How do we improve cycling standards?

Porgy

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK to improve standards

You educate people.

You provide better roads, more ASL's and more means of explaning road laws, regulations and do's and don'ts.

Then you put in place a system to monitor, regulate and enforce these laws, regualtions and do's and don'ts.

Our government is bankrupt.

end of discussion?

rhext

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK to improve standards

You educate people.

You provide better roads, more ASL's and more means of explaning road laws, regulations and do's and don'ts.

Then you put in place a system to monitor, regulate and enforce these laws, regualtions and do's and don'ts.

So how much should we spend on this do you think?

DonDaddyD

Our government is bankrupt.

end of discussion?

"There is no money, that's it Country's bankrupt so lets all give up hope, stop trying and die pathetically in fat putrid heap or our own self disgust."

I'm really getting sick of this defeatest "there's no money" attitude everytime someone makes a suggestion.

As an example, people wanted more say in the NHS and a NHS that uses less public funded money to function. So they made Foundation Trust and those very same people then complained about Privatisation and less Government control in the NHS. Not once looking at the fact that the freedom to be innovative has generated millions for money if not all NHS Foundation Trusts.

Fact is there are innovative ways to implement an initiative that is both inexpensive and still effective.

What is sadly pathetic is that so many (above) are so willing to give up. It's like the former nanny state (with its life maintaining handouts) has people so conditioned that they can't even bare the notion of trying or thinking outside the box now that it is gone.

rhext

I don't take the view that we're bankrupt, and that we should therefore give up. But as a taxpayer, I like to think that the government is spending my money either on delivering good quality services (which I accept I may not actually use) or on reducing serious problems in society.

So I repeat my question. How much money do we think we should spend on wiping the RLJ menace off our streets?

DonDaddyD

DonDaddyD wrote:

rhext wrote:

So how much should we spend on this do you think?

OK to improve standards

Find cheaper but still effective means. It's about cutting waste and needless spending, some money is still there to be spent responsibly and effectively.

You educate people.

- Including awareness of cyclist to new learner drivers is a start.
- Source cheap forms of communications, viral marketing, You Tube, utilise social media as a means of raising awareness.
- Manage a budget effectively, there still is money for transportation and development. Allocate money to this.

You provide better roads, more ASL's and more means of explaning road laws, regulations and do's and don'ts.

- Road maintainance is happening all the time. Place in future plans an initiative to increase the number of ASL's in major cities at crossings that need them. Use sites like this for cyclists to report crossings that they feel need an ASL. When road works happen at those crossings over the next few years that's when the ASLs could be put in place.

Then you put in place a system to monitor, regulate and enforce these laws, regualtions and do's and don'ts.

- Divert police and community support officer's (especially the latter) resources where necessary

DonDaddyD

rhext wrote:

I don't take the view that we're bankrupt, and that we should therefore give up. But as a taxpayer, I like to think that the government is spending my money either on delivering good quality services (which I accept I may not actually use) or on reducing serious problems in society.

So I repeat my question. How much money do we think we should spend on wiping the RLJ menace off our streets?

Sorry, I just get irked by some people who are resistant to innovative thinking and for who change is a frightening thing. :roll:

It's those people who hold my industry back and who would keep us in the dark ages.

In answer to your question, I don't think you can completely wipe RLJing off the streets and I have no foundation on which to speculate a budget. However, I would argue that part of delivering good quality services is constant assessment and updating of said services when the need becomes apparant. It also isn't good enough to meet the current need, future proofing is just as important.

For example, the next time a set of lights needs maintenanace or they dig up the road by a set of lights, they could then re-lay the road with a new ASL as part of maintaining and improving quality in services.

Also, I will go as far to say that, as a taxpayer, part of your anxiety about how funding is spent is because in the past public services have taken on a paternal role. They don't inform fully about how they will spend your money and often prove to spend it unwisely or on things you and the immediate tax paying public do not need.

What may ease said anxiety is transparancy and a full explanation (maybe some opportunity for involvement) of how your money is spent, why it is being spent that way and the results relating to service improvement . I.e. Educating people.

This is something I hope help do in my new role.

rhext

My point is we spend next to no money on this at the moment, so it's going to be difficult to do it cheaper.

Fair point re the ASLs, although I don't see how they serve to improve the standard of cycling, ditto cyling awareness to learner drivers.

But do we really want to be diverting police and CSOs to this? If it were me and I had a spare officer to assign to traffic enforcement, I think I'd put him out looking for motoring infringements. After all, they contribute to hundreds if not thousands of deaths per year. As opposed to RLJ cyclists which contribute to....errrrr.......none!

DonDaddyD

rhext wrote:

My point is we spend next to no money on this at the moment, so it's going to be difficult to do it cheaper.

How do we know this, has any one seen the evidence, the financial reports, the options and the cost comparisons of different services?

How about, where appropriate, sponsorship for services. Perhaps.

Fact is we don't have enough information to determine if it could be done cheaper. If it cannot what can be done cheaper and can the savings from that be diverted to this given the growing priority (due to the increase in cyclists).

Fair point re the ASLs, although I don't see how they serve to improve the standard of cycling, ditto cyling awareness to learner drivers.

ASLs are there to aid cyclists and maintain their safety. The veiw is that by stopping in an ASL you are far enough away from the vehicl behind not to be caught out by a left or right turn and to set off first. - There are exceptions.

I have felt a need to RLJ because there is not a safe space to stop at crossing and cars have pushed me to the side by stopping nearly bumper to bumper with the vehicle infront. Or when i've stopped at a crossing and a Van/HGV has stopped immidately behind me and I cannot guarantee the driver still knows I'm there. There are crossings where an ASL would be damn helpful. It's not the whole solution but its a start.

But do we really want to be diverting police and CSOs to this? If it were me and I had a spare officer to assign to traffic enforcement, I think I'd put him out looking for motoring infringements.

But that's what I said:


When I said

DDD wrote:

Then you put in place a system to monitor, regulate and enforce these laws, regualtions and do's and don'ts.

I didn't just mean ASL and RLJ's I meant improving cycling standards which in turn means improving road standards and monitoring all road users. Half the time people break the law its because there are hardly any visible police about.

Porgy

rhext wrote:

I don't take the view that we're bankrupt, and that we should therefore give up.

Neither do I really - but all DDD's suggestions require money - come back in 5 years - maybe longer. ..and there might be some...and priorities migh have shifted such that some will be released for cycling projects.

Besides, I'm not convinced there's a problem - bad cyclists are a minor irritation no more. And many bad cyclists usually become good cyclists over time.

rhext

Maybe that's because we equate RLJ with all that's bad about cycling standards.

Much as I hate to admit it (;-) DDD's actually got a couple of good points: we already spend a fair amount of money on educating our kids. Mine got some pretty good cycle classes through their school: they even do strange things like signal if they want to slow down!!

Perhaps if we stopped obsessing on how we can punish the evil RLJing lawbreakers and started asking the question 'how could we use existing programmes to get more people cycling more safely' we might get a more productive debate.