When is 'infrastructure' not infrastructure?

On the way back from yesterday's berry picking expedition, we stopped off to do a little shopping.  The North Edinburgh Path Network (NEPN),  which is what enabled our run yesterday  to be mostly off-road, runs past a substantial shopping complex - what Americans call 'big box' shops.  While we get most of our meat and veg at the farmer's market, there are always a few things that need to come from the supermarket.  So, having the trailer, we stopped and did a big family shop.  

On the one hand, this was easy, there is a short path off the main route, which takes a couple of yards to get to a toucan crossing.  But here the challenge starts.  The toucan crossing is protected by chicanes, which would be fine if they weren't at the bottom of a slight slope, and with a road on the other side.  Then, once you get across the road, there's a short shared-use path. Except it's not marked as shared-use, and it winds past a small playpark, so is usually clogged with harassed mums with toddlers and pushchairs. 

But all that's basically okay compared to where the path dumps you out. Which is over a kerb into full-on traffic.  Is this a candidate for Edinburgh's most useless (and shortest) bikelane? 

From there on in, although there's lots of bike parking available, you're stuck on roads and roundabouts.  The  pavements and zebra-crossings are okay for pedestrians (if not always where they ought to be), but there's no indication that cyclists are allowed on the pavements. And we're definitely not supposed to ride across zebra crossings. The way out is even worse - there's no way to get back on the access path, so you end up in a scary multi-lane thing with dodgy lane-changing,  trying to make a right-turn so as to get back to the NEPN, which is only a few yards away, but feels like another world. 

And that's why we don't just need 'infrastructure'. We need joined-up infrastructure,  which actually works rather than putting cyclists into danger, which isn't just drawn by some engineers or planners to 'tick boxes', but actually thought about by people who cycle.

Kids are great, eh?

Our six year old decided that she wanted to cycle to Craigie's Farm on her own bike.  It's about 7.5 miles each direction, and moderately hilly - mostly downhill there and mostly uphill back.  She's done about 2/3rds of the route before, but not the final push, and she remembered that there was a big hill at the end.  But she still wanted to do it. So we loaded up the trailer (for berries and groceries)  and the toddler + two childseats, so we could swap him between bikes.  Amazingly, for once we didn't need to pack raingear.  If you're curious about the route, keep an eye on the innertubemap  because I've been asked to blog about it there.  

We were planning on having lunch at Craigie's after picking, so I didn't pack any rations beyond a banana, two water bottles, and a couple of danishes that I'd picked up on an early morning farmer's market run. But we wanted to get going quickly, so we didn't stop to eat the danishes, thinking we'd have them en route.  

But you know what? Kids are great.  She pedalled away valiantly with no complaints or demands for 'breaks'. So we got out to Craigie's in no time at all,  climbed the last big hill - and had two hungry kids.  As I locked up the bikes, I suggested the kids go sit at the picnic tables provided for dog walkers, and fed them their quick snack before we went off to pay our 'entry fee' to the pick-your-own polytunnels.  

We get to Craigie's about once a year. It's a big event for us. We pick lots of fruit, have lunch, and then go home and make jam that we enjoy all year.  I may only go about once a year, but I follow them on twitter and facebook, and encourage all our friends to go out there too, whether by car or bike. 

So, it was a real downer to have a manager-type come over and tell us off for 'bringing our own food'.  I explained that I was just giving the kids a snack, and that we were about to go pick and then have lunch.  This cut no ice.  Apparently, we were setting a bad example, and should have 'stopped in a farmer's field'. If we'd come by a car, we could have sat in the carpark and stuffed our faces, but then we wouldn't have had a hungry and well exercised 6 year old to feed, would we? 

In the end, we decided not to let them spoil our day. We picked berries. We had lunch. We cycled home.

But we spent less in the cafe and shop than we would otherwise have done. I'm hoping the jam won't leave a sour taste in our mouths, but I refuse to let it spoil my pride in my fantastic cycling daughter. 

Things I don't want to hear politicians saying...

"Even one fatality is too many".  How often do we hear this from policy-makers?  Too often. Usually after another fatality.  

I've been meaning to blog about HGVs for a while.  Today seems like a 'good' day for it, after an Edinburgh cyclist was one of two men killed by an HGV while on a charity ride from Lands End to John O'Groats.  

This post from British Cycling last month actually covers much of what I was going to say, reminding us that "In London, HGVs were involved in 53% of cycling fatalities in 2011 despite making up just 4% of the traffic".   I don't think we have clear data on this for Edinburgh, but certainly at least 3 recent fatalities in the city involved lorries of various kinds.  

In Dublin where they have banned the largest lorries from the city streets, cycling increased from 8% to 30% in one year.  In Paris, where HGVs are strictly controlled, there were no cycling fatalities at all in 2011, and a much lower rate of serious injuries than in our comparable big cities, despite rising numbers of cyclists.

But the example that I'd really like to see us learn from is Utrecht, where they have something called a

http://www.24oranges.nl/2009/07/19/inner-city-cargo-train-system-in-utrecht/

'cargo-hopper'.  Basically, HGVs deliver their loads to a depot outside the city, and then an electric fleet of vehicles make the deliveries in smaller batches.  The cargo-hoppers are electric, and solar-powered, so quiet and low-emissions.  As you can see in the picture, they are also designed to give the driver maximum visibility. 

Given the changes in city centre retailing, especially the number of 'local' 'metro' & 'neighborhood' shops, and on-line retailing, this seems like an idea whose time has come.  Just think of the difference to Morningside Road and Leith Walk if big supermarket delivery vehicles, John Lewis, B&Q etc were not trundling up and down every day?  Not to mention the benefits of aggregating orders so that Rose Street was not a complete clutter of vans in the mornings before 10.30?  Or that you could actually see the cycle/bus lane in Forest Road? 

I don't want to hear another politician saying 'even one fatality is too many'. Let's move on from the platitudes and actually learn from places where the politicians don't have to say this.


Update: coaches transporting tourists are also a menace - an Edinburgh cyclist ended up underneath one on Tuesday.  Amazingly, he survived.  Both coaches and HGVs have similar issues.  Not just massive blind spots, but drivers whose positioning is up and away from the road

Another Update:  just saw this report from the BBC about proposals to redesign lorry cabs so as to improve their visibility - interesting. 

Moving the goal posts...

In the Cycling Action Plan of 2010   the Scottish government considered whether or not strict liability should be adopted, noting that

"the differences in laws between the UK and continental European countries have often been cited by cyclists as the main reason cyclists on the continent enjoy greater protection. "(Section 5.5)

They went on to note 

"However, this has often been combined with a number of other measures such as increased investment in cycle infrastructure so it will be difficult to isolate one particular factor influencing why these countries have higher cycling levels than the UK". 

But when they came back to us last week with the CAPS 'refresh', oddly enough, they didn't say we've decided that it's the infrastructure that makes the difference, so we'll be investing in infrastructure. Nor did they say strict liability does make a difference, so we'll be moving to change our legal framework.  No, they claimed:

"The available data does not supply robust evidence of a direct causal link between strict liability legislation to levels of cycling and KSIs (killed and seriously injured statistics), when countries like the UK and Ireland are clearly reducing fatalities in cyclists and all other road users without strict liability legislation in place." (my emphasis) pp21

But, as the data released in recent days in both Scotland and England has shown, KSI rates may be falling for all users, but not for vulnerable road users, and certainly not for cyclists (see here and my previous blogs)

The problem with moving the goalposts is that you might just score an own-goal by mistake.

If the data doesn't back up the Minister's contentions,  then suggesting that even more can be achieved by ensuring road users are aware of the Highway Code and 'be considerate' of each other, is not evidence-based policy-making. This surely takes us back to the original premise in the CAPS study - either Strict Liability or infrastructure? or - more likely - both.

Lies, damn lies, and targets

Last week the Scottish government released the latest data on serious injuries on Scotland's roads.   The headline on the Ministerial statement that accompanied the data release claimed that "Scottish road casualty statistics moving in right direction" on the basis that "the number of fatalities on Scotland’s roads are down 8% since 2011, with the total number of road casualties down by 2% to the lowest figure ever recorded" Oddly, quite a lot of people didn't agree with him, because if you looked a bit more closely at the data, it became clear that while fewer motorists were being killed or seriously injured, the numbers were going in the opposite direction for cyclists, and more pedestrians were also killed.  The Minister's statement in fact had no numbers at all for vulnerable road users, while the figures in the data release it accompanied highlighted that there were 9% more casualties in 2012 than 2011.  

However,  the data is much worse than this.  In comparison to their baseline data from 2004-2008, there's been a 17% rise in cyclists killed or seriously injured (KSI) on built-up roads and 34% on rural roads.  

Over at Pedal on Parliament, we pointed out that this data didn't seem to back up his claim the week before, that there was no need to strict liability, because accident rates were already dropping. 

But there is a broader issue at stake.  The government has 'targets' for making roads safer.  They measure these by looking at  'people killed or seriously injured' and 'children killed or seriously injured, and deep in some excel files, they work out what the numbers would be if they met their targets.  The the 'target' for how many cyclists would be seriously injured is 92, but in fact there were 167.  Meaning that they missed their target by 81%.*  

I'm not convinced that we should have government by 'targets', but if we're going to set targets, and collect data, surely we should be looking at targets for vulnerable road users separately from motorists?  Not just because the issues are different but because keeping that data at the aggregate level masks what's really going on.  The statistics don't lie, it just depends on how you look at them, and how you present them. 

If rates for some road users are going up and others are going down -- more than can be explained by increased rates of cycling -- then we need to ask why.   

The only reason for setting targets is so that policy can be designed to address the specific issues needed to make a change.  So, if we had a target to bring down the rates of pedestrian and cyclist KSIs, we'd need to think what interventions could achieve this most effectively. 

And that's a discussion we really need to have.  

*corrected 1/7/2013 after error pointed out via twitter. 

We don't need no education...

Hey everyone, sorry about the rant yesterday. But we do have a right to be angry. Really Angry. CAPS, refreshed or not,  is a useless document - focussed on campaigning rather than actually changing the environment. throwing good money after bad.  

Just like breastfeeding campaigns or HIV/AIDS awareness campaigns in South Africa, increasing 'awareness' and 'education' isn't going to change behaviour, except perhaps incrementally.  There's lots of academic evidence to back this up.  People know that 'breast is best' for babies, but unless the environment enables them to breastfeed, they won't.

Everyone knows how you get AIDS, but that doesn't give young girls the power to resist powerful older men who want to have unprotected sex does it?  Nor women who risk losing their families if they insist their husbands wear condoms, despite knowing full well that he's been sleeping around.  

Would you risk losing your home, access to your children, and maybe even your income under those circumstances?  HIV/AIDS isn't spread because people don't know what causes it, but because they are powerless to change their relationships - they don't have a choice, not a real one. 

Does it seem a long way from talking about public campaigns to give kids 'cycle-space' or 'respect' between road-users?  I don't think it is.  

People don't cycle because they don't feel like they have a real choice. 

Even if they 'know' that cycling is better for them and their families, they do not feel safe doing it. It is not an 'option'.  Our  neighbours who look wistfully at us as we load up our kids and say 'I wish I could do that'.  They obviously see in practical, real terms that it is possible to do it, but they do not feel 'brave' enough to make that step.  More information is not going to make that choice any easier for them, just as more billboards about condoms don't make choices any easier for vulnerable mums whose partners aren't faithful. 

What's even more upsetting is that every single 'stakeholder' who contributed to the CAPS refresh knows full well that it is not going to get us anywhere near the target/vision of 10% of journeys being made by bike. 

The 'refresh'  document itself actually acknowledges that "Published evidence from around Europe suggests that investment in the order of £5-10 per head per annum could be needed to grow modal share year on year from its current low base in Scotland to the level in CAPS " .  And the reason that more money is needed, is because that's how you change the environment. 

The Scottish government is wilfully refusing to follow its own research and evidence and instead spinning a fairy tale that with more 'public education' things will change.  But we don't need education. We need political leadership.  

C(R)AP(S)

I've been calling 'CAPS' 'CRAPS' for a while now, on the basis that it's well, pretty crappy. But it occurs to me that its pretty apt in another way too. It's basically a roll of the dice.  Maybe - if we're lucky - some folk in Scotland will start cycling, but maybe not.  Either way, we're not going to do much to tilt the odds one way or the other.

So the CRAPS refresh today,  instead of accepting that with the current policy they will not meet any of their targets, redefines it to a 'vision' and blindly carries on with the same old failed policies.

Apparently, the national government can't actually allocate money to specific cycling projects, because that would be trampling on local authorities autonomy. Oddly, that doesn't affect their decision to fund roads or 'car projects' to the tune of billions.

Specifically, they can spend £6bn on two road dualling projects with no evidence that this would make the roads safer, but not find even a fraction of that for cyclepaths, which are proven to reduce injury and encourage more cyclists.  As a wiser head than mine says:

"It's not that there's no money, it's just that the Scottish Government chooses to spend it on roads."

It's CRAP(S). and we need to call it that.

We've got a long way to go...

When did you last see kids riding bikes on the street with their parents? 

I suspect the answer is 'not recently' or 'not often' and that if you did, you probably saw me and my kids, or one of the three other families that I know that let their kids ride on the road.   

I was reading this short article Cycling Kids: The True Indicator of a Bike-Friendly City  and it reminded me how far we have to go.  It suggests that “When kids feel confident enough to ride on their own — and parents let them — then your city has truly earned the ‘bike-friendly’ label.”  Yup.  But before we get to that, we need to pass an even earlier stage: When parents ride on the road with their kids... then your city is heading towards that ‘bike-friendly’ label.

I'm seeing a lot more childseats and trailers around town. (And more female cyclists)  So, maybe we're heading in the right direction. But we've got a long way to go yet. 

That said, there's lots of fun family events on at the Festival of Cycling this weekend.. Let's just hope the families attending don't all drive there with bikes strapped onto their cars...

The bins (part 2): is this what a victory feels like?

It's been a depressing day in a depressing week.  This was symbolised today  by people congratulating me on my 'victory' and getting a 'result'. That result can be seen here: 

Missed it?  It's that little white line around the bins, that seems to be magically keeping them in place.  It's the result of several weeks persistent lobbying.  Earlier in the week, it has looked like this: 

And before that like this: 

As chronicled in more detail in a previous post, this was an on-going quest, actually started by someone else, to remove the recycling bins from the sight-lines of a pedestrian crossing in front of a primary school.  

But have we really fallen so low in the stakes of civic activism that a little white paint around some bins (with promise of a more permanent corral when the pavement is redone), is counted a victory? 

It doesn't feel much like one.

Why is there no 'autotrans'?

There's something I don't understand about transport funding in the UK.  Why is it that active travel funds  have to be 'bid for' from funds held elsewhere?  Why don't they just get budgeted for like other infrastructure?  I mean, we don't hear about plans to dual a motorway being contingent on the outcome of a bid to 'autotrans'?  or the improvement of local roads being cancelled because of an unsuccessful bids, do we?  (or have I missed the fine print?)

This has been puzzling me for a while, but became particularly pertinent today, with the very welcome news that the City of Edinburgh listened to our concerns about their previous proposals for Leith Walk, and have now put forward a revised set of proposals.  The new 'enhanced' designs respond to many concerns from local residents, workers and shoppers.  But they depend on a successful bid for national money, which we're now being asked to lobby the Scottish Government for.

Somehow, the Council happened to have exactly the right amount stashed away to improve Leith Walk, as long as it only involved existing tarmac and pavement configurations.  But add in 'bike lanes' and it's a whole new ball game and entirely impossible to do without 'securing outside funding'.

I do appreciate that the councils funds are limited, and I would very much like the Scottish government to fully back initiatives like this, because they will save them money many times over in health, environment and business income.

But, I still don't understand why projects like this are treated like they're optional extras, or somehow less important than 'normal' road building.  

Can anyone explain?

Is this the worst intersection in Edinburgh?

View Larger Map

I've blogged about this intersection before, but hearing today that it's not going to be resurfaced for at least another year has driven me to it again.

King's Junction courtesy of Andy Arthur

First off, I should note that it needs more than just a resurface.  It also needs a redesign.  But, the design would not be as bad if you could take a clear and confident line on it.  Unfortunately, as you can just see in streetview above the road to the left and ahead of that blue van resembles the lunar surface. I burst two tyres here in a month earlier this year. The picture on the right shows the surface as you carry on through the intersection.

It doesn't help that cars waiting in the turn lane opposite regularly gamble on slow starts and nip across, even though vehicles coming from Tarvit street onto Gilmore Place have priority.  But anyone who rides or drives it frequently knows that their light is short and that only the first 2 or 3 cars will make it across, so they feel pressured to bully their way through.  And, if you are lucky enough to approach the light while it is green and make it through, inevitably a pededstrian walks out in front of you.  One day I hit the jackpot and had pedestrians wander out on the west side of the intersection AND on the east side as I tried to navigate my way through.

But it's not just that direction that is dodgy.  Coming along Gilmore Place you know it's going to be a bad intersection because of the ferocity with which other drivers overtake you, just so that they can reach the red lights first.

You can't go straight-ahead, so the road divides into two lanes: a left turn lane that gets an advance green and a right turn lane that has to wait for oncoming traffic.  (Except that usually it doesn't.)  The left turn lane is also usually splayed out into the putative right turn lane because of badly parked cars and a bus stop, as you can see here.

View Larger Map
If you're in the right turn lane, as I usually am, you then have to decide whether you want to be in the ASZ or not (assuming there's not a car or a number 27 bus in it).  I usually do sit in it, unless there's a queue of cars. But a lot of experienced cyclists I know avoid it, because vehicles turning left from Home St tend to clip the ASZ.  Steel-capped boots recommended.

The intersection's not too bad if you approach from Leven Street or Home Street but fast and busy with too many lanes.  If you try to come down Home St and turn left onto Gilmore Place in the evening, the pedestrian gamble hits you again - they're usually trying to catch a bus.

On the other hand, if you are trying to come from Tollcross and turn onto Gilmore Place, you have to do one of those fun fast lane changes, usually surrounded by buses and taxis.  But let's face it, if you cycled through Tollcross to get there, you're probably tough enough to handle it.

Thing is -- this is one of the city's main commuter routes.  It's part of NCN75.   It ought to be a nice route to do some shopping in Realfoods, Provenance wines,  and Lupe Pintos, to name only my favourites.   But it's horrendous, and anyone in their right mind avoids it.

Plans are afoot to provide a safer, more family-friendly access from the Canal to the Meadows.  I'm hoping to get some insight into what that will look like soon.  But a good proportion of the city's cyclists will still be heading through here most days.  Surely we can come up with some way of improving it?

Credit where credit is due

NMW thanks to chdot on flickr

Amidst several frustrating days, it was a real pleasure to see how good the west end of North Meadow walk is looking.  Lovely wide, smooth tarmac, with better drainage. Can't wait to ride along it.

But the real reason I'm mentioning it, is that the western 'spur' that led to the toucan crossing of Melville Drive, was supposed to remain quite narrow and awkward.  But enough feedback was sent, and although we were first told that nothing could be done, then as work started, we were told that it would be widened.  The reason we raised this was because that spur had real potential to push cyclists and pedestrians into unnecessary conflict. And we didn't want that.

But the reason I'm mentioning this now (when I should be washing dishes), is that in this case, the consultation actually listened to users, and accommodated them.  I'm pretty sure the end result will be a great improvement for the many commuters, joggers, dog-walkers etc, and for Meadows as well - surely one of Edinburgh's greatest resources.

Well done CEC and everyone who contributed to the decision. Let's have more of this - all over the city.

A letter to my councillors part 2

More on Princes Street (part 1 here: http://www.deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/a-letter-to-my-councillors.html)

I'm less and less sure that there's really any point to this.  Even if they do change the proposal tomorrow, it should never have gotten to this point.  All that will result is that the council will be pilloried for caving in to the 'cycle lobby'. When really they should have got it right at the proposal stage, consulted properly, and then brought an idea  that all users could enthusiastically back to the full council vote. Transport committee (apologies for original incorrect point here - I need more sleep)

Anyway, here's the letter for what it's worth:

It is very disappointing to note that Transport Committee is proposing to  go ahead with its original proposal, albeit for a 12 month trial.  Surely, if this is really a 'trial' it would make sense to also trial a west-east cycle route?  Then, if it proves unworkable or unsafe, this will be clear in planning for the permanent changes?

There are three other points that I hope you will consider:

1. The consultation survey was flawed. In particular it asked if people approved of a 'one-way system for buses and taxis'  but did not mention that cycles would also be included within it. It is therefore difficult to understand how the transport committee reached its decision - it does not appear to be on the basis of 'evidence'.

2. Princes St is designated as a 'core path' which permits access for cycles and pedestrians. It surely goes against the intent of the core path network to make this one-way only (it might indeed be illegal).

3. This further highlights the point I have made to you previously, that it is council policy to provide a cycle-contra-flow lane on one-way streets.

The proposed plans thus seem to fly in the face of both Core Path legislation and the council's own ATAP. Surely in the light of all this, it makes more sense to have a bi-directional cycle path along princes street? Or a cycle-path along the north side to allow easy access to shops?

As a member of the Transport Forum and the Cycle Forum, I have hoped that the council really does take its commitment to Active Travel seriously - I hope that my faith in you on this point is upheld by your decision tomorrow.

Elite sport or a more active community?

Felt I had to write one last letter to my Councillors:

One last comment before your meeting today -  my comments on Waterworld are pretty much summed up here
http://deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-sad-lessons-of-waterworld.html

But can I also add, that as a cyclist, I am appalled that you are spending £1m on the cycletrack proposed for Jack Kane/Hunter's Hall, and not on Waterworld?  It is entirely unclear that there is any case to be made for the Jack Kane/Hunter Hall track - and many concerns about it.  It will only ever be used by a tiny minority of elite cyclists - and the best of them will go to Glasgow for the velodrome anyway. But Waterworld would support kids starting out on healthier, active lifestyles -- especially groups in the city who may not use other sports facilities.  Softplay does not fill this gap, and the market is already over saturated in Edinburgh anyway.

Both Waterworld/Commie pool and the Meadowbank/Jack Kane sagas capture Edinburgh's problem - not maintaining or marketing facilities that we have, and then promoting elite sport over fun activities that channel kids into more active lifestyles.

We're all aware of the financial challenges faced by the city, but they are the result of short term thinking and will only be solved by more long-term planning, not just plugging holes.

The sad lessons of Waterworld

Fyrishof in Uppsala - now that's a swimming pool!

When the council closed Leith Waterworld, we were devastated.  My daughter, who had done baby swimming lessons there as well as regular family outings,  cried and cried.  We tried taking her to the Dalry Swim Centre for lessons but she hated it. When the Commonwealth Pool re-opened, we tried it with no more success It just wasn't 'fun'.  Her little brother has only once been to Waterworld, when he was a few months old just before they closed it.  But we do know how much fun a family can have at a waterpark. Pictures of our trip to Sweden - I was at a conference, it was the only self-catering accommodation we could find - hang on our kitchen walls. There are huge smiles on our faces.  Waterworld ought to draw people into Leith, and boost local businesses, as well as providing much needed family recreation for the local neighbourhood.

So when we heard in January that the Council would consider - support even - a community bid to reopen Waterworld, we were delighted.  It seemed like finally, things were being done differently. Which is why we all feel like we've been kicked in the guts today.  The council is going to vote tomorrow, but both parties in the ruling coalition support selling Waterworld for a derisory £1million so that a profitmaking firm can turn it into softplay.  There are already several softplays in Leith, and certainly no one is going to travel down Leith walk just to go to another one.  So this one will just take business away from the existing operations. I can't see any long-term financial logic, nor benefit to the council accepting the commercial offer.  The only justification seems to be that 'council officials recommended it'.

The council is trying to sell it as 'better than just another supermarket' and by assuring campaigners that the £125 000 which was to support their bid will still go towards 'free swimming' for primary kids.  But they don't understand that a play pool is different from lessons in cold pools with instructors yelling instructions from the side.

The comments on Andrew Burns blog are a must read. Passionate pleading for a pool that is warm, and shallow enough for toddlers.  The sloping 'beach' like entrance.  The waves and slide.  The Commonwealth pool does have a small pool for kids, but it's regularly too full and people are turned away. A pool where they can play with their kids, not watch them from the side. They put it so much better than I can.  Do read them.  

It's ridiculous that people are driving their kids to Dunbar and Perth so that they can play in fun pools, but it's even more devastating to have the council pull the rug out from under the feet of people who have been working hard to set up the bid.  

This decision has absolutely shattered the trust and faith of community activists, many of them just local families trying to work with the council to improve their local area.  For many this will have been their first taste of activism and engagement. What message have they been sent?  That the council doesn't care about them. That their elected representatives can't be trusted. That's going to be the long term legacy of this decision. And that's even sadder than all the kids who will not know the fun of playing in warm water with their parents and learn to love water and sport.

Why I can't see past the obstacles to being strategic

A local politician keeps telling me to 'think strategic' and 'not bother him (and others) with the little stuff'.  He means well, but day after day I see little stuff that drives me crazy.   

I can't help but think that if we didn't have to spend so much time on the little stuff, maybe we could actually find time to think strategically? But that means getting stuff right the first time, and joining up the various policies. 

A few weeks ago, the administrator of CCE and I had a meeting with a council official about some inadequate bike infrastructure near my kids school (more about that later).  He also pointed out that the sightlines on one of the crossings in front of the school are obstructed by recycling bins - as you can see in the picture.  

We were assured it would be looked at and dealt with. But a few weeks later, it looked like this:

And then like this:

And then today like this: 

Each time I've noticed this and taken pictures, I've tweeted the relevant authorities and been assured it is being dealt with.  

Reporting faults by twitter is pretty easy, and not that time-consuming.  But as long as very simple policies like 'not obstructing pedestrians sightlines' at crossings can't be managed, how exactly are we supposed to think strategically and focus on the big picture? 

I'm not posting this to beat up on the folks who have been responding to my tweets, but to make the point that the best policies -- whether tenement recycling schemes or safer travel for schoolkids -- are only as good as their implementation and maintenance.   

What's so different about cycling?

My kids seem to do pretty much everything in school - someone teaches them swimming, dancing, tennis, plus normal PE.

But, when it comes to learning how to ride a bike, although there is a prescribed curriculum, and a commitment from the council to ensuring that it is delivered to all P6s, it all depends on parent volunteers.

Why?

Cycling isn't just a sport. It's also life-skill.  It will help them get to their sports practices, their summer jobs, and to lectures at uni.  It helps us remain healthier as individuals and as a population.  It keeps our environment in better shape, and reduces congestion on the roads.

But it's not important enough for schools to actually pay trained professionals to deliver this training to our kids. I'm sure the volunteers are great, but it also means very uneven implementation - and that's before we even get to the schools that ban kids from riding their bikes to school so that they can learn how to ride their bikes....

So why is cycling the one sport/activity (as far as I can tell) that schools are expected to deliver in class time, but through volunteers?

We're not #bloodycyclists, We're everyone

If one message came out of this year's Pedal on Parliament, it's that we're not 'cyclists', we're everyone.   The wonderful Sally Hinchcliffe put this down in words and it was picked up by the Herald, and Scotsman.

This is the start of our 140+ feeder ride to the main Pedal on Parliament

We often say that cycling infrastructure needs to be for everyone from 8-80 and on Sunday friends of mine from many different walks of life - work, sunday school, pub mates - were there ranging in age from babes in arms to octogenarians (My friend Bill is desperate to know if he was the oldest again :)

Right now, on twitter there's a campaign to reclaim the hashtag #bloodycyclists.  As @citycyclists said "Let's get 'I'm one of the #bloodycyclists" trending? I bike. I don't want to be bloody because some idiot doesn't like my transport choice" This is in response to the dangerous and very foolish young driver in Norfolk, who knocked a cyclist into a hedge, lost her side mirror, and kept going only to tweet about it.

Yes. the double meaning makes it extra powerful. And some of the testimonies are very powerful. Like others, I too have been a #bloodycyclist. And I'm terrified my kids will be too.

But I'm not just a #bloody cyclist. I'm also a mum, a teacher, a member of our parish church, and most importantly a voter.

We're not #bloodycyclists. We're everyone.

Why we need to Pedal on Parliament

There's a lot of craziness involved in planning pedal on parliament, but right now, my biggest headache is how to get a group of families safely along the 1.75 miles between Harrison Park and the Meadows. 

All of the route - except the little section that you can see here -is off-road.  But that little section between two wonderful family-friendly routes includes one of Edinburgh's least cycle friendly intersections.

Last year we had some nice policemen come along and stop traffic for us.  Which was great, except that apparently this year, they won't do that.  So, we're stressing and kind of hoping we won't have 120 cyclists like we did last year. Cause it will take us ages to cross at that rate, even if we all dash across on the green man. But the bigger issue is that most days, we all have to negotiate dodgy intersections like this one.

This illustrates why Pedal on Parliament is so essential - it is ridiculous that families with kids don't feel safe cycling between the canal and the meadows.  How can we expect them to go anywhere in the city if they can't do that?  The good news is that the City of Edinburgh recognizes this problem, and it is near the top of planned infrastructural improvements as part of their Active Travel Action Plan.

But this is only going to actually be implemented because the Council is committing 6% of its transport budget to Active Travel, with a planned increase of 1% each year until they reach 10%.

Edinburgh is one of the only municipalities to spend this high a proportion of its budget on cycling.  But the effects are clear - in increased numbers of cyclists every year. This shows what can happen if the Scottish Government also commits itself to a target of 5% of the budget for cycling and 10% for Active travel, as we call for in our manifesto.

But we need to get to the Meadows first in order to ask them to do so - any volunteers to ride with us?   https://www.facebook.com/events/150599691787564/

The H-word

How many of us wear helmets so that when we get squashed the judge can't say it was our fault?   I know I'm not alone in doing this.

But as I wrote a letter to the procurator fiscal (you can too) about the leniency shown in the sentencing for Gary McCourt for the death of Audrey Fyfe, I found myself even less able than normal to justify this position.  And for several days this week I have left my helmet at home.

I don't need (nor want) to read any more studies or studies about the health benefits/disbenefits of helmets.  I've not changed my mind on that.  But I am angry that the judge had the temerity to claim that her not wearing a helmet contributed to her death, when there is absolutely no evidence to back that up. The only person responsible for Audrey Fyfe's death is the man who was in charge of the powerful machine that hit her bicycle. And we need a legal system that acknowledges this, and holds careless and dangerous drivers responsible for their actions.

So, for the moment, I am helmet-less.  I will probably revert -- especially in the dark winter when even my short commute feels perilous -- but right now, this is my small gesture in support of Audrey Fyfe. I only hope I'm still cycling when I'm 75.