The Prime Minister wants a cycling revolution
so give him one.
My rant in last week’s blog saying that our two top cycling campaigners Roger Geffen of Cycling UK (formerly CTC) and Chris Boardman of British Cycling “need
to wise up” didn’t go down well with Geffen and he promptly took me to task.
Geffen said. “I have to say that I didn’t learn very much from that.”
And then proceeded tersely to put me right, saying they did get Cameron
to commit to cycling in the CWIS (Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy).
OK. Very good. But so what?
Because what Cameron said wasn’t worth the paper it wasn’t written on.
I had called for cycling’s campaigners to get a grip of Prime Minister
David Cameron over the derisory government funding for the walking and cycling strategy.
I had invited Geffen and Boardman
- who I cannot reach - to read my blog which was based on a review of
Christian Wolmar’s book “Are Trams Socialist – why Britain has no transport policy”.
Christian Wolmar’s book “Are Trams Socialist – why Britain has no transport policy”.
Wolmar’s story is an eye-opener, especially as, in the view of one
reviewer, cycling has suffered the most because of it.
As every different mode of transport came into the spotlight – first the
canals way back in the 18th century, then the trams, the railways,
the roads, and air travel, never has government applied any strategy to guide development.
Planning permission and funding had to be sought, but never has
government imposed a strategy aimed at getting the best out of each of them.
So it was that roads were designed in the first instance with only
drivers in mind, with the needs of pedestrians as an afterthought.
Other than those early cycle lanes put alongside new dual carriageways
80 years ago – which had no rights of way at side roads and dumped cyclists
back on the main road at roundabouts – the needs of cyclists were never considered.
Given that this ad-hoc approach to transport development has been
consistent for over 200 years, how realistic is it to expect a national cycling
and walking strategy to be given anything other than token support?
This is endemic. We can go on about the cost benefits until we are blue
in the face, government listens but does not hear.
And I made the point that the cycling world should be making a song and
dance about this – just as Wolmar’s book does.
Because government backing for cycling is now lower than ever.
And set to get lower still, as Geffen reminded me.
“The Government’s funding allocations for walking and cycling is going
in the opposite direction: between 2017/18 and 2020/21, they are set to fall by
71%.”
Or, to put it into monetary perspective, the pitifully low spend per
head of population (in England) which has stood at £1.50 for decades, and was advised
needed to be raised to £10 per head but was dropped to £1.39 has now been forecast to
reduce still further, to 0.72 per pence.
In other words, f... all.
Anyhow, over to Geffen who wanted to put me right.
He said I have suggested that he and Chris Boardman don’t realise that
consultations like the one on the current draft CWIS are mostly
tokenistic.
“Actually I know that perfectly well, and I’ve no doubt Chris does
too. He’s not stupid either.”
To my suggestion that they tackle the PM head on, and then go public
with what he says, Geffen said that is pretty much what they did in 2013
following the Get Britain Cycling inquiry.
He doesn’t say they met the PM personally – and if they had I am sure he
would said so. I imagine it was probably all done through intermediaries.
However, Dave duly trotted out what was expected of him, carefully
choosing his words - as politicians do - so he couldn’t be held to account when
his government came up short.
Which they did.
CWIS called for £500m per annum – or £10 per head of population. The government awarded £300m – over
three years, so reducing the spend to £1.39. “Derisory”, cried British Cycling.
Geffen said they had piled the pressure on Cameron to make a public
commitment to co-ordinate action across government to promote cycling.
“After several months of badgering, we finally got him to make a public
statement (in the middle of summer, when nobody was paying attention) in which
he called
for a “Cycling Revolution”.
“DfT even came up with some money to accompany that announcement. Later we got the PM to declare that he wanted cycling
investment to reach £10 per person annually…”
All hot air! Cameron was merely a puppet allowing the cycling lobby to
pull the strings.
Cycling’s funding was actually reduced!
You have to feel sorry for Geffen and Boardman. If they come across too
strong, they probably fear government would no longer meet with them!
But that’s a risk worth taking, I suggest.
Because just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse it does. As we
know, funding is set to drop to 0.39 per head over the next few years.
A prominent journalist once said to me, that if the PM really wanted his
government to get behind something, then they generally do!
So from this we can take it that Dave doesn’t really get cycling.
Geffen said I was right that transport policy is dominated by the
motoring lobby. “The reason for this is fairly obvious: it’s a lot
bigger, both numerically and financially, than the cycling lobby," says Geffen. "Again,
I’m surprised at your apparent belief that Chris Boardman and I are blithely
unaware of what we’re up against.”
He said it that instead of just diagnosing (that’s what a reporter does), it would be useful to come up with a
few suggestions about how to overcome this (That’s
what policy makers are supposed to do). He said that he has been
looking for answers to that one for a long time!
Do I have any suggestions?
Yes - make cycling an election issue. But I’m sure he knows that,
too. But I don’t see anyone calling for this.
Cycling UK's plug for National Bike Week this month has no political content whatsoever.
Perhaps cycling can become an election issue as more and more people take up cycling.
The Dutch revolted some 60 years ago, reacting to the unacceptable death
toll on Dutch roads, with too many children the victims.
Today, we envy Holland’s cycle lane and route system, the way they have
engineered their roads with cyclists in mind.
But may I suggest that if we are fire people up to demonstrate, to get
them to on side, we need first to place cycling’s problems into the historical
context of the ad-hoc development of transport in this country. We have to spell
this bizarre story out.
We can go on and on about the cost benefits of cycling until we are blue
in the face. We are blue in the face. The government listens but does not hear.
It turns a deaf ear.
Every cyclist needs to read Wolmar’s book. It’s not long. It’s a damn
good read; it’s also funny as well as tragic. And it makes you very angry that
the ruling elite could have gotten away with messing with transport for so
long.
I reckon Boardman and Geffen should get themselves a Battle Bus like the
posh Sky Pro Team buses - and tour the country, rouse cyclists everywhere, fan
the flames of revolution?
Could British Cycling and Cycling UK support that? Or has Cycling UK sold its soul in becoming a charity? Maybe they fear that by upsetting government
they may not get the funding they seek to bring more
people into cycling?
“Explore the past to
understand the present and shape the future”
That was the headline
to a review by Susan Graseck of Robert Hellbroner’s prophetic book, “An enquiry
into the human race” published in 1974.
That headline applies to everything we do. And it applies to cycling, if we are
ever to understand the true position, and maybe find a way to break the deadlock.
And that is why I think it necessary to go into the diagnostic detail of
the deep seated issues which have led us to this place, to unpick it; the
better to understand why cycling fails to get the funding it deserves.
Those huge family rides in city centres need to become protest rides,
Critical Mass rides. Boardman and Geffen could tour the country in their big
battle bus.
They could start in the
provinces, as do plays, and take this cycling theatre of woe around the
country, stopping in the major cities where the intrepid duo would ride forth
to lead the protest rides. It would gather momentum so that by
the time they reached London the movement would fill not just Trafalgar Square,
but the West End. I envisage Boardman and Geffen chaining their bikes to the
gates at Downing Street. Cameron said he wanted a Cycling Revolution. Give him
one.
Or whoever replaces him after the shambolic nonsense of June 23.
Just an idea!
Here's a few soundbites….
BIG PROJECTITUS.
The big problem with MPs, former transport minister and cycling advocate
Stephen Norris was fond of saying said back in the 1990s, is that many of them
are afflicted by big projectitus.
They are seduced by grand schemes.
The current furore about the viability of HS2 – the £multibillion rail
high speed rail project to link London with the North of England - is the
latest perfect example of this, as reported in The Guardian this week.
In Monday’s edition, Christian Wolmar argued that there was better value
to be had by re-opening closed lines and improving existing services.
In Tuesday’s paper, it was the turn of Simon Jenkins who ran a detailed
story on what he called the most extravagant infrastructure project in British
history. He said no one can say why we need it!
We “need it”; it appears, simply to satisfy the egos of its promoters
hankering after a similar high-speed rail link to France’s successful TGV.
It does have its opponents in government, people who see it as waste of
money. But crucially, Chancellor George Osborne, who is said to have a weakness
for megaprojects, has been seduced by HS2 and is willing to spend £billions on
it.
This is the same man who cut the already miserably low level of funding
for cycling further earlier this year.
Clearly, cycling isn’t sexy enough for George.
And finally, this final paragraph tells us all we need to know about the
hopelessness of cycling’s case.
In the May 8, 2014, issue of
Cycling Weekly there was a question and answer interview with Louise Ellman MP,
chair of the Commons Transport Select Committee, who was leading a committee
enquiry into cycling safety.
She was asked how committed did she think “we as
a nation are to developing cycle and pedestrian-friendly cities?
She replied: “I think, overall, we are still a
long way from understanding that concept, even though individually there are
some good examples.”
No comments:
Post a Comment