The gendering of transport starts early

On-line campaigns #letkidsbekids and #lettoysbetoys have done a great job of de-gendering toys, colouring books and clothes, but I've been struck at how insidious the gendered message still can be.

My kids mostly wear clothes from our Nearly New Sale, and hand-me-downs, so I can't be too fussy about what they wear, but as my little boy grows, I realise how hard it is to avoid motorbikes and car motifs on his clothes.

When they're toddlers, it's okay for them to have busses and trains, and maybe animals riding bicycles.  But as they hit primary school, everything that's not superheros or disney sends signs that big boys should be petrol heads.  Sure, there may be an occassional 'rad' bmx-er or skateboarder on a t-shirt, but they're swamped by the cars, even on the 'quality' kids clothes.

My daughter, on the other hand, gets given dresses with bicycles on them - bikes for riding to picnics, with flowers on them....

The problem with cyclists...

One of the main 'take-aways' from the recent #roseburn meeting (more on that soon) was  that Edinburgh's already a great place to cycle, so why do they need to do it down 'our' street (one of the main arterials into the city centre...).

Speaker after speaker claimed to 'be a cyclist myself' and rhapsodised about Edinburgh's amazing oof-road cycle routes.  To paraphrase one audience member 'there are lots of places that people can already cycle, amazing cycle paths'.  And, that's perfectly true, but they don't take you into the city centre to work!  Others suggested that the NCN route (the one that runs down the tram tracks) is under-utilized, and needs better signage...

The real answer, as Peter Gregson* himself, admitted "The problem with cyclists is we don't want to take funny awkward routes".  

And, of course, he's right.  There are lots of reasons that cyclists don't use existing 'funny awkward' routes - like ones that take you through a park full of kids and pedestrians, up and down hills, and through dodgy intersections - but they will use safe, well-designed routes, and even more importantly, so will people who don't currently cycle, as we're seeing in London:

Cycling now major transport mode in LDN: 645,000 journeys a day, 10% up from 2013. Morning rush trebled since 2000 pic.twitter.com/3gZPIwp0EE

— Sustrans London (@SustransLondon) August 4, 2016

This shows, if nothing else does, why 'quiet routes' won't increase cycle use enough to make a difference, but good infrastructure will.

If we take seriously concerns about pollution, congestion, the massive expansion Edinburgh is under-going, and the inability of our road network to cope with increased single-occupancy vehicle usage, then we need to build direct, easy to use arterial networks.

Reducing car usage is what will enable emergency vehicles to get through our streets, deliveries to shops, and essential traffic.  It's the excess car use that blocks up Roseburn and keeps the buses from running.

Transforming the environment into one that doesn't privilege rampant car use - but allows those who need cars to do so - is the main plank to keeping Roseburn moving, and that means cyclists too.


* The individual behind the 'anti' campaign. 

Cycling Paradise...in Scotland?

I spent last week looking out my kitchen window at family groups cycling down the middle of the road, mums with their handbags dangling from their arms; sober, sedate older citizens cycling home with their newspapers and loaves of bread; groups of early teenagers zooming around *without helmets* on their own. In fact, the first 48 hours I was there I didn't see any helmets at all, despite seeing dozens of cyclists - far more than I saw moving cars.

Amazingly, I wasn't in Holland, or Paris, or Copenhagen.  I was in Scotland, about 50 miles from Edinburgh, in Elie.

Elie's a little seaside village, popular with tourists, and even more popular as a holiday home or vacation spot for the well-heeled.  But the narrow-crowded streets make driving a nightmare, so families bring their bikes, or rent bikes for the duration of their holiday, and cycle back and forth to the beach, golf courses, and tennis courts.  I particularly liked the moment I peered around a narrow corner and was confronted by 3 lads in wetsuits and flipflops, cycling along casually with their phones out, while a car waited patiently behind them.  Or looking out the window as it got dark, to see the cheeky grin of the 8 year old staying below us, who had cycled home at 10pm, and had clearly left his parents some way back with his little sister. 

Elie is a privileged space, and perhaps not easily replicated outside Centre Parks, but it was nonetheless immensely refreshing to see that *in the right space* parents were willing to hop on their bikes, let their kids have some freedom, and leave their cars at home.  

5 things you need to know before cycling with your kids

Please forgive the clickbaity-title.  I've been thinking about this post for a while, and got inspired by a discussion on the Family Cycling facebook group.  On the one hand, I think we're probably just lucky - our kids rarely whine that they're tired (refueling usually helps) and really seem to enjoy going places by bike.  But, a bit a parental strategy helps.  If you're going to cycle regularly or any distances, you'll end up on the roads at least some of the time. These are my tips for happy family cycling: 

1.  Accept that it will be stressful  Yes, riding bikes is fun and good for you and a speedy way to get around, but riding on roads with your kids is incredibly stressful. It helps if you have two adults. It also helps to keep on quiet roads as much as possible.  Around Edinburgh we can easily ride 10 miles in all directions with 90% on off-road paths, but even then the remaining 10% is exhausting.  On the plus side,  your kids will grow amazingly in confidence and skills.

2. Don't try this until you can trust your kids to listen to you and do what you say. This is a pretty big caveat. You do have to have kids who stay (mostly) tuned in, and alert to your instructions.  It helps if they know their left and their right too (this also goes for parents...).  You also need to be sure that everyone understands the rules.  We had a disaster once when riding with friends whose son wasn't all that confident.  I started through an intersection that I've taken my kids through dozens of times.  I made eye contact (think Paddington stare) with a car that was indictating to turn across us.  I told the kids - behind me - to go as well.  I was shielding them from the car, but moving.  Then my friend, bringing up the rear told the kids to 'watch out for the car'. So the non-confident child braked and froze in the intersection, my daughter ran into him and came off in the junction, and I cycled off, not knowing what had happened.  There are two lessons here: (1) I shouldn't have tried to go through the intersection. We should have got off and walked. Or, I should have stopped my bike and blocked the turning car. (2) Make sure that kids know that only STOP means stop, and that you have to keep going when there are other cyclists behind you.

3. Always keep the kids in front of you This is the one big rule that I frequently want to shout at parents I see on the roads.  You need to be able to see your kids.  Yes, this can mean that they're riding in front of car doors and other obstacles.  You don't want them too far in front.  But you need to be behind them and, if possible,  a little to the right (for those of us who drive on the left).  The ideal situation is two experienced/adult riders, with the most confident bringing up the back, but that's not always possible.  So, remember, kids in front, but it's your job to tell them to 'start slowing down' / change gears/ get ready to go because the light's changing etc.

4. Have a get-out clause, but don't let them know! if they're small start by taking your normal bike-seat, tandem or trailer along as well.  That way if it's too much, you can still bungee their bike on and take them back home.  Trailgators accomplish this too. But the real trick is not to let them know that the tow home is an option.  So, make the trailer look really full of picnic blankets or siblings or whatever and don't offer 'do you want to get in and ride home' unless you have to.  If you don't mention it, they may not twig.  We've done this with both our kids and never had to use the emergency escape route.  With our first, we just assumed she'd get in the trailer on the way back after pedalling 2.5 miles to Duddingston Loch on a 10" wheel bike.  But nope, she rode all the way home too.  With our second, we were a bit savvier.  We didn't bother with the trailer, but we did take the tandem and bungees.  After a couple of months we left the tandem at home and all rode 'normal' bikes.  Another clever wheeze is to always plan rides that intersect with train lines, at least for the first few months - we've only bailed once, when we'd badly underestimated the weather and had a very cold toddler, and then my daughter wiped out (she was looking at the Forth Bridge and went off the path...).  Luckily we were near Dalmeny Station, so we abandoned our planned ride, jumped on a train (thanks to an understanding guard) and went happily home.  

5.  Peer pressure is the best: Organize a ride with some friends and your kids will be amazed to find they've cycled 10 or 15 miles easily in a day.  Seriously though, not only will they think if he can do it, so can I, but they'll also ride twice as fast with a friend their age as with you.


Finally, to combine all these things -- go somewhere fun, but have a back up plan, and some rewards.  My daughter managed over 25miles on a 20" bike when she was 7 - it was also the 3yo's first long ride as stoker on the tandem.  We had an incentive that we were meeting friends for a cool event out at East Fortune (the National Museum of Flight), and that we could easily get the train home. It was a fabulous ride, much longer than we'd have done if we hadn't known there were train stations all the way along.  We also took the child seat and knew that we could always put the 7yo on the tandem and the toddler in the bike seat if we needed to.  We had a great ride, a fun train ride home, and then dinner at our favourite restaurant as a treat.

Operation Souped-up Islabike a success!

Following on from my previous post, all about chainsets and gear-ratios and other things I don't really understand, I'm delighted to report that our attempt to retro-fit a larger chainset to the Islabike has been an unqualified success. 

We were lucky enough to find a 36T chainwheel, with cranks exactly the same length as his current ones, in the magic drawers of the Bike Station. In fact, so lucky, that we didn't realise we'd found them.  Our co-conspirator (who unlike me actually understands things like cranks and chain sets) bought it for another refitting job he's doing, thinking it was a 32, but realized later that it was just the right size.   

On Sunday, we he disassembled the Islabike, attached the new chainset and off we went. A definite improvement - noticeable, but not so much that it affected his ability get started or to climb. And hugely better on the flats.  He still rides it a bit like a bmx, but there's a lot less spinning and coasting.  

Which makes me wonder if Islabikes and Frog might want to consider marketing some 'longer distance' bikes, or at least an option of buying your bike with a 32, 36, or 40 chainset?   Or even just having these parts available to order? 

If our lad found the bike undergeared within 6 months of fitting on it, and riding distances of between 10 and 20 miles, then surely there must be other folk out there in the market for such adaptations?  

How to choose a kids bike...or why it's not just about wheel size

When we go cycling en famille, we are quite often all on 20" wheels - an Islabike Beinn small, currently ridden by my 5yo; my Dahon Helios folder; and our Circe Helios tandem.  But there is a huge disparity to our pedalling rate. The little guy's legs go around and around, even when the rest of us are coasting.  We noticed this when our daughter rode the same bike, especially when we started doing longer rides.  But with the 5yo desperate to keep up with his big sister, he's more often out of the saddle, than in it. 

(Although unusually for us, in this picture the two leading cyclists are on 24" and 700cc wheels)

Which is okay for short rides, but pretty tiring when he's doing a decent 15 miles around Edinburgh's old railway paths, which tend to be pretty flat.

What we discovered when we discussed this apparent paradox, is that contrary to general opinion, wheelsize and the number of gears on your bike really don't make much difference. It's crank lengths, and, perhaps more importantly, gear ratios, that we should be worried about.  

Kids bikes are geared low to make it easy for them to start pedalling, go up hills, etc.  So my guy can sprint up hill, but struggles to keep a steady pace on the flats, because he 'spins out'.  I wondered if any other comparable kids bikes had higher gearing, but that data required some digging, and I thought I'd share my findings*:

This suggests that Frogs have higher gearing on their first bikes than Islabikes do (my kids just rode generic second-hands at this stage, so I can't compare).  But, when you get to geared bikes for 5-6yos, there's not much difference. 

I'm intrigued though by the Frog 58, which with a 34T chainwheel looks like a much better 'next bike' for my 5yo than the Beinn 20 large, or the Luath 24.  His sister rode the Beinn 20 small until she was 8, but I have the feeling he might be moving up sooner than that.  

However, we've also got an expert bike consultant involved who's looking into retrofitting a bigger chainset to the Beinn, if we can just find one with small enough cranks.

*important caveat - I just pulled this data off the websites; please let me know if you spot anything wrong!  I've not included all their makes - I'm particularly interested in the 5-6yo demographic. Obviously, none of this should be taken as any sort of endorsement of either islabikes or frogs.I've not dug out data on kids bikes other than Islabikes and Frogs because their bikes are the smallest weights and their brakes are designed for small hands, and my kids both have tiny hands. 

Normalising cycling...Cycling Normally...

What's your favourite part of Pedal on Parliament?

For a lot of folk it's the quirky bikes - the velomobiles, tall bikes and unicycles; for others it's the adapted bikes - tandems for partially sighted stokers, hand-powered cycles, recumbents, and side-by-side trikes;  most people comment on the kids - on their own wee bikes sometimes still with stabilizers attached; in box-bikes; tag-alongs,  and tandems;  while for others it's the cyclists in 'normal' clothes -particularly beautifully represented by Alison Johnstone this year, but also (perhaps less beautifully) by many others of us wearing jeans and t-shirts, or other combinations of 'normal' clothes.

But the people who I love to see - and who I always try to thank for coming - is the one group that gets flak:   the club cyclists in full matching lycra.

Every year after POP we get comments saying too much lycra, too many helmets, too much hi-viz.   And I'd love it if people didn't feel the need to wear all that kit for a short ride (although some of those 'roadies' have been cycling for 4-5 hours by the time they reach the meadows).  But the reality is that most folk don't feel welcome on the roads, and they don't trust drivers to not see them.

Hi-viz and helmets are indicators of where we've gone wrong as a cycling nation.  The clubbyness of our 'cycling culture' is a defensive reaction to out-group stereotypes, rather like teenage goths or punks 30 years ago.  Telling these folk to 'dress normally' without changing the environment that makes them feel like outcasts, is as much use as a well-meaning mother asking their kids  'dress normally please' when going to visit grandparents.

But the real reason I love seeing the roadies is because there is a tendency to suggest that cycle infrastructure is something needed by 'less confident cyclists like women and children' (as a draft document produced by Edinburgh Council put it recently).  And this shapes assumptions about the type of infra and how it is understood.

Infrastructure for 'women and children' is a fringe benefit, a nice thing to have, but not 'essential' like infrastructure for road-hauliers and important business-people getting to their offices.  And so, infrastructure is designed for leisure use, or to take kids to schools and parks.   But 'real' spending is reserved for dualling roads and building bridges.

We know that there is a compelling economic case to be made for investment in proper cycle infrastructure - great rates of return, with benefits for local businesses and the economy as a whole.

But in order to get that sort of infrastructure built we need to send the message that everyone - not just me and my kids - will benefit from investment.  And that is why I love seeing the roadies there - because they send a signal that even those die-hard road-warriors want and need better road design.

We need to design cycling into all of our roads - urban and rural, quiet and busy - so that cycling really does become something that everyone can do, in all sorts of clothes.

The good, the bad, and the ugly of Edinburgh's dual network

A big chunk of Edinburgh's Active Travel Action Plan covers the creation of a 'family network'  now renamed 'quiet routes':

The map is here thanks to Chris Hill for the direct link.

There's been a lot of criticism of this approach, which is predicated on the assumption that fast, aggressive cyclists will stay on the roads and less confident cyclists will take 'quiet ways'.  This is of course a false assumption - 'confident' cyclists are just at much as risk from a bus that fails to indicate before changing lanes,  a driver who overtakes too closely, or a left hook SMIDSY.  Good infrastructure will be used by all, as we're seeing in London.

But I've defended Edinburgh's dual network approach because it was based around linking up our existing, yet fragmented off-road network - mostly based on old railway paths, parks, and the canal. While it would have been nice to start off by redesigning the big arterial roads that feed commuters into the city, the pragmatist in me valued the decision to prioritize linking up the existing well-used off road segments.

The first major bit of this work has been the Meadows-Innocent path - which is roundabout, indirect, and somewhat too narrow, especially if you ride a tandem.  But my kids love using it, and if I tell them we're going that way, I get a big cheer.   So last week, when cycling the two miles to the Commie Pool with both kids several times, it made sense to go that way.  The first quarter of the journey is pretty nerve-wracking, but once we get to the meadows we're on segregated paths and very quiet back streets (the sort we almost never meet a car on).   Except that the pool is a few hundred metres past the entrance to the railway path.  And that means that we need to make a right hand turn uphill across 4 lanes of fast-moving traffic - to get to one of the city's biggest sports venues.  It's also right next to the main halls of residence for the University of Edinburgh.  Getting back is just as bad.  Traffic flows steadily out of Holyrood Park, and turning across it at rush hour is fraught with stress.  There is a two stage pelican crossing, but it is almost exactly in between our exit and entrance from this short stretch of road - marked by the two red x's on the picture to the right.

Of course, we could get off and walk, although manoeuvring kids and bikes along pavements and through a narrow central island with railings and pedestrians is not one of my favourite things to do.  But it's frustrating to get so close and then encounter the deeply unpleasant, car dominated void that is Holyrood Park Rd.

Maybe the network will be extended.  But to my mind, this example shows up the very real limitations of the 'fill in the gaps' method of cycle planning.  Once the Canal-to-Meadows section is built, we'll have a protected route pretty much from our front door to 200 metres from the pool, but the last few yards will continue to be unpleasant and dangerous.   I've blogged before about how 'car-friendly' the pool is, but this really rubs it in.

The crazy thing is, despite the new infra being roundabout, narrow and indirect, it is a huge improvement on the route we used to use daily taking a toddler to nursery in a bike-seat.    But it makes the continued gaps all the more obvious.

Living car-free in Scotland?

We've lived in the UK for over 20 years, and in Scotland for 12, without needing a car.  It helps that Oxford and Edinburgh have both proved cycle and walking friendly, and both have excellent bus systems too.  Even since we've had kids, we've not regretted not having a car in the city.  Just this summer, with an 8yo and a 4yo we managed expeditions by train and bike to Tantallon and Dirleton Castles, and their associated beaches.  It's great for the kids to have the experience of getting places under their own steam, and really seeing the countryside.  Plus it tires them out, so they sleep soundly at night :)

But half-term poses new challenges.  It's not that we can't cycle 40km easily in a day as a family, with the 8yo on her own bike, and the 4yo on the tandem.  And we're pretty adept at carrying supplies in panniers.  But a lot of places that we'd like to go require a train trip first -- like the off-road route from Glasgow to Loch Lomond.  The problem is that Scotrail only lets you book 2 bikes per train. And it won't take tandems at all (even 'compact' ones like ours).   So, while an ideal scenario would be to borrow a second tandem, load them up and take the train to Pitlochry, or up the West Highland way, we can't do that.  Even if we just took one tandem, we'd still have 3 bikes, which is also not allowed.  And as Alison Johnstone wrote earlier, just getting 2 bikes on some trains can be a challenge.

Supposedly, guards can use their discretion and let extra bikes on, but when travelling with kids, that's really not an option - you need to know that you'll all be able to get on trains, and arrive at a decent hour, not gamble on a friendly guard.   A few years ago, we got stuck on the platform at Longniddry with a toddler at dusk because the guard wouldn't let us on an otherwise empty train, because 2 bikes had boarded at an earlier station.  It didn't matter that the train was full of empty carriages, this particular woman was determined to show us that we didn't count and physically prevented us from boarding.  We had to wait another hour, as it got dark and cold. It spoiled a lovely day out watching the geese at Aberlady bay.   So, no, I won't be trusting to the good will of the guards when venturing further afield.

What's frustrating about this is that Abellio, the new franchise holder promotes itself as 'cycle friendly' and the Scottish government wants to promote 'cycle tourism'.  But I guess that's just for young fit couples, and single adventurous cyclists.  Not for families that would rather do without the hassles of car ownership.

Well, we've given in.  There is now a British license-holder in our family, and we'll be joining the car club as soon as we can.  But if the franchise terms for other lines and orders for new trains could contemplate some flexible seating into which bikes could go, or having multiple cars with bike carriage, then there would be so many more options for families like ours.

for more info:  http://www.spokes.org.uk/2015/07/new-glasgow-edinburgh-trains/

Off-balance

I ended in a bit of a twitter-slanging-match this morning.  With Stella Creasy of all people.  I've rather admired her style and approach to politics - she seemed to really want to bring an energetic, campaigning politics back into the Labour Party.  But I was disappointed by this tweet, which excerpted parts of a newsletter from her, which seemed very negative - portraying the Walthamstow 'miniholland' project as being about cyclists versus 'everyone else'.

GazLemon Disappointed by @stellacreasy’s latest newsletter which echoes #miniholland concerns of a noisy pro-car minority http://t.co/WMiPfijqWM 22/09/2015 08:32

In our subsequent exchange, she kept emphasising how she was trying to 'balance' the competing needs.*  Which reminded me of how affirmative action campaigns for women are too often critiqued for not being 'balanced', and how often 'balance' is promoted by the status quo as a reason for keeping the status quo, as in this fun tweet that came in about the same time: 

accidentobizaro "We have got to be very careful not to do things at a speed which will make male candidates feel that the cards are stacked against them." 22/09/2015 09:16   [which links to this article. ]

Stella Creasy said that my comparison was 'silly'.  But is it?  surely our current infrastructure is built with cars and drivers as their primary concern?  

So here's my top examples of our transport infrastructure privileging cars, rather than active travel:

• Tarmac is continuous across junctions, but pavements stop

• Driveways and entrances to car parks always have dropped kerbs, but not pedestrian crossings

• 'Green wave' traffic lights that turn green for cars, but give cyclists red after red

• Wide corner radiuses that make it easy for cars to turn, but widen the crossings making it difficult for pedestrians to cross

• Push buttons on toucans - do you ever see drivers having to get out and push a button? 

• Dummy 'push buttons' on pelican crossings that are actually controlled automatically from junctions

• Half of most roadways taken up with parked cars 

• Road signs and parking meters on pavements, not on roadways, even though they deal with car regulations 

It's time to redress the balance - which is why we should all get behind the mini-holland schemes, and similar schemes elsewhere in the country. If criticism is needed, let's make it constrictive criticism, and not hide behind excuses of 'balance'. 

*  To be clear - she didn't use the word 'balance' - that is my reading of her various tweets and newsletter.  But she did say my comparison was "silly". 

The uncertainty principle

My last post was about how problematic uncertainty is in cycle infrastructure.  It's since occurred to me that the problem isn't uncertainty itself, but uncertainty for the more vulnerable.

Good cycle infra, as seen in Holland, Denmark, etc reduces uncertainty - cyclists have their own safe spaces, as do pedestrians and cars.  But even the Dutch have some spaces where uncertainty is permitted - such as the bike streets that identify cars as visitors, and make it clear that the space is intended for cyclists and pedestrians.  Likewise, streets with no centre line and bike lanes on either side - a UK can be seen here and a study by TfL here .   But crucially here, the uncertainty is on the part of the car drivers, as the least vulnerable users. 

Edinburgh is trialling this system on a road on the outskirts of the city.  It's not perfect - the road speed is too high, and the bike lanes are not going to be colored. But it does introduce uncertainty for the car driver, rather than the cyclist. 

By contrast, the paths leading to North Meadow Walk have given the uncertainty to the pedestrians, as discussed in my last blogpost, and as @fountainbridge shows in this mockup:  

https://www.flickr.com/photos/130059894@N04/16865206971/

Cyclists have lots of signs telling them what to do and how to behave, but pedestrians have nothing.  Anyone who knows about Scottish law will know that pedestrians have full rights to use both the paths marked in green and in pink, but the signals being sent to them say differently.  So uncertainty is created.  

This is the exact opposite of the basic principles discussed above -- the heavier, more dangerous form of transport should be made to feel like a 'guest', not the most vulnerable. 

Until we put this principle at the heart of our infrastructure, we're getting it wrong.  We'll continue to foster resentment and hostility between cyclists and pedestrians, and discourage the take-up of active travel that our policies claim to promote. 

What's the point of 'infrastructure'?

I'd like to think that the point of infrastructure was to decrease conflict and increase safety of all road users, but especially the most vulnerable.  So, roads should be designed to enable pedestrians to cross safely and easily.  Too often this isn't the case and unnecessary barriers are put in their way  (as shown here and here).  

Sadly, this is too often the effect of cycle infrastructure too.  And this is frustrating because pedestrians' subjective safety matters too.  The two most common examples  are chicanes  and shared use pavements.  But Edinburgh seems to have invented some new and particularly baffling versions.  

'Normal' shared use has a pavement with some blue signs in the air, that most people don't see or understand.  But since shared use should only be used on wide pavements with relatively low footfall, its rarely a huge cause of problems (except misunderstandings, of which there are many). 

But the video above is from North Meadow Walk in Edinburgh - a much used commuter, jogging, dog-walking and leisure route. This is an intensively used path, where markings have been painted in such a way to suggest to pedestrians coming from the east that cyclists should be on the right hand side of the path and to pedestrians coming from the west that they should be on the left. Maybe.  It's not clear.  

Similar paint is used on the short cut-through path on the other side of the toucan crossing.  It's been raised many times as confusing. But instead of improving it, the Council has seen fit to replicate it.  On an even shorter length of path. 

What's the point to putting in 'infrastructure' (if we can call paint that), when it confuses users and creates conflict?  

Do we need an anti-pedestrian lobby?

So the anti-20mph march on Saturday was pretty much a damp squib. It was a lovely crisp sunny morning and about 40 people turned up. 

I'm ever so slightly disappointed. 

I can't help thinking that it might be helpful to have an organised residents group that actually opposed policies that aim to make our streets more attractive to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.

Currently the SNP, Labour and the Greens all support the 20mph roll out, and the Conservatives have mostly sensible things to say about transport.  

So, one of the reasons for the 'massive backlash' against the 20mph campaign is that when it was being planned and consulted on, no one lobbied against it or wrote to the newspapers in dismay, so most people just ignored it. 

Edinburgh's 20mph is just one part of a longstanding bundle of policies, wrapped up in the Local Transport Strategy, Active Travel Plan etc that's been chuntering through the system for years.  Councillors from all parties have been involved, and many users have been consulted, and that's why there is a fairly strong cross-party consensus. 

But while there are lobby groups pushing for more support to active travel, there are relatively few that will actively oppose it.  So we never really debate these issues - we just get opposing soundbites in the local paper.  

If we had a group willing to say that they didn't care about air pollution, or KSI rates, and actively wanted to reduce the number of cyclists on the roads, then we could actually have a robust debate about why we think more cyclists, less pollution and lower KSI rates is better.  

A hugely frustrating aspect of the current debate is that the anti-20mph folk just keep repeating the same opinions, with their fingers in their ears.  So they keep demanding 'facts'  and refusing to look at them. If there was actually a lobby against these things, they'd have to go to all the same meetings that we do, read all the reports, and respond to all the consultations.   I'm not saying they'd change their minds, but it would blow a huge hole in their 'we weren't asked' and 'nobody consulted me or my mum' repertoire. 

They'd have to answer tough questions from reporters when asthma  rates went up, childhood obesity increased further or respond to the grief of parents and loved ones widowed too soon.  They'd have to face the reality of their policies.

I'd like to see that.

5 years for two yellow lines?

In March 2013 I blogged about a dropped kerb that had finally been installed, 3 years after I'd first raised with the council - and others had already flagged it to them at that point.  We celebrated its arrive with bubbly, and gave a small libation to the ancestors as well.  It was a tiny change to our 'streets cape' but one that we notice and enjoy every time we use it.

Isn't it lovely? photo by chdot 

Except often we can't actually use it, because there are cars parked over it.  Now, two years on, we finally have double yellows not just on this dropped kerb, but - I hope - on all the entrances to the park and canal path.  You can still see the vestiges of a parking place on the picture above, but hopefully the yellow lines will discourage most from blocking it.

So, five years for a drop kerb, on a route that sees hundreds of cyclists everyday.

A victory?

Maybe.   If only anti-cyclist infrastructure didn't get installed on a whim, and usually badly.  Why is that a dropped kerb takes 5 years, while chicanes can be put up in weeks after a single complaint?  The dropped kerb itself may be minor, but it captures the inequities of urban governance regarding active travel as does  the city's repeated inability to install chicanes properly.

Coincidentally, it was pointed out to me earlier today that the Active Travel Action plan includes this action:

Set up a process for reporting missing dropped kerbs/identifying priority new dropped kerbs by the end of 2011, and then implement the highest priority ones.

Going about this in an ad-hoc way is clearly a waste of campaigners and council time, as well as inequitable to areas with less shouty campaigners.  

Do you have some kerbs you'd like dropped in less than 5 years?  Let's make a list. 

Act now to save our bus (and bike) lanes

The hottest issue to hit Edinburgh cycle campaigning is...bus lanes.  Yup.  Bus lanes.  Not removing obstacle on paths, designing better infrastructure or even tram tracks.  Nope. The thing that has got even the mild-mannered folks at Spokes up in arms this week is the council's proposal to reduce the time that bus lanes are restricted to buses (and bikes, obviously).  A detailed objection from Spokes, Living Streets and Greener Leith is here. 

Now, there are people out there who secretly believe that Spokes writes the council's agenda.  In the deeper realms of the internet I'm sure there are people who believe that Dave du Feu has a stash of 'indiscreet' pictures of Lesley Hinds that he threatens to release...the reality is that Spokes goes out of its way to be constructive and to temper the criticism with a healthy dose of flattery. But this time, they're angry.

It's taken me a while to get my head around this one.  I think bus lanes are great, but they are bus infrastructure, so surely the people who ought to be seeing red are public transport campaigners?  I'm all for encouraging public transport. The worst cities I've lived in - with the most congested  and dangerous roads - have been those where only 'the poor' use public transport.  One of the things that makes Edinburgh liveable is its excellent public transport network.  

But I've struggled to understand why cycle campaigners are so worked up about it.  As far as I can see bus lanes are too often used as an excuse for not building proper cycle infrastructure.  First we're told that the need for bus lanes means there 'isn't room' for cycle lanes, and then we're told that bus lanes give us protected space.  This was explicit when it came to the north end of Leith Walk, where the council refused to build protected cycle lanes inside the parked cars, but told us we didn't need them anyway, because we had a bus lane.  Now they're proposing to reduce the time that those lanes are active, and allow all vehicles to use them during the day.

Which made me think a bit. I think bus lanes are crap because all the ones I regularly use are already part-time. Because they're not on my commute, I never see buses in them.  Take George IV Bridge - when did you last see a bus in the bus lane?  If you're like me, you'll have seen buses cruising down the central lanes, and dipping in and out of the bus lanes.  That's because the 'bus lane' is full of taxis and white vans loading, unloading, painting, decorating and god knows what else.  So, the off-peak bus lanes are useless - unless you're a 9-5 commuter.  And what the council wants to do is make all our bus lanes equally useless.

If you don't want that to happen  let them know. The consultation ends on Wednesday the 18th.  Otherwise all of our bus lanes will become de facto loading zones.  

I still don't think bus lanes come anywhere close to being good cycle infra. The closest I have come to being smushed on the roads of Edinburgh was by a bus in a bus lane on the Dalkeith Rd.  A bus had pulled in to the stop by the Commie Pool, I carried on straight.  Driver saw there were no passengers and pulled back into 'his' lane without looking in his mirror (I wasn't in a blind spot, I could see where he was looking, and it was at the kerb).  Proper infrastructure would have a cycle lane behind the bus stop.

I'm hoping we can start campaigning for that soon.  As soon as I find out where DdF's stashed *those* pictures....

A businessman's view of 20mph

This was actually a comment on my last blogpost, but it's so good I thought it deserved its own post: 


As a business owner and commercial rate payer I would say that the 20mph zone in Marchmont has been a qualified success. 

We opened before this was set up and have seen more families walking and cycling to school with much fewer drivers ignoring the limit. A few still do of course (hence the use of qualified) but generally people understand that this is an area where people like to walk (or cycle) between local businesses. There are no marked crossings on this street and the advent of 20mph zones means that a minor adjustment of speed can allow the young and old to get across safely. From a driving point of view the absence of light controlled crossings will actually make driving less frustrating. Also will save money. 

We run a bike shop so readers may think that we are immune to any laws that pertain to cars. In fact the 20mph zone also helps with parking as when a street is marked at 30mph it means that finding that elusive parking space can annoy fellow car users. When the local retail environment is slowed slightly people have time to see spaces and work with each other. 

You wouldn't expect to drive round a shopping centre car park at 30mph. What's good enough for the large supermarkets is good enough for the business and council tax payers who actually live and work on these streets. 

The city streets are not just there for people 'passing through' and a more pleasant outdoor environment results in more time spent at local shops, cafes and pubs. 

David Gardiner

Laid Back Bikes

Marchmont Crescent

www.laid-back-bikes.scot

Why the Evening News is wrong...

Edinburgh Road casualties 2000-2010 Click here to see the map in better resolution.

One of the less barmy claims by some anti-20 campaigners, which has featured in the local paper, is that we're targeting the wrong streets...because other streets have higher rates of accidents.  On the face of it, this seems a huge blow to the council and 20splenty supporters. 

But let's think about this a little.  Firstly, the story is discussing all accidents, not pedestrian accidents, and it is pedestrians, especially child pedestrians, as this article from the BMJ shows who really stand to benefit. While there are gains for everyone will benefit : "The introduction of the 20 mph zones was associated with a reduction in casualties and collisions of around 40%" there are particular benefits for child pedestrians:  The observed reductions were largest for the youngest children (0-5 and 6-11). "

In looking for our 'most dangerous roads', the EEN is missing half the logic of 20mph zones - to make our streets feel safer as well as be safer. 

The council's focus  on streets that have dense housing, such as tenements , or shopping areas is exactly the same logic that currently justifies our 20mph zones around schools and in quiet residential streets.  

It's not that there are more accidents in bungalowland, or around schools, but they are areas that we want to make feel safe, as well as being safe. 

If we want to keep Edinburgh a living, breathing city, we need to keep mixed populations living in and around the centre of the city -- families, older people, professionals and students.  They will only do this if the city continues to be a welcoming and enjoyable place to live - for all, including those with pushchairs, wheelchairs and zimmer-frames. 

By all means, let's also look at ways of making our most dangerous streets safer, but ignoring the streets that we live on is not the way forward.