Forum topic: Cycle Enfield stakeholders to consider alternative to Green Lanes cycle route

I attended the Cycle Enfield - West consultation meeting on the 8th January, and it seems to me that the recent contributions to this thread have the wrong end of the stick in relation to its purpose. Which was to inform about the limits to plans, and to garner ideas from the perspective of the need to promote and increase cycling. There were a few people reluctant to concede the importance of achieving change present, but that was chance; they had been invited to represent the thoughts, or perhaps the consensus, of their residents' group.

A wider, bigger and much longer - afternoon and evening - consultation for the wider community is planned for February, but that is far from the end of it. Later consultation will include pre-meeting leafletting to the whole community, presumably to ensure the best chance of a broad-based attendance at a critical time.

Enfield Council seems to be organising this programme 'by the book'. Perhaps it's time to give it credit at least for good intentions.

In response to Tom:

"beneficial to all" means precisely that. The scheme should not harm members of any particular user group and it should be beneficial to the whole community.

Cyclists can already ride along the A105 A1010 and A110 and always will be able to. However, sensible a cyclist such as myself would prefer to take quieter roads. DH has not said what route he took on Thursday!

I agree that the cycling culture in the Netherlands is a wonderful thing. But the country is particularly suited to it. The development of that culture was also people (not government) led. It happened very rapidly and was massively popular. Although cyling has increased significantly in the UK, especially, London, in the past decade, it has not been and is never likely to be on the same scale.

£30m actually represents about £100 per Enfield household, so if was coming out of the council tax, it just wouldn't happen.

Actually, people cycle in the Netherlands because it is seen as safe. In the UK, the perception is the opposite. It is safe in the Netherlands by being largely away from motorised traffic. That can't happen on our borough's main roads. So, then lets spend the money buying up the banks of the New River and further develping cylcing alongside other waterways in the borough, Notably the River Lea, then work out a couple of East West routes as much away from tarffic as possible.

Lets also invest in driver and cyclist education. It's good that DH now wears a Hi Vis jacket (hopefully a helmet too) after comments by me and pressure from his wife!

Yes, of course purpose built pedestrianised shopping malls do well, especially where they are under coverand have a John Lewis anchor store as well as plenty of free parking e.g Brent Cross! And the realson they do so well is because affluent shoppers drive there. Doubt the same would be true if Palmers Green was pedestianised, where the biggest draw is MacDonalds . In Nelson Lancashire, Pendle Council had to put hte road back in after pedestrianisation had blighted the town.

Bicyles of course take up little road space. But cylcists are not taxed for using those roads. Drivers not only pay for using those roads but subsidise the NHS and help pay pensions with the tax they pay.

Your raised pavements argument is fallacious. These have been the norm in towns around since the Romans


Allright lets look at the upside of cars:

Protected from the elements.
Take you exactly where and when you want more quickly than bicycles nad more efficiently than public transport in many, if not most, cases
Zero emission vehicles which will dominate in a generation are silent and non-polluting emit nothing more harmful than water vapour if anything
Motor vehicles do not kill or maim on the road, Only bad drivers and riders. Just as bicylces are safe, but bad riders are dangerous.
Get you to the gym to workout and keep fit with less risk of injury.
Bicycles impractlcal over long distances
Can't get the whole family on a bicycle - unless you live in Vietnam.
Greatly extends childrens freedom. They have a free taxi constantly at their disposal.
Roads, much cheaper to build and maintain than railways.
Excellent for community cohesion. Cars are a good thing to talk about when you don't have much else in common

A little anecode for you, is that my son started school 16 months ago. His school is 1 1/2 miles form home. I was given a tagalong by my brother-in-law. It seemed like a great idea when he bought it some years earlier to use with his kids. It didn't happen. I was very appreciative and gave it ago. Gradually my son, became more and more reluctant to be tagged along as the weather became more autumnal and he became embarrassed by all the attention we received. My wife was also fearful of my endeavors. My son protested and cried every morning about having to get on it. Soon after 1/2 term I gave up.

Sorry yes my maths was wrong on that.

But again this scheme's focus is making cycling attractive, so the primarily spending should be on that. How much funding has been effectively given over to car drivers? I say effectively, as despite being allowed to cycle on these roads, most don't feel that is an option. I can cycle on 70mph Dual Carriageways if I wanted to, but I wouldn't dream of doing that.

I cycle on the A105 and the A1010. Since my commute is around 13-15 miles to university, using minor roads is not an option as it would take an eternity. If you think that it is possible to cycle on quiet roads, show me the route. Not only do they take longer, but they do not feel safe against muggers, for example.

If I wanted to take 'minor' roads next to Green lanes I could use Old Park Ave, Old Park Ridings. This was even more stressful than the A105 because there were more parked cars, and higher inclination, so I had to constantly go into primary while being quite slow. The road had loads of drivers on it.

The other way is through Halstead Road, and that still requires you to cycle up to Church Street ( when southbound ) and then again take multiple detours. Finally you must go through an underpass when reaching the A406, something that doesn't feel safe at night.

Yes in the Netherlands it is seen as safe; but it isn't just safe, it is also convenient: the cycle paths are on main roads as well, forming a high density grid. Cycling is also usually faster for short journeys by virtue of the design. You claim that cycle paths can't be put in place but they do exist on roads of similar width to the A105 in the Netherlands. Just look at the distance of the building to building ( or front garden to front garden) width along the A10. You just cannot call it narrow.

Your idea that we should keep cyclists away from main roads and along back streets just won't encourage cycling. The River Lea, for example, does not have many entrance/exit points and it is at the edge of Enfield. I myself personally use it to cycle to University when I can as it is just as fast as the alternatives, but for most people that won't be true.

We've tried education and it doesn't work. For example, Michael Mason was hit from behind last year. He was an experienced cyclist, having done so for many decades. It didn't stop him from being killed. Education also won't stop being from being frightened so as not to cycle at all.

By the way there is no evidence that Hi Vis jackets work and it is simply victim blaming as far as I'm concerned. Hi Vis jackets and helmets also discourage cycling.

Please don't tell me you've used the cyclists don't pay 'road tax' argument. You do know the roads are funded by council tax, that VED or other motoring taxes are not hypothecated to road building, and that most people that cycle are also drivers. Drivers are in fact subsidised by at least £10 billion a year according to this study (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/307739/wider-costs-transport.pdf) and providing funding for good quality cycle infrastructure yields return 5.5 times higher than the costs according to the DfT (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/348943/vfm-assessment-of-cycling-grants.pdf).

The point of the pavements argument is to illustrate what would happen without infrastructure for pedestrians.

Now for your upsides of cars:

It is true you are protected from elements. I don't see this as a massive problem though:



By continuing to drive you are also worsening climate change and thus making the weather more extreme, but I would hold the Government to account on this.

The reason driving is faster is because the environment favours cars. As I said, in the Netherlands cycling is faster because it has the advantage.

However, since average traffic speed in central London is 10mph or something, cycling in many cases is faster, and this is one of the reasons some people cycle. For me being slower on most days is worth it just for the times I filter past miles of vehicles.

While I agree it is bad drivers that kill people, it doesn't detract from the fact that motor vehicles make this a possibility. Cyclists rarely do anything of the sort and so they pose a far smaller risk on others. If more people cycled, the risk would go down, even if they weren't more competent.

I fail to see how driving to the gym specifically is an advantage. How about cycling to the gym, or buying your own equipment? How about cycling when you can so you get exercise without having to put aside time for the day? Good for people with busy schedules.

I agree that bicycle aren't really suited for long distance journeys, and that is one of the advantages of cars, as I've said before. Most journeys aren't long distance: it is with these journeys we should be cycling more.

You can have a bicycle for each member of the family.

Most parents aren't free 24/7. And even if they were, do you think that having to be driven everywhere and be dependent on your parents is better than being able to cycle there yourself? Tell me how it's positive that children are exercising less and cannot play freely on the street.

Why are you bringing in railways into this? My point is that road building is a futile endeavour because cars will always fill in the gap. Bicycle damage the roads much less than cars do.

The last reason just sounds like you are clutching at straws. So is this an advantage of every conversation topic? Even if it were an advantage, you will notice that it doesn't depend on usage of a car. So, we could still have a sensible society which uses bicycles for shorter trips, and talk about cars anyway. People still drive in the Netherlands and car ownership is higher there.

You may be interested in this:



Cycling now receives consistent funding from the government and is integrated into the transport policy.

Cycling to school in the Netherlands is very common, so perhaps your son wouldn't be so embarrassed if it were normal.

Edit: I must again point to the fact that cycling is beneficial to everyone.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/oct/16/why-cyling-is-great-for-everyone-not-just-cyclists

This Guardian article by Peter Walker

The scheme will have to take some road space for cycling, though, as there is no real alternative if we want cycling to be attractive.

You seem to have a defeatist attitude. Instead of saying that all of this is not possible, as some people said in the Netherlands, let's actually try rather than sticking to the horrible status quo.

Here is a pretty comprehensive list of myths and excuses as to why we can't provide cycling infrastructure or have mass cycling by David Hembrow:

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html

Also this post by Mark Treasure on 'As Easy As Riding A Bike' shows changes that have taken place on some roads in Amsterdam.

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/space-for-cycling-dutch-style/

You can see in each of these examples that to improve the cycling conditions, space was taken away from motorised transport.

Now the Dutch aren't 'anti-car', but they do prioritise the far more benign forms of transport that are walking and cycling. This has positive effects on the community as a whole.

The whole idea that Dutch streets are somehow wider than everywhere else in the world is a fallacy. American streets are very wide yet the cycling rate is still low.

Governments make choices, and those choices are reflected in the environment. In the UK, cycling is not even considered. Pedestrians are treated like scum that impede on the 'more important' motorised transport.

So this claim that good cycling infrastructure is not possible in the UK is complete nonsense. It is entirely possible, but it needs the will and funding of policy makers.

Here is a demonstration of London's 'narrow' streets:

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/the-physical-constraints-of-londons-streets/

And here is a post by David Hembrow about the cycling rates of immigrants in the Netherlands. It is far higher than in any of the respective countries, showing that people's habits can change.

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/08/distances-fuel-usage-and-integration.html

We seem to have got away from the original point which is that the Partnership board excludes direct representatives of main stakeholders in the borough's roads. Like it or not, this is a fact.

I understand that you (Tom) want to make cycling attractive. But, as you cycle now, you presumably already find it attractive, as do I. Otherwise, surely you wouldn't. You already cycle along the main roads of the borough. You say that using minor roads for your 13-15 mile commute to university would take an eternity and you want to emulate the Holland experience. But, as you know, cycling in Holland is not about hurtling along busy roads at 25 mph, which is of course faster than I'm guessing would like to see motor vehicles being allowed to drive throughout the borough. It is a slower thing. When there are masses of bicycles, including the elderly and young children, speeds are not going to be high. I saw one mature cycle enthusiast on this forum wandering around Winchmore Hill on his bike, yesterday morning, not doing more than about 6mph

Dutch cities even Amsterdam are much smaller and compact than London. In the UK the main cycling cities are university towns, Cambridge Oxford and others. With a population disproportionately young and childless, cycling will inevitably be more popular. They share a compactness with say Amsterdam and are more suited to cycling than a modern metropolis such as London, where a good underground network is the ideal way of making fast progress around. However, even in Amsterdam you see very few cyclists on the main orbital road around the city centre.

I don't know if you are a student, and academic or in a support role at your university. I was a student (UEA Norwich) 30 years ago. My main mode of transport then was a rusty old bicycle. Again a compact city. I never had to commute more than 2 or 3 miles. I was an idealist like you . My experience of the rather un-idealistic behaviour of other supposedly idealistic youth started me on a path to a more practical and realistic outlook to life.

You can't tell me that you are no more likely to be seen wearing hi-vis or reflective clothing than dark clothing. It's illogical - whatever the conclusions of someone somewhere's university thesis that has been picked up and inflated in the press. You might as well dispense with lights as well! What are your views on helmets?

Cyclists who reject their own personal safety are little better than drivers who refuse to wear a seat belt or motorcyclists who likewise reject crash hats. If you reject measures you can take yourself that improve your personal safety, why should you expect the public purse to provide those by taking away roads space for dedicated cycle lanes?

I'm not saying that an "at fault" driver is any less at fault if he hits and innocent cyclist who isn't well protected. I'm just suggesting that we should not be cavalier about our personal safety. You refer to a fear of being mugged. Anyone who is mugged is a victim. But, you can make yourself less vulnerable by keeping your possessions safe, protecting your mobile phone and being generally alert. It's the same thing. It also goes with how you cycle. Ride in the gutter and you'll be hit. Ride further out in the road and you are safer. Ignore the highway code and you also make yourself more vulnerable. the HC has been written for a reason.

Where have I used the cyclists "don't pay road tax" argument? I'm simply pointing out that fuel duty, VAT on fuel on motorcycle sales, car tax, vehicle excise duty, tolls etc. massively outweighs the cost of building and maintaining roads in the UK. And that extra money is used on other public expenditure. You have referred to an old Cabinet Office paper called "The wider costs of transport in English urban areas in 2009". From the time of the last Labour government it factors in also sorts of, pluck a figure in the air and make a wild guess, environmental, social, health and human costs. But the key word in the title is "costs." It fails to add in the private and public benefit of road transport. Simple supply and demand economics means that the benefits must hugely outweigh the costs, even with the high level of indirect taxation on it. If not, we'd all simply stay at home and l live off benefits. Except that then, there would be no benefits as there would be no economic activity to fund them.

I'm not going to carry on back and forth with this, but feel I should have a chance to answer the charges as it were. And whilst my views have been called "extreme" they are as mainstream as am I generally.

Yes I do the activity of cycling attractive.

Check David Hembrows excuses. Cycle paths are not slow. They cater for all types of cyclists, it's just the steady cycling speeds are more common. If the infrastructure attempts to limit the style of cycling that is usable, it has failed.

Maximum speed is not the only factor that determines the time it takes. The number of traffic lights ( which only exist because of cars ) and the slow filtering increase this. Designing infrastructure that prioritises cycling in such a way that the number of times you must stop is minimised could well improve the time it takes me. Stopping and starting is precisely the reason why it takes longer on the minor roads, not because I ride slower on them.

Your second point makes no sense. Why can't cycle lanes exist in the all of London? Journey distances are no longer here than the Netherlands ( another myth in David's post) and cycle tracks don't end at the edge of cities in the Netherlands, but extend throughout the country.

In many city centres cars are restricted. Cycle routes often are 'unraveled' from car routes as I've read David Hembrow calls it but this does not mean that cyclists are inconvenienced. On the contrary, often the car driver has to make the detour.

Regarding Hi Viz and Helmets, yes there is no evidence that the former works at all and the that the latter helps against brain injuries. Common sense is not a good barometer for determining the truth of anything.

If someone looks properly, it doesn't matter what they wear. That also applies if they don't look properly. With the police collision investigation data we see that roughly 1% of collisions had lack of lights as a contributing factor, while 'failure to look properly' was one of the most common factors.

What the focus on helmets and Hi Viz does is detract us from more important issues. Any mitigation they might offer is quit likely small if at all. On the other hand, safer driving for motorists would do far more to protect vulnerable road users. Even safer cycling practice would be better than greater helmet wearing.

I resent this attitude. You seem to consider that a cyclist must somehow earn the ability to cycle safely and comfortably, by doing something that has no evidence of working. Good cycling infrastructure does improve the safety of cyclists immensely and pays for itself.

Do you wear a helmet while walking or driving, considering the risks to head injuries are similar? I suspect not. I know you might claim that cycling is obviously more risky to your head, or something. 'Common sense'. Why don't you wear a helmet? I suppose most would think it was unreasonable...

I've never been able to get a helmet not to move when I push it, even with straps tightened at chocking level. Hi Viz are badly designed. They give the 'boil in the bag effect' and are the wrong shape, and the reflectives are in all the wrong places. Because of this I don't wear Hi Viz or a helmet.

I find it most offensive how the police can be so patronising to cyclists about lack of Hi Viz or whatever, but then willfully ignore complaints cyclists make about bad drivers. Some police officers even criticise cyclists for adopting the national standard for cycling.

Ha ha 'supply and demand' economics, like it is so simple. What about the huge motoring lobby? Perhaps they had something do to with it. What about the fear politicians have about the backlash of cars drivers (i.e. voters) for going against public opinion, which may or may not be economically sound? The fact we exist in a situation were simple measure to stop people from speeding, using their phone, and other dangerous things that some motorists do is viewed as some sort of unreasonable tax highlights that the current situation is probably suited to heavily favour motorists and the policies may reflect that.

There is no 'war on the motorist'.

http://www.ippr.org/publications/the-war-on-motorists-myth-or-reality

Costs of running a car have gone down. Meanwhile we've repeatedly had increased public transport costs.

You've basically disregarded a study on some sort of whim but maintain that motoring taxes pay for the costs of motoring.

What about this?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/25/car-pollution-noise-accidents-eu

What are the benefits of motorised transport? You have given me a list but then claimed it was a joke.

How can you say that 'protected from the elements' in any way pays for the horrendous destruction caused by mass motorised transport?

Most car journeys don't need to be made by car. The economic activity does not depend on everyone driving everywhere. Yes we need motorised tranport for some journeys, but not every journey.

P.S: The highway code is written for drivers primarily, and the advise it in does not reflect good cycling practice. There is no mention of the primary position, for example.

some data which may assist the debate; thoroughly referenced material on transport costs; section from Exec summary follows; link for (very) full, report below. This report from the University of Dresden says that each of the 234 million cars on the road in the EU costs society €1,600 a year or a total of €373 billion a year. These amounts are based on the effects of noise pollution, air pollution and accidents.

(10) There is no longer any scientific debate that holds that any considerable non-internalised external effects exist in the transport area. However, steps to reduce external factors are often rejected “because transport benefits are much larger (Point A) and because transport is contributing much more to society through taxes
and fees (Point ”. The answer to Point A has already been discussed above: yes, there are huge benefits, but these are internal to transport users and these should not initiate any political action. Point B, however, needs more consideration. Is it really a fact that either transport in general, or road or air transport “are the cash cows of our society”?

Because “others” pay for large parts of the costs of transport, Europeans travel by car too much to enable an efficient situation. (Ch 6 Conclusions, excerpt)

Faculty of Transport and Traffic Science - Institute of Transport Planning and Road Traffic, University of Dresden

tu-dresden.de/die_tu.../The_true_costs_of_cars_EN_20121220.pdf