residents, readers and consumers, we need to make sure that the incremental changes in how we travel are reflected in policy-making and public debates.

What does it take to make cyclists happy?

What does it take to make cyclists happy?

Dropped kerbs.

Photo courtesy of chdot via flickr

Honestly.

You think that sounds silly?  On the one hand, I agree with you. With fatalities from crashes and obesity epidemics, you'd be right to think that we need to think big about safety and supporting novice cyclists.  And that's going on too (keep Sunday 19th of May clear in your diaries).

But sometimes the smallest victories are the sweetest. And this week, a dropped kerb that I've written many emails and tweets about was finally installed.

It may not look like much, but it is one of the main access points to Harrison Park and the Union canal towpath.  This means that hundreds of commuters and leisure cyclists use it everyday.  And, anyone who's tried to get a bike with a childseat, tagalong, or trailer up (or down) a dropped kerb, knows just how much harder that is.

The depressing thing is that this bit of kerb had actually been dug up and replaced a year or so ago, well after this kerb was supposed to be on a list of planned improvements in the area.  Like the pothole patching I blogged about earlier in the year, it is just such a waste.

More pics in my flickr stream 

And its not like this is the only one. At the top of Middle Meadow Walk -- probably the most used cyclepath in Edinburgh -- a dropped kerb disappeared when roadworks were done.  It was reinstated earlier in the year, which made us very happy, except that the path markings continued to push pedestrians and cyclists into confrontation.  But finally, amid much celebration, the signage has been much improved.

So we're talking not just about small things making us happy, but retro-active things, which ought to have been unnecessary.

Is this wrong? Ought we to be more focussed on the big picture? Getting policies in place? Yes.  that's important too.  But there's a case to be made for incremental change too. And a quiet satisfaction in getting it done right.

Now, we just need to get that cycle counter installed on Middle Meadow Walk....

 

I can't win

Our first trip with the trailer. Picking strawberries to jam.

Most of the time, I'm fending off comments about how 'brave' I am to cycle with my kids.

To begin with, this meant taking my daughter to nursery in a bike seat. Then when she outgrew that, we got a tandem.  And, about that time, she started riding her own bike. Like most parents we assumed she would ride on the pavement (sidewalk to the North American readers).  But that made going places tricky and slow. Since most of our roads are lined with parked cars, this means that often we couldn't see her, and were riding too slow for the traffic flow.  Then, at age 4, she had a fall over the edge of a kerb and onto the road. And declared she wasn't going to ride on the pavement anymore.  We humoured her for a bit, thinking she'd probably go back to riding on the pavement. And gradually we developed the necessary skills to ride with her on the road.  She's never looked back. And at age 6, she's got a pretty good sense of how roads work, and how to cycle them.

But, the 'brave' comments keep coming.  Mostly it's code for 'crazy'.  Or 'bad parent'.  I'm sure the parents trying to drive their kids to school in 4x4s say even worse things.

The thing is, among cycle campaigners, I get flack from the other side. Snide comments about helmets and hiviz.  About how cycling ought to be for 'normal' people.  Not all of this is nasty.  Much of it is well-intentioned like the great people at Spokes, who want to see more pictures of cyclists in 'normal' clothes.

But they're still telling me that I'm doing it wrong.

I can't win.  So, you know what? I'm just gonna ride my bike!  (and keep on campaigning to get more people out there, and to make the roads safer for all of us)

Twitter as an academic search tool = user beware

I'm delighted that journals are using social media to promote journal articles.  It's a brilliant idea.  @T&F_Africa is really pioneering this, at least in my field,   tweeting links to pertinent, if not necessarily recent, articles.  I quite often retweet these to my students.  But the last two times I have followed their links, I've had second thoughts about those retweets.


The first time, it was a link to an article about Islam and the WoT in Mali. Fascinating stuff, and from 2007, so a good background to the current crisis.  But the more I read the paper, the more concerned I became. It's a thoughtful piece, which draws some reasonable conclusions.  But nowhere are we told anything about the author or his research.  We don't know if he's ever visited Mali, if he speaks the languages, if he did research there via a research grant, or while in the US military. The paper is reasonably referenced - albeit entirely to secondary sources -  but I can't judge its value, or robustness, without knowing something about how the analysis was generated.

Today @T&F_Africa  tweeted a link to a paper on 'ethnic terrorism' in Kenya.  Interesting, I thought, if a bit tendentious.  But again, while this paper does give us the author's affiliation, we have no way of judging how much of an 'expert' he is.  Did he spend several months in the field?  or is it 'armchair' research from the comforts of home?  Again, the footnotes seem to be in order, but with no discussion of methodology, I'm left wondering why this author is positioning himself as an 'expert' in this sensitive field.

I don't really blame the authors for these oversights, but what were the editors doing letting articles get published without such basic information?  Do they think about how to strengthen articles? how to make them more robust and effective?

There's a comment somewhere in my twitterstream from an academic saying 'I only ever get boilerplate letters from editors'.  It worries me that this may be becoming standard.  Surely editors have a duty of care to their authors to help them improve articles?

Or am I being too precious, and as long as the footnotes are there, anything goes?

Generating recycling

I know I'm not the only one who gets frustrated seeing people chuck huge amounts of cardboard or other recyclable stuff into bins.  What baffles me is that it almost always seems to be young people - my age and younger who I see doing this.  

The Council's new foodwaste recycling scheme brings this into even greater clarity, at least around my flat.  The two bins above are the only two that are regularly put out other than ours.  One of the households is a nonagenarian, and other is two octagenarians; they've all lived in the flats for over 50 years   

The rest of the flats around us are occupied by young professionals and students, of which one other household sometimes puts out red and blue bins.  Why is the uptake so low? 

The p-word. No. Not that one. Potholes and Patching.

Is there an award for most pointless council expenditure of the year? If so, I'd like to nominate the pot-hole patching on North Meadow walk (NMW).

I don't know exactly when it was done, but one day last week, I suddenly noticed quite a lot of small blobs of asphalt, dabbed apparently at random on the pavement. (if they've been around longer and I've not noticed then mea culpa).

When I say random, I mean, as in there are still as many or more potholes, both bigger and smaller than the ones that were patched.

It was pretty clear that the patches weren't going to last long, but even this evening I discovered two that had already completely crumbled into pieces.

This was the worst one. Totally destroyed. 

On a purely pedestrian and cyclist path. But assuming I didn't suddenly imagine these patches, or somehow miss them for several months, the 'patching' didn't last more than a week before collapsing. Imagine how these hold up when cars, busses or lorries cross them.

This one was heading in the same direction. 

But the real stupidity of it all is that the entire path is due to be completely resurfaced within months, thanks to £500 000 from the Scottish Government via Sustrans.

Joined-up government?  We still have an awful long way to go.

Quality Research and Real Access: confronting the myths of the OA Evangelists

Readers of the Guardian's science blog have been told that "Hiding your research behind a paywall is immoral".  The writer, @miketaylor,  makes an impassioned case for Open Access (OA),  but a number of his premises simply don't hold water in the fields of humanities and social sciences.  Indeed, they reveal a remarkable level of naivety about how academics 'sink or swim' in the gamble that is a modern career.  If the utopia that is described here really existed then we wouldn't need to worry.  Maybe it does in the sciences -- certainly they are more used to the idea of paying to publish -- but I'm afraid it's not like that for many scholars. 

A lot of the issues that I want to raise have already been discussed in the 'comments' section, so right now, I just want to focus on two inter-related points:  how to best promote scholarship and the role of learned societies.  A number of us have flagged concerns about the impact of Gold OA on the broader academic environment.  Mike says that "the purpose of a scholarly society is to promote scholarship, which is best done by making that scholarship available".  That's hard to disagree with. But is 'availability' really the best way of producing quality work?  To my mind, this is at best naive, and at worst, neo-liberal.  It presumes that every scholar has an equal opportunity to produce good work, and that all that 'good work' needs is to be published.  

But that may not bear much resemblance to the experience of early career researchers. Those of us lucky enough to be educated at top-notch research intensive institutions will have been nurtured in fertile environments -- invited speakers at research seminars, conferences held on site, or travel funded to them, networking with high-level scholars, and a stimulating environment full of other post-grads.  Hopefully, we also have supervisors who give unstintingly of themselves, provide us with support in designing our research, and feed their wisdom into our draft papers.  But for others, lacking this stimulating and supportive environment, the decisions about how to draft papers, where to submit, and how to develop a research portfolio seem like a very strange world indeed.  And this is where learned societies can and do play a fantastic role - through post-grad networks, workshops, and networking opportunities.  All of these contribute intangibly but very substantially to enabling students to navigate the murky waters of early career scholarship.  

One of the drivers of the OA evangelicals is the assumption that scholars are prevented from contributing to academic debate because of their inability to access journals. But, while access to the most recent journals is essential (and many commercial and not-for-profit publishers do enable this in developing countries), a focus on this over-simplifies the process whereby we are initiated into the arcane rituals of scholarship. 

For those who have 'made it' it is perhaps hard to imagine just how puzzling our little world seems to outsiders, or those just peeking in.  But having run workshops for students and recently completed doctoral candidates as well as many 'meet the editors' events at conferences, I can assure you that the rumours and innuendo and half-truths that circulate about how journals really work are manifold.   

In a reply to one of my comments, Mike says " who ploughs three to five years of their life into a research project, but doesn't bother to take three to five hours to investigate the journal they're thinking of sending the paper to?"  It's not that people don't look into these things, but that 'we' pick up on many many clues that we can 'read' because we've been circulating around, chatting with other PGs and that we 'know' the names in the field.  That comes from familiarity with a certain discourse, which is only achieved by access and inclusion to it - and that's more than just reading the journals on-line (although that sure helps).

So, if we really want journals to publish the best research, and stimulate the best debates, that means enabling everyone to participate in it - and that 'participation' starts way before the paper is submitted to the journal.  As a journal editor everyday I would receive papers by bright, motivated students and young academics which were often not even fit to be sent for peer review, much less published.  This is not a reflection on the ability of those students, nor simply a result of their limited access to recent academic work.  For the most part, the problems were much more fundamental and related to the research design, the understanding of how to engage in an academic debate -- the sorts of things that are picked up through circulating in an academic milieu. 

My experience as a journal editor convinced me that the best scholarship comes from supporting a diverse mix of scholars from as wide a background as possible to make their contributions, Learned societies play a crucial role in this, and disregarding it, as the Finch report did, risks making scholarship less inclusive, in the name of 'openess'.  

OA is coming.  Learned societies will adapt, and we can only hope that some funding will come through so that networking sessions, workshops, conference travel grants etc continue to enable a wide range of new scholars to join our ranks. But let's stop pretending that Open Access will  miraculously solve the problems of publishing, library budgets, and access, because - in the real world - access is about more than just being able to read what someone has written. 

Save Pippy Park? We should have called it Save Paradise

.

With anti-road campaigns back on the media agenda this week, it seems a good time for this post....

When I was in my final years of secondary school and then uni, I got involved in an anti-road campaign in Canada. It was so long ago that there's not even anything on the web about it.*

The provincial government had reached a deal with the federal government to close down our railway and build roads instead.  So, they decided to build a partial by-pass of St.John's, that would cut through the middle of Canada's largest urban park, a semi-wilderness area that also included the city's water supply.  The new road not only allowed civil servants to get directly to the main government buildings (House of Assembly + government offices), but it also 'opened up' huge areas of land that were then developed for sprawling mega-shops and business parks, which meant that property developers and the construction industry were keen on it too.    

Well, despite a lot of campaigning and legal battles, we were massively outflanked and lost our case. The road was built, and while the park has basically survived being dissected and there have not yet been any water poisoning scandals, there are many deaths (including of cyclists) on the road.

As we predicted, traffic in town is even worse, and worst of all - 'commuter-belt' areas that mainly used to be fishing communities - are now swamped under unbelievable scales of subdivision building, because more and more people live outside town, given how 'easy' it is to get into town on the new ring road, and that real estate prices and taxes are lower and planning seems less stringent.  One of the most affected is called 'Paradise'.  Looking it up on wikipedia reveals that the population has grown by 41% in the 5 years to 2011 - the fastest growing municipality in Atlantic Canada.  

This experience was dispiriting enough that it took me nearly 20 years to get hooked into another campaign.  But increasingly I look back on it and think 'we were right all along', even if on some level we mis-directed. The real victim of the road was not my ski trails, or green space in the town, but the surrounding areas, crushed under urban sprawl, and the intensification of car-dependent households.



*Ironically, the only on-line reference I can find is to to someone else looking back at it, who now thinks the road is fabulous.   

Priorities?

You'd be forgiven for thinking that Edinburgh doesn't grit or clear cyclepaths, Even the best used ones have been covered in thick layers of leaves of late. But in fact, quite a number of paths are considered 'priority 1' routes for gritting. Now, I must admit, I'm not quite sure what that means. I do know that 'non priority 1' routes aren't gritted on weekends, or before 7.30am. But I'm not quite sure what a priority 1 is supposed to merit - presumably the general idea is that if there is an ice or snow warning, then they are supposed to be gritted. And given that many of them are key commuting routes, you might expect them to be cleared by 9am on a work day, or to have been gritted the night before preventatively.

But no. Over the weekend, the North EdinburghPath network ground to a halt. So, going to see my daughter in a panto, which would take about 30 min max by an off-road route, became an hour-long slog by bus, involving both kids getting travel-sick. We really didn't need that. Not a nice start to Advent.

And on Monday, and then Tuesday, I discovered that Leamington Walk was decidedly untreated. It wasn't shiny ice-rink territory, but there was at least one off. And I went very, very carefully despite having my studded tyre on.

The thing is, these *are* priority 1 routes, and used by hundreds of cyclists and pedestrians everyday (we'd have better figures if the long promised cyclecounter had ever gone in...).

So, I've been tweeting and emailing and generally causing a commotion. To some effect. Apparently some of the 'logistics' relating to the implementation of gritting hadn't quite been worked out. Lots of lovely twittering folk at council have promised to 'look into it'. The final straw for me was yesterday, when they re-gritted the already clear north-most 200 metres of Middle Meadow Walk (coincidentally the one off-road path with commercial premises on it?), but did not continue on to the rest of MMW,or any of the adjacent and joined up priority 1 routes.

However, this morning, they did grit Leamington walk, as you can see below. Victory? I'm really not sure.

Spot the bodge job

Spot the bodge job.  All four of 'em.  Are you wondering what on earth I'm on about? OR, what planet  childseat manufacturers are on when they doesn't design in bikelights or bike light fittings?

I just don't get it. Do they really think that we don't need lights on childseats? Or, more likely, that the only time we cycle with kids is on a Saturday afternoon ride to the park?

Here in Scotland, we need lights from October to April, just for 'normal' school/nursery/work runs.  Tonight, I've been  laid low with a virus, but the rest of the family is contemplating a dinner invite from dear friends (and a ogood cook).  But it's a dark and rainy night and the route entails cycling through some of the dodgier bits of road in Edinburgh (Holyrood Park and the Cowgate, plus the Pubic Triangle Lothian Road).  So, we are left with the following options:  £9 for bus tickets, £8x2 for taxis, or bodge extra lights on.  As you can see, we've opted for the latter.

But I still don't get what's going on in the manufacturer's heads.  It's not just childseats. It's also tag-alongs and trailers, which are near impossible to light up.   To their credit, Hamax made a light that went on the back of their seats, but when I tried to order one, I was told they'd been discontinued.  Too little demand?  I guess so.  The other day, I was amused to find myself ranting to the most experienced bike campaigner I know, who seemed thoroughly surprised to hear that this was an issue. I guess it really is a minority concern.

We need to be clear about what we want.

With the 6 cyclist deaths on our roads this week, and Wiggin's and Sutton's crashes, a lot of unlikely allies seem to have joined the campaigns for safer infrastructure.  Case in point is the Transport editor of the Telegraph: pictured here looking slightly uncomfortable on his bike.  In what I found to be a very frustrating read, he starts by attributing the rise of cycle safety up the political agenda to the increase in accidents, not the increase and diversity in people cycling, government's own policies, or effective campaigns. 

Then, he claims that 'until now its been reasonable' to advocate more training. for cyclists as a solution.  Well, actually, I disagree with that - there's a wealth of evidence that that is not enough, and its been available to planners, politicians and transport editors for a long time.  He then turns (implicitly) to a focus on drivers as the problem, and says that the 'think bike' campaign was a failure (wasn't that about motorcyclists?).   Then he briefly mentions trixi mirrors and is critical of govt policy. Good!

But the real problem comes when he says (I'm paraphrasing here) 'since we can't share road space, we need segregation'.

Which I think sends all the wrong messages about segregation. We will never have 100% segregation - no one does. What we need is to have cycling integrated into road planning - in the form of segregated cyclepaths, safer junctions etc. It is not an option of whether or not to share roadspace, but HOW we share it.  As another quick-off-the-mark comment in the Independent makes clear, we need respect between drivers and cyclists.

Dutch infrastructure is not just about corralling the cyclists off into their own space, and absolving drivers of responsibility for them.  Yes, segregated cycle lanes are a joy to cycle and we should have more of them everywhere, and especially on heavy traffic roads, and where we want to encourage cyclists and pedestrians to shop and eat locally.  But not every road can be segregated. So we need safer junctions, slower roads, and a range of infrastructure that allows cyclists and cars to use the roads safely together - whether in segregated lanes or not.  And where we do have segregated paths they need to be joined up, and connected to each other, as well as to the road networks. We need a redesign of how we use roadspace, and that requires integrating cycles into road planning, not segregating them. 

In praise of tandems...

Every busy mom needs a tandem. I'd say that it was the SUV of bikes but that wouldn't convey the freedom that a tandem gives. An SUV, or people carrier, as it is called in North America, implies that you spend all your time ferrying kids around.  But the tandem not only gets them used to contributing to that effort, but also encourages them to be more independent.

When we got our tandem, K. (now age 5) started off mostly wanting to ride with me on it.  And while I was thrilled that she wanted to, we were a little worried that she was 'deskilling' on her own bike. But, she has now started to want to ride her own bike more and more.  So, if we go off on a Sunday afternoon cycle, it can be a case of trying to convince her to ride the tandem with me!  And she chooses to ride to school on her own often as well.   I'm sure that it is her experience of being on the tandem that has given her the confidence to do this.

Our tandem  has the added benefit that both the adults in our family can ride it, despite a height differential of more than a foot between us, and we can take the baby along too.  And, as you can see in the header photo,  we sometimes add on a trailer - mainly for cargo, although in theory we could take kids in it. So, if I'm on my own I can take the kids with me on the Saturday morning  farmer's market   run (as we did last week before soccer/football) or do a 'big shop' by bike.

All of which means that I can do the school run in the morning, and still get to work at a decent hour.  And contribute to the weekend activities.  All without a car, or spending hours on a stuffy bus.  And get some exercise - which really helped me get back into shape after baby #2.  The only problem I've got now is that I invested in a nippy folder over the summer, so that I had an alternative bike for when K. wanted to ride her own bike, or when the rest of the family needed the tandem.  I love the feeling of freedom: a bike with no kids attached -- whee! And I love zooming up hills on it. But I'm definitely not burning as many calories....