Forum home Road cycling forum Campaign

Lottery funded cycle lanes

PedalSafelyPedalSafely Posts: 3
edited November 2014 in Campaign
Hello

We are hoping to get some support from the cycling community as we feel this is a really important step in getting the government to take notice of the need for better cycling infrastructure throughout the UK.

Our goal is to gain lottery funds which local councils will apply for to build separate kerbed cycle lanes along A roads over the next 30 years, linking cities, towns and villages; producing a network of safe cycling lanes for everyone to use and hopefully encouraging more people to get on their bike.

The campaign can be found at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/52215

Please also follow us on Twitter @PedalSafely

Many thanks, we hope you will support us.

Rachel Marsh
PedalSafely

Posts

  • markhewitt1978markhewitt1978 Posts: 7,614
    Lottery money shouldn't be used for this. Lottery is for 'good causes'. This stuff should be funded in the same way roads are funded. Cycling isn't a charity activity which should be supported by donations.
  • Lottery funds can be used for non-profit organisations and a lot of money is given to sporting communities each year. It is an initiative to build safer areas for cyclists, to promote healthier living and encourage those who may be less confident on the roads to get out there. It is investment to support the development of sport and physical activity in the community.
  • CygnusCygnus Posts: 1,879
    I can't support this, apart from the fact that lottery money shouldn't be used for this but it looks to me like you want all cyclists off the road and on to segregated cycle lanes.
  • Agreed with the above, lottery funds are for charitable causes. I already pay for cycle lanes from my income tax, fuel tax, council tax, VAT etc etc.
  • ProssPross Posts: 26,419
    Cygnus wrote:
    I can't support this, apart from the fact that lottery money shouldn't be used for this but it looks to me like you want all cyclists off the road and on to segregated cycle lanes.

    +1

    I'm all for proper off-road, family friendly facilities but not segregation on the roads. It's all very 1950s and how we've ended up with such a bad road system and a sense of ownership by those in motor vehicles.
  • Cygnus wrote:
    I can't support this, apart from the fact that lottery money shouldn't be used for this but it looks to me like you want all cyclists off the road and on to segregated cycle lanes.

    Can you point me to where the petition states this? Also, if the cycle lanes are of better quality than the road, why wouldn't you want them? It isn't asking for compulsion of use anyway.

    The main problem with 'ownership' of the roads by motorists is the lack of suitable alternatives. Yes, some people are happy to mix it with the traffic (I'm one of them), but I also understand why people don't want to (I'm one of them too, depending on the reason for the journey). What should they do now, with the current infrastructure? The only option they have is to not cycle.

    Give me high-quality integrated segregation and motorists can keep the potholes and traffic jams.
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,498
    Cygnus wrote:
    I can't support this, apart from the fact that lottery money shouldn't be used for this but it looks to me like you want all cyclists off the road and on to segregated cycle lanes.

    Can you point me to where the petition states this? Also, if the cycle lanes are of better quality than the road, why wouldn't you want them? It isn't asking for compulsion of use anyway.

    The more you make cyclepaths (where they're not really needed) the more the motorists will believe we should all be on them rather than on the roads and the less space they will give us - compulsion or not!

    The problem around where I live isn't a lack of cycle lanes - it's a lack of appropriate cycle lanes and the maintenance of them - it's more comfortable to ride on the road, where I'm also less likely to suffer a deflated tyre. Where there are cycle lanes painted on the side of the road, these disappear just where the cyclist needs the most protection - at junctions ! The mind boggles as to the mentality of the creator of these abominations.
  • Slowbike wrote:
    Cygnus wrote:
    I can't support this, apart from the fact that lottery money shouldn't be used for this but it looks to me like you want all cyclists off the road and on to segregated cycle lanes.

    Can you point me to where the petition states this? Also, if the cycle lanes are of better quality than the road, why wouldn't you want them? It isn't asking for compulsion of use anyway.

    The more you make cyclepaths (where they're not really needed) the more the motorists will believe we should all be on them rather than on the roads and the less space they will give us - compulsion or not!

    The problem around where I live isn't a lack of cycle lanes - it's a lack of appropriate cycle lanes and the maintenance of them - it's more comfortable to ride on the road, where I'm also less likely to suffer a deflated tyre. Where there are cycle lanes painted on the side of the road, these disappear just where the cyclist needs the most protection - at junctions ! The mind boggles as to the mentality of the creator of these abominations.

    I don't disagree. I don't think the petition is for 'censored , unusable cycle lanes that suddenly vanish' though, unless I've misread it.

    My point still stands - if the cycling infrastructure is better than riding on the roads, why would you take to worse option? Currently we have censored . Having nothing at all is better than that in many instances, but having good quality, integrated segregation would be ideal (for everyone). If motorists want cyclists on cycle lanes they have to be designed properly (for the cyclists, not motorist), built, and maintained properly.
  • CygnusCygnus Posts: 1,879
    Cygnus wrote:
    I can't support this, apart from the fact that lottery money shouldn't be used for this but it looks to me like you want all cyclists off the road and on to segregated cycle lanes.

    Can you point me to where the petition states this?
    Our goal is to gain lottery funds which local councils will apply for to build separate kerbed cycle lanes along A roads over the next 30 years, linking cities, towns and villages; producing a network of safe cycling lanes for everyone to use and hopefully encouraging more people to get on their bike.
  • Again, it doesn't say "and a change in the law to require cyclists to use it, not the main carriageway".

    On many rural A roads there's plenty of space to build a segregated lane as wide as you want. I don't understand your position. If the cycle lane is of good quality and segregated from the traffic, why would you NOT want to use it? Why would you want to use something worse, and more dangerous?
  • rphertsrpherts Posts: 207
    Lottery Funding is already spent on lots of 'causes' people may or may not deem 'good' or 'worthy', don't see why trying to grab some for real cycle lanes is a bad idea.

    In a sensible world, there would be more than enough left over from motoring taxes to build these lanes, once you take away the cost of new roads, maintenance of existing ones and any Pigovian taxes. Unfortunately motoring is a cash cow for general government expenditure so that isn't going to happen.

    Motorists can think what they like about me using or not using them - a fair few of them think I shouldn't be on the road at all, so screw them.

    It is the maintenance of them which is the problem. It costs money, lots of money, and who would do it?
  • Again, it doesn't say "and a change in the law to require cyclists to use it, not the main carriageway".

    On many rural A roads there's plenty of space to build a segregated lane as wide as you want. I don't understand your position. If the cycle lane is of good quality and segregated from the traffic, why would you NOT want to use it? Why would you want to use something worse, and more dangerous?

    This x100. It's what most posts along these lines can't accept, that it *is* possible to build segregated cycling infrastructure which is *better* than using the roads, so you wouldn't want or need to use the roads.

    Most cycling infrastructure in the UK is censored , but that's because it's built censored , not because there's anything fundamentally wrong with the concept.
  • rphertsrpherts Posts: 207
    Again, it doesn't say "and a change in the law to require cyclists to use it, not the main carriageway".

    On many rural A roads there's plenty of space to build a segregated lane as wide as you want. I don't understand your position. If the cycle lane is of good quality and segregated from the traffic, why would you NOT want to use it? Why would you want to use something worse, and more dangerous?

    This x100. It's what most posts along these lines can't accept, that it *is* possible to build segregated cycling infrastructure which is *better* than using the roads, so you wouldn't want or need to use the roads.

    Most cycling infrastructure in the UK is censored , but that's because it's built censored , not because there's anything fundamentally wrong with the concept.

    Are you calling that 18 inch wide, 200 yards long strip of broken Tarmac, covered with leaves and glass and shared with pedestrians censored ?
  • FJSFJS Posts: 4,820
    This is standard in The Netherlands along pretty much all roads.
    4459319.jpg

    Good initiative, and every bit helps, although really this should be part of the basic roads budget
  • FJS wrote:
    This is standard in The Netherlands along pretty much all roads.

    Exactly, it helps to understand what we're talking about here. In the Netherlands the cycle paths are often better quality than the roads,
  • zx6manzx6man Posts: 1,092
    Lottery money shouldn't be used for this. Lottery is for 'good causes'. This stuff should be funded in the same way roads are funded. Cycling isn't a charity activity which should be supported by donations.

    Lottery money went to our local theatre, so why not something I have an interest in.
  • Because cycling infrastructure is something which is more important than your local theatre, so should be centrally funded.

    If cycle lanes then what next? Use it to fill in the pot holes, build new motorways?
  • zx6manzx6man Posts: 1,092
    What makes renovating the theatre a good cause then for them to get money? I also think the public should have a say what lottery money goes on to be honest. Cycing is a hobby for many, just like the theatre goers.
  • zx6man wrote:
    What makes renovating the theatre a good cause then for them to get money? I also think the public should have a say what lottery money goes on to be honest. Cycing is a hobby for many, just like the theatre goers.

    Cycling is unusual in so much that it's a hobby, a sport and a method of transport. Now I would have no objection to lottery cash being used to fund the hobby & sport side of things, it's the transport part which needs to come out of general taxation as that's why I pay my taxes.
  • zx6man wrote:
    What makes renovating the theatre a good cause then for them to get money? I also think the public should have a say what lottery money goes on to be honest. Cycing is a hobby for many, just like the theatre goers.

    Cycling is unusual in so much that it's a hobby, a sport and a method of transport. Now I would have no objection to lottery cash being used to fund the hobby & sport side of things, it's the transport part which needs to come out of general taxation as that's why I pay my taxes.

    The right infrastructure is suitable for leisure cycling, sport cycling and transport alike. Demanding that is isn't built because someone might use it for transport as opposed to leisure is perverse.
  • The right infrastructure is suitable for leisure cycling, sport cycling and transport alike. Demanding that is isn't built because someone might use it for transport as opposed to leisure is perverse.

    I'm not demanding it isn't built, but that if we allow lottery funding for this sort of thing then the government and local authorities will be happy to allow it. So then we're basically dependent on charity handouts for cycling infrastructure, would you expect the rest of the road network to be funded by charity? Hospitals? Schools? Police?
  • rphertsrpherts Posts: 207
    Because cycling infrastructure is something which is more important than your local theatre, so should be centrally funded.

    If cycle lanes then what next? Use it to fill in the pot holes, build new motorways?

    Sadly, as it is unlikely to be funded by central government, it means that more important thing will have vastly less spent on it than the less important thing.
  • ProssPross Posts: 26,419
    FJS wrote:
    This is standard in The Netherlands along pretty much all roads.

    Exactly, it helps to understand what we're talking about here. In the Netherlands the cycle paths are often better quality than the roads,

    There's not many UK rural roads with that sort of space alongside them. Something like that I'd be generally in favour of but it would still lead to the hard of thinking to then expect cyclists to not be using 'their' road in other areas even when there isn't a decent alternative alongside (I can't be the only person to experience a motorist telling me I should be riding on the pavement even when to do so is illegal surely?). Building something like that is going to cost about £50 - £60 per m2 to construct plus potentially purchasing the necessary land through a CPO and work such as replacing the hedges and fencing. That's a hell of a lot of lottery funding!

    If you are going down that route then you may as well provide a completely separate route for the cycleway out of sight of the road so motorists don't even know it's there!
  • smoggystevesmoggysteve Posts: 2,909
    If the lottery paid for a cycle path on a road or next to a road, when the road comes to be repaired, do the council workers do it or do they reject it saying its lottery money funded, that pays for repairs to the cycle path. In moving stuff like this onto lottery funding you remove the local governments duty to maintain it. They then either waste lottery cash to maintain or they become unmaintained and dangerous
  • ProssPross Posts: 26,419
    If the lottery paid for a cycle path on a road or next to a road, when the road comes to be repaired, do the council workers do it or do they reject it saying its lottery money funded, that pays for repairs to the cycle path. In moving stuff like this onto lottery funding you remove the local governments duty to maintain it. They then either waste lottery cash to maintain or they become unmaintained and dangerous

    If it was adopted highway they would have to maintain it, if not then they wouldn't.

    EDIT If they were made Public Rights of Way then they would also (usually) be maintainable at public expense. Effectively any Public Right of Way is supposed to be maintain to a level where it is fit for its intended purpose.
  • earthearth Posts: 934
    If the cycle lanes were of the quality in the photo then I would be happy with them. Along side major A roads - the dual carriage way ones full of HGVs and cars doing 70. I don't think it is feasible or even possible to do much more than that. You cannot put a cycle path alongside the road going up the Cheddar Gorge or cycle paths alongside the thousands of little roads in and out of urban areas.

    These campaign groups are made up mainly of motorists. Their real motivation is just to get cyclists off the current road network.
  • earthearth Posts: 934
    Cycling is unusual in so much that it's a hobby, a sport and a method of transport. Now I would have no objection to lottery cash being used to fund the hobby & sport side of things, it's the transport part which needs to come out of general taxation as that's why I pay my taxes.


    Cycling is not unusual. Most of the major transportations are raced and done for pleasure.

    Cars are transport, sport and many people like to drive for fun.
    Motorcycles ditto.
    Aircraft racing takes place and for many pilots its a hobby.
    Skiing, sport, leisure activity and even transport for some.
    Horse riding is mainly a sport and hobby in this country all three in other countries.
    Walking and running all three.
    Sailboating is not so much transport but power boating is all three.

    There's plenty more.

    I can't think of many that are not also a hobby and a sport - other than rail and even that is a hobby for some.

    Rollerskating maybe.
    Submarines.
    Rockets.
    Ballooning.
Sign In or Register to comment.