Cycling England axed
Comments
-
Hold on. Two things.
First, this organization costs £200,000 a year to run. Fine. Except that's £200,000 that is used to extract a lot more money from central govt - eg £12 million for Bikeability.
Second, this
sounds pretty desperate. Since when did this outfit, that I have never previously heard of, and have not asked for my authority to speak for me, become the body that can speak with authority to the Govt on my behalf?Cyclists, however, from March 2011, will be sidelined. No longer will cycling have an umbrella body which can talk directly, and with authority, to Government departments
Ever bugger who is threatened with a loss of funding is resorting to hyperbole. The RAF was complaining (in effect) that if cuts were made it might not have enough jets to blow civilian airliners out of the sky in the event of a 9/11 attack in the UK. Right.
Get used to cuts. It will get worse before it gets better.0 -
Which is a good thing - now, such funds will be derived locally - from council tax payers - or more realistically, they won't because teaching kids to be safe to cycle will never become a priority for council tax payers (who obviously will tend to think of their own back pocket forst!), and Bikeability will collapse - is that a good thing? Maybe you think so, I don't. No brainer really . . .but then no brainers are now in the driving seat!Greg66 wrote:Hold on. Two things.
First, this organization costs £200,000 a year to run. Fine. Except that's £200,000 that is used to extract a lot more money from central govt - eg £12 million for Bikeability.0 -
alfablue wrote:. No brainer really . . .but then no brainers are now in the driving seat!
Love the pun, however intended, on the driving seat....
This isn't about saving money, at the same time they're giving £15m to bus companies to clean their vehicles up - http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/C ... bjectId=36
This is basically a signal of how unimportant the current government regards cycling. Think local government will give a dam about cyclists? You're dreaming sadly.0 -
Oh, and this article is worth a read if you really think this move will save money..
http://quickrelease.tv/?p=13350 -
alfablue wrote:
Which is a good thing - now, such funds will be derived locally - from council tax payers - or more realistically, they won't because teaching kids to be safe to cycle will never become a priority for council tax payers (who obviously will tend to think of their own back pocket forst!), and Bikeability will collapse - is that a good thing? Maybe you think so, I don't. No brainer really . . .but then no brainers are now in the driving seat!Greg66 wrote:Hold on. Two things.
First, this organization costs £200,000 a year to run. Fine. Except that's £200,000 that is used to extract a lot more money from central govt - eg £12 million for Bikeability.
I don't think the issue is whether I think the end of Bikeability is a good thing. It's whether I think it's continuation is necessary. I managed to work out how to ride a bike on the road as a child without it.
Besides, "but think of the ickle children" isn't a line I find decisive.0 -
I don't think the issue is whether I think the end of Bikeability is a good thing. It's whether I think it's continuation is necessary.
Or whether you think it's discontinuation is necessary?
I don't think necessity comes into it. It's a matter of priority.0 -
Well, you might prefer a Darwinian approach to the whiole issue, after all, you're okay, and anyway, who gives a damn about any small child that doesn't cope with the traffi? I would prefer to foster cycling at an early age so that the health and environmental benefits are carried through to adulthood for the benefit of all. You may be more self-centred than that, and you have flourished, good for you, me, I'm just one of those stupid, soft, do-gooders that has the bigger picture in mind - how dumb!Greg66 wrote:
I don't think the issue is whether I think the end of Bikeability is a good thing. It's whether I think it's continuation is necessary. I managed to work out how to ride a bike on the road as a child without it.
Besides, "but think of the ickle children" isn't a line I find decisive.0 -
But how are we going to be able in the near future to get on our bikes and look for work0
-
alfablue wrote:
Well, you might prefer a Darwinian approach to the whiole issue, after all, you're okay, and anyway, who gives a damn about any small child that doesn't cope with the traffi? I would prefer to foster cycling at an early age so that the health and environmental benefits are carried through to adulthood for the benefit of all. You may be more self-centred than that, and you have flourished, good for you, me, I'm just one of those stupid, soft, do-gooders that has the bigger picture in mind - how dumb!Greg66 wrote:
I don't think the issue is whether I think the end of Bikeability is a good thing. It's whether I think it's continuation is necessary. I managed to work out how to ride a bike on the road as a child without it.
Besides, "but think of the ickle children" isn't a line I find decisive.
You could always foster cycling in your own children, and not expect someone else to do it for you. That's how it worked for me, and what I've done with my kids.0 -
I think the point you're missing Greg is that not all children have a parent of your cycling awesomeness to teach them the rules of the road. The majority of parents in the country regard cycling as a dangerous activity and bikeability went a long way to combating this.0
-
OldSkoolKona wrote:davmaggs wrote:Before I join the disappointment, can anyone point to an actual deliverable that Cycling England actually made (not policy or "encouragement")?
Well, you could always check out the views of Cambridge Cycling Campaign who've set up the following website:
http://www.savecyclingengland.org/
Their open letter to Hammond summarises the following:Secretary of State, you will be aware that, in its five-year existence, Cycling England has been responsible for a range of successful projects, all run for a tiny fraction of overall transport funding, including:
Bikeability: As mentioned above, the nationwide cycle training scheme, teaching children (benefiting around 300,000 per year) and adults to cycle safely and responsibly, at a time when there is an enormous need to encourage healthy lifestyles, promote safe use of roads, and give children freedom;
Cycling Demonstration Towns: Enabling over 2.5m people in 18 towns around the country to benefit from considerably increased levels of infrastructure funding to make roads safer and cycle-friendly, to get more people on their bikes;
Health-related projects to promote cycling as a means of addressing the obesity epidemic and tackling sedentary lifestyles;
Professional support for Local Authorities to ensure that practitioners on-the-ground get cycling right;
Creating design standards and guidance available to highway engineers;
Railway/cycling integration, getting train companies to take cycling seriously
Events and projects all around the country (including Bike Week), ranging from education initiatives, promoting cycling to minority groups, travel planning for businesses and much more.
Prior to the existence of Cycling England, cycling was an unfunded, minority interest tucked away within the Department for Transport, with little funding or political will.
Is that enough for you?
Most of that list is nebulous "support" or "encouragement". Of all the activities Bikeability appears to be an actual deliverable and even that is done by other people.
They seem to have spent a fair amount of time producing glossy reports on how they've spent their time and why they are worth keeping.0 -
alfablue wrote:
Hmmm, I presume you educated your children at home, as well . . .Greg66 wrote:You could always foster cycling in your own children, and not expect someone else to do it for you. That's how it worked for me, and what I've done with my kids.
I do help them with their homework, but that's got fcuk all to do with the topic in hand, which is (lest we forget) Cycling England.OldSkoolKona wrote:I think the point you're missing Greg is that not all children have a parent of your cycling awesomeness to teach them the rules of the road. The majority of parents in the country regard cycling as a dangerous activity and bikeability went a long way to combating this.
First off, no one likes a suck up. So stop it.
Second, when I were a lad (obv when not working down mines) I "learned" about riding on the road by doing it. Admittedly on quiet residential roads, and I probably had a word or too from my folks about looking and listening at junctions. But neither of my folks rode bikes; however, they were willing to let me get on with it.
Third, and leading from this, I wonder whether Bikeability does much to allay the fears of the parents you've identified. I tend to doubt it. Ultimately, (IMO) safety on the roads comes from experience. Riding safely is as much about anticipating what others will do as your own riding. The starting point there is being prepared to let your kids out the front door in the first place. As I say, I do wonder whether the worrying parent will be converted just because their child has done a course.
As to the fact that CE only costs £200k pa, that's not quite the whole story. CE has a budget of £60m pa. I'd lay a fair amount of that sum on the bet that it has to spend that money to ensure that it continues to receive that amount. So it is really a 200k valve for releasing 60m. Now, 60m may on its own be a small budget saving, but if you cut 100 of these organisations, you stem £6bn of spending.
Look at that this way. If you had 15 minor annoying faults on your bike, would you (a) make no attempt to fix any of them, on the basis that fixing one is too small a part of the whole operation to make it worthwhile; or (b) fix them all?0 -
I'm confused. Does cycling england spend 200k or 60m?
The deficit is something around 150bn, which means we're adding 150bn to the total debt each year. The 85bn quoted is the structural part, which is debt that can't be blamed on the downturn.
The total govt debt quoted as less than 100% GDP isn't quite what it seems. Comparing to other counties or the past isn't right as a lot of stuff in this country is no longer part of the govt. Also need to add in a massive NPV of pension liabilities.
Including private debt, we owe the most in the world, slightly more than Japan and a lot more than everyone else.
Yes, mostly owed to ourselves. More accurately, the young generation to the older .... despite it being the older generation that spent the money .... odd that.
And the govt debt is long dated which helps
And low servicing cost at the moment, but that's more down to QE which can't continue.
In short ..... we're a total mess.
0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:SamWise72 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Dude that's 5 years. I don't think I can last that long!
Dude, didn't you VOTE for them?
Are you mad!!!
What working class and/or ethnic minority would vote Conservative in this Country!? Culturally/socially speaking I find that me and most my family and family friends have Convservative values, but to vote for them, here, madness!
I voted Lib Dem because the MP in the area was really good. The other two were terrible. Conservatives got in.
I'm not overly excited about the next election. The Blair generation clearly left a power vacuum in the Labour Party. Anyone who think 'Milliband the lesser' is going to lead unchallenged is kidding themselves. Sure he's a union man (they not his Party members are why he is in) and they need him as Leader of the opposition right now but that will only last for so long.
Clegg bed hopped one bed too far IMO and the Lib Dem's cannot continue as a legitimate Left sided Party if this continues.
Oh hum... you got me started....
you could have just said "No I didn't"Purveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
Clever Pun wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:SamWise72 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Dude that's 5 years. I don't think I can last that long!
Dude, didn't you VOTE for them?
Are you mad!!!
What working class and/or ethnic minority would vote Conservative in this Country!? Culturally/socially speaking I find that me and most my family and family friends have Convservative values, but to vote for them, here, madness!
I voted Lib Dem because the MP in the area was really good. The other two were terrible. Conservatives got in.
I'm not overly excited about the next election. The Blair generation clearly left a power vacuum in the Labour Party. Anyone who think 'Milliband the lesser' is going to lead unchallenged is kidding themselves. Sure he's a union man (they not his Party members are why he is in) and they need him as Leader of the opposition right now but that will only last for so long.
Clegg bed hopped one bed too far IMO and the Lib Dem's cannot continue as a legitimate Left sided Party if this continues.
Oh hum... you got me started....
you could have just said "No I didn't"
Hahahahaha, good thing I was sitting down CP - almost fell out my chair at the idea that DD could/would use 1 sentence to answer a question
Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
Loving the usual Tory boys trying to put a positive...or double negative spin on this. :roll:
The quango I work for is so autonomous that they can't actually get rid of it! Huge cuts are likely though.
These cuts won't save any money - most of the functions still need to be done and will be pulled back into the ministry, where they will be performed badly by a civil service bureaucracy with too wide a remit to be effective. All in the name of false economy and some wooly concept of 'accountability'.
In reality it’s about a bunch of bitter Tories having fun axing a few things that irritated them in opposition and sating their slightly rabid Daily Mail 'sack the lot of 'em’ tendencies.
Expect the number of quangos to quietly rise again in the second half of their term.0 -
Ah come now, the lefties are going to get all trembly-lipped and hand-wringy about this, the righties are going to stick to their guns.
Both will get wound up because they can't understand how the others can't see how utterly, utterly wrong they are.
Both are approaching it from completely different angles.
Shall we just agree to differ?0 -
alfablue wrote:
Hmmm, I presume you educated your children at home, as well . . .Greg66 wrote:You could always foster cycling in your own children, and not expect someone else to do it for you. That's how it worked for me, and what I've done with my kids.
Hmmmm.
I had a very pleasurable 5 years in Canada where very little bugged me but there was one major exemption - no one would do anything, and I mean anything, without first "doing a course".
Is that the way we are heading?
On the other hand, Canadians think building your own house from the ground up with your own hands is normal so they are not completely without nous.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Ah come now, the lefties are going to get all trembly-lipped and hand-wringy about this, the righties are going to stick to their guns.
Both will get wound up because they can't understand how the others can't see how utterly, utterly wrong they are.
Both are approaching it from completely different angles.
Shall we just agree to differ?
Not quite that straight forward when one is directly affected.0 -
Sewinman wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:Ah come now, the lefties are going to get all trembly-lipped and hand-wringy about this, the righties are going to stick to their guns.
Both will get wound up because they can't understand how the others can't see how utterly, utterly wrong they are.
Both are approaching it from completely different angles.
Shall we just agree to differ?
Not quite that straight forward when one is directly affected.
Are you directly affected by Cycling England's disappearance? Or do you mean your own quango?0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Sewinman wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:Ah come now, the lefties are going to get all trembly-lipped and hand-wringy about this, the righties are going to stick to their guns.
Both will get wound up because they can't understand how the others can't see how utterly, utterly wrong they are.
Both are approaching it from completely different angles.
Shall we just agree to differ?
Not quite that straight forward when one is directly affected.
Are you directly affected by Cycling England's disappearance? Or do you mean your own quango?
Quango cuts in general. The cuts are systemic.0 -
Greg66 wrote:Second, when I were a lad (obv when not working down mines) I "learned" about riding on the road by doing it. Admittedly on quiet residential roads, and I probably had a word or too from my folks about looking and listening at junctions. But neither of my folks rode bikes; however, they were willing to let me get on with it.
Greg, when you were a lad England was different, there were less vehicles on the road and the ones back then were often smaller, slower and louder than the vehicles of today. There were less pedestrians, there were less roads, there were less complex junctions and other traffic related objects like traffic lights.
It's a blinkered argument you're making, you cannot apply your childhood lifestyle on the children of today and always expect it to work. Society has moved on and different requirements are needed.
Or should school kids still get the cane when they don't do their homework?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Before all the lefties get their pitchforks and burning torches out, it might be worth checking how much of the £60m spend is actually getting cut. It appears that while a lot of Qangos are getting the chop, the underlying activities in many cases are being taken over by other parts of the State/Government.
I don't know how much of the spend for Cycling England is being kept or chopped, as tbh I haven't had the time to go trawling the internet, but some people who are getting a bit worked up seem to be assuming the whole lot goes. Does it?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think the plan is for "Localism" (new Coalition-speak for "well we are letting local councils pay for it . . . if they feel like it). They can say there aren't cuts, just that the funds will come from council tax - you can bet that given cycling is still a minority activity that your average council (and council tax payer) will not be voting to fund cycling. I would expect most of the funding to go as a result, and perhaps even more than the total, because a lot of projects included matched funding from councils, there will no longer be any incentive to play ball, so the loss to cycling could be much more than the funding that came from Cycling England alone. Just wait and see . . . won't take long.Stevo 666 wrote:Before all the lefties get their pitchforks and burning torches out, it might be worth checking how much of the £60m spend is actually getting cut. It appears that while a lot of Qangos are getting the chop, the underlying activities in many cases are being taken over by other parts of the State/Government.
I don't know how much of the spend for Cycling England is being kept or chopped, as tbh I haven't had the time to go trawling the internet, but some people who are getting a bit worked up seem to be assuming the whole lot goes. Does it?0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Shall we just agree to differ?
And where's the fun in that?0 -
Ah come now, the lefties are going to get all trembly-lipped and hand-wringy about this, the righties are going to stick to their guns.
Both will get wound up because they can't understand how the others can't see how utterly, utterly wrong they are.
Both are approaching it from completely different angles.
Shall we just agree to differ?
As said earlier in the thread: We take sides, that's politics.
Oh, and there's nothing 'trembly-lipped' about it either.0 -
It would be great if we could have everything we wanted. Class sizes of 5, instant operations when we're sick, massive pensions to retire on, but the simple fact is that we can't afford it.
Cuts have to be made somewhere. I'm not for a second saying the tories will make the right cuts (if they make any real cuts at all), but cuts have to be made. The notion that we can keep borrowing (stealing from our children) under some failed keynesian economic notion disguised as socialism is madness.
If we can't afford things, we can't have them.
I'd start with housing benefit, NHS and pensions.....0 -
Some cuts are necessary, cuts that worsen things like health outcomes and the environment are a false economy, as at some stage the remedial measures that will become necessary will cost a whole lot more. It is also possible to resolve the deficit, in part, through growth, the fear is that if the cuts are savage and indiscriminate then the opportunity for any growth will slip through our fingers.0
