Meeting with the Council

Following from my previous blog Renfrewshire Council - Delusional?, I e-mailed a link to the Councillor involved in the blog and the leader of the council. To my surprise, I was invited to a meeting with them both which took place this morning. I am not in either councillor's ward, so I appreciated them agreeing to meet.

In the end, Cllr Gilmour couldn't make it due to an urgent situation, and sent his apologies, so the meeting was just with Cllr Mark MacMillan, leader of Renfrewshire Council.

I had a presentation prepared, which I had hoped to start the meeting with. However, Cllr MacMillan started by discussing the aforementioned blogpost and questioning whether it was 'fair', primarily due to the cuts the council's budget has seen. I stood my ground, but it set the tone for a meeting that was livelier than I'd anticipated.

Renfrewshire Cycling Presentation

I'll split this post into a few themes.

Money

Perhaps unsurprisingly, money was where the discussion kept returning to. The council, like all across Scotland, has had its budget cut by Holyrood over the last few years. Cllr MacMillan argued that Renfrewshire has been disproportionately hit. Of course, it's a position I sympathise with, but regardless of how big or small the budget is it'll always have priorities. My argument is, of course, that cycling should absolutely be a high priority, certainly within the transport budget.

My point that the cost of doing nothing about cycling is high (struggling town centres and health issues) was taken on board I think, but the statistic of £4 gain to the NHS for every £1 spent on cycling was deemed problematic since the council has to spend the £1 on cycling, yet it's the Scottish Government that fund the health service and so see that £4 dividend. Again, I sympathise with the problem, but it's a shame that this kind of bureaucracy stands in the way of investment.

CAPS 10% Target

The Cycling Action Plan for Scotland's 10% modal share by 2020 target was dismissed by the Councillor as not being worth the paper it's written on, since it hasn't been backed by money to make it happen. It's a position I'd struggle to disagree with - targets are easy to set and forget, and this certainly looks like one of them. No wonder the Scottish Government are back-pedalling on it, with the language of 'shared vision'. Of course, that shouldn't stop campaigners talking about it loudly, as Darkerside rightly says. I think it's fair to say that the odds on Renfrewshire meeting that target are zero.

'Raising the Profile'

The council leader talked a number of times about raising the profile of cycling, through mass participation events and the like. I argued, strongly I hope, that people who cycle on closed roads during such events will surely not cycle on Renfrewshire's roads as long as they are hostile to cycling and so won't be converted to cycling for everyday journeys. I've got no problem with sport cycling, the Tour de France etc, but they're as relevant to everyday cycling as Formula 1 is to driving to work.

He talked about London's increase in cycling, which I argued is more due to 'sticks' (congestion charge, cost of public transport) than 'carrots' (good facilities for cycling). I argued that for cycling to truly take off, we need both carrots and sticks - he said that he envisioned more carrots in Renfrewshire, but not sticks. I think that's a pity - we need both.

Benefits for Towns

One point I made was rebuffed very quickly - that cycling would help revive our town centres. He claimed that Paisley town centre provides well for pedestrians (I largely agree), perhaps over-provides (I disagree entirely), but that people want places to park and so are going to out of town centres such as Silverburn and Braehead. I'm not sure I articulated my arguments against this point well enough, to be honest. Suffice to say, all evidence suggests that provision for cycling benefits towns and cities.

We also spoke briefly about Renfrew, which he said had been recently remodelled as a shared space, yet no-one seems to like the design. I don't like the design - it's crap for pedestrians, crap for cyclists, crap for drivers, crap for businesses and good for those who like fancy paving. Its fundamental problem is that it's not only a town centre, but also a through route for people travelling from Erskine/Bishopton/Inchinnan towards the eastbound M8, and a through route for people travelling from Paisley to Braehead. That traffic is hurting Renfrew, and different coloured paving has unsurprisingly done absolutely nothing to fix that. Hopefully the acknowledgement that this scheme hasn't been well-received means we won't be seeing more of the same, but nevertheless it's a lot of money that was blown only a few years ago (remember, we don't have money).

Clyde Valley Investment

The proposed investment in infrastructure across the Clyde Valley was brought up a number of times, in terms of it helping modal share shift away from private cars towards public transport and active travel. It was claimed that the plan includes cycling at its core, not an add-on (I think we agreed that a lick of paint on the road wasn't terribly useful). Without having seen the plans (they're not in the public domain as far as I'm aware) it's hard to comment on their quality and to what extent they'll benefit cycling.

However, this optimism was mitigated by the mention of road-building potentially being part of the plans, since the M74 extension hasn't alleviated traffic as expected (more roads, more car journeys - should surprise no one). I pushed this one quite hard, that building more roads leads to more traffic. He argued that the new Fastlink buses will need roads, but that they won't be dedicated to public transport. I think there's a very big 'watch this space' on this topic.

Working Together

The final, and positive point, is that the council leader agreed that the council should be working with and consulting people when making plans, rather than spending money on cycling facilities for people like me to then write blogs about it, claiming that they're crap and seeing no modal shift. He's agreed to keep in touch, and I hope I can positively contribute to any dialogues.

Conclusion

We spoke for a full hour, yet I feel there are issues we didn't manage to fully address, and I think the discussion could have easily lasted another. Ultimately, I think the leader of the council would like more cycling in Renfrewshire, but I'm not convinced that he's willing to give it the funding and priority it deserves. There are a lot of players in getting cycling modal share up, including the UK Government, Scottish Government and local government: campaigners need to be applying pressure and winning the arguments with all of them. Unfortunately, it's all too easy for local government to blame national government, and vice-versa, with no accountability when targets are inevitably not met. 

If you haven't already, please consider shaping the Renfrewshire Cycling Campaign, write to your local councillors about #space4cycling and take a look at the excellent Pedal on Parliament and Cycling Embassy of Great Britain websites, as well as the City Cycling Glasgow forum (thanks to members there for help in making the presentation there, especially joel_c and sallyhinch). I tweet about cycling too.

Renfrewshire Council - Delusional?

Time to celebrate - another 600 metres of cycling!

Renfrewshire council, alongside neighbouring East Renfrewshire Council, recently opened a new path connecting South Paisley to Barrhead. It's 600 metres of shared use (so, not really a cycle path) and was completed with co-operation between 4 different public bodies. SPT (who are resisting cycle paths in Glasgow City), Sustrans (who recently approved £300k of Cycle Safety Fund money on a car-centric roundabout in Bedford), East Renfrewshire Council (56% of journeys less than 5km, 1% modal share for cycling) and Renfrewshire Council (58% of journeys less than 5km, <0.5% modal share for cycling). 

Let's put that 600 metres in context. East Renfrewshire has 473km of roads in its control, while Renfrewshire has 818km. Combined, that's 1291km. The new shared use path represents 0.05% of the combined roads network of these two counties.

Still, it's something. I hope it is well used and useful. It's not near me and I haven't seen the quality of it, so can't comment on that. The purpose of this post isn't to criticise the path, but to show that it's a drop in the ocean. And the ocean isn't pretty.

"We [Renfrewshire] have an excellent network of cycle paths"

Unsurprisingly, this isn't my view. Surprisingly, it is someone's view. In this case, it's Councillor Chris Gilmour, Deputy Convener of Renfrewshire Council's Environment Policy Board. He made this quite extraordinary statement while commenting on the new path. His quote in full:

"We are happy to have played a lead role on this collaborative project between the two councils. 

"With the assistance of funding from SPT, we have delivered the final part of this cycle route, which is part of a much longer route running through south Paisley before connecting to the national cycle route network at Fulbar Road. 

"We are fortunate that here in Renfrewshire we have an excellent network of cycle paths and we would encourage young and old cyclists to continue to make use of them as much as possible."

Over the last week I've used two of Renfrewshire's cycle paths, and taken some pictures. These are marked cycle paths, but are not part of the 'National Cycle Network.' They are the kind of paths you'll end up on if you follow cycling directions from the likes of Google Maps or CycleStreets.

Inchinnan Swing Bridge to Porterfield Road

This route is supposed to be for bikes. Really.

This is just part of a longer route, it continues towards the Braehead Shopping Centre in the other direction. From where the above photo was taken, the continuation of the path is on the other side of the road (the A8). There are traffic lights, but with no pedestrian crossing, let alone a toucan.

Following the path, it's quickly clear that the surface is completely inadequate. 

Remember, this is marked for pedestrian and cycles.

Going a little further, we can see that the maintenance of it is clearly non-existent.

Weeds like those don't grow overnight

Putting the pointless barriers to one side, this has never been suitable for mass cycling. It's totally inadequate in terms of width - imagine getting a bakfiets (cargo bike) or a motability scooter let alone two passing each other. Although it's separated from motor vehicles, it's lacking subjective safety since it's very isolated and unlit - I doubt I'd feel safe using this path after dark, but I can't think of any road I'd say the same about. The on-road alternatives to this route have lots of space for hatching, pinchpoints, pedestrian refuges, but none for cycling.

"We are fortunate that here in Renfrewshire we have an excellent network of cycle paths" Hmmm.

Inchinnan Business Park to Glasgow Airport

Another cycle path, not just signposted but featured on Renfrewshire Council's website in their 'cycle routes through the airport' map. It's a rather arbitrary link, connecting two places of work rather than a place of work with where workers live. Of course, like many (most? all?) cycle paths in Renfrewshire it's not really a cycle path but is shared with pedestrians.

It couldn't be much worse than the previous example, could it?

Side Road? Dismount

The part through the business park is presumably on fairly wide and lightly used pavements which I didn't see a shared use marking on. I'll start some commentary here, with a shared use path that runs alongside the busy A726 road (speed limit here is 50mph). The straight bits are OK - the surface isn't as smooth as the road, it's too narrow for mass cycling but wide enough to be usable. It crosses only one side road, which the path doesn't have priority over. Being only one road, it's not a deal breaker, but it is poor. Ideally, it'd be treated something like this.

However, the path to the airport doesn't follow this the whole way, but significantly changes

All downhill from here

At this point, the not-great-but-OK shared use path turns into a complete joke. Notice that there's no provision to leave the path and join the road at this stage (road speed here is now 40mph).

Further along, we get to something labeled as a shared use path, but is basically nothing. 

That sign is a bit of an insult really

I never cycled past anyone using this path. No surprise really.

The Reality

"We are fortunate that here in Renfrewshire we have an excellent network of cycle paths," claims Cllr. Chris Gilmour. 

I'd say that we are terribly unfortunate that here in Renfrewshire we have a council who don't understand utility cycling, who have no solution to problems such as inactivity (and its serious consequences) and who treat cycling as an afterthought instead of a serious mode of transport. A council that with negligible modal share of cycling, despite over a third of households not having access to a car.

In the interests of fairness, I'll send a link to this blog post to Cllr. Gilmour and the council leader, both of whom are very welcome to respond.

Follow my updates about cycling on Twitter @justacwab

Based in Renfrewshire? Get involved with forming a Renfrewshire Cycle Campaign. 

The Freedom Machine

Bikes have been known as 'Freedom Machines'. Here are some freedoms I get and don't get on two wheels.

Cycling gives me freedom from...

...paying for a car, petrol, VED, MOTs, repairs. Sure, my bike costs me, but it's trivial by comparison.

No need to go here. Image from Image Money on Flickr

...relying on buses, their erratic timetables and paying their fares.

Don't need to wait on one of these, nor go where it goes. Image from Les Chatfield on Flickr

...trying to find a parking space or paying for parking.

Image from Tim Regan on Flickr

...contributing to air pollution when travelling around town.

Image from eutrophication&hypoxia on Flickr

Unfortunately, cycling doesn't give me freedom from...

fear.

This kind of overtake, and far worse, are all too common. Image from Klaas Brumann on CycleStreets

knowing my family genuinely worry about my safety.

No picture for this one. I worry that they worry.

verbal abuse and intimidation.

Direct quote from one of the Paisley's less polite motorists

P.S.

In Scotland? Come to Pedal on Parliament.

In Renfrewshire? I'm in the process of starting up a 'Renfrewshire Cycling Campaign'. More on Facebook.

Follow me on Twitter: @justacwab

Cycling Resolutions: 2014 Edition

I've just listened to a BBC Radio Scotland phone-in about cycling, and it's occurred to me how far we are from a cycling revolution, especially outside London.

So, here are some of my campaign resolutions for the year ahead.

Preach to the Unconverted

I read many cycling blogs and Twitter feeds, and it's easy to think that people are aware of the kind of things discussed, such as 20mph limits, segregated infrastructure, filtered permeability. 

Most people don't know what these mean (or actively oppose them in the case of lower speed limits). We need to tell normal people why these things matter: to their kids, playing in the street; to their granny, able to cross the road; to their town centre, a pleasant environment to shop and drink coffee in.

We also have to clearly identify the problems - not necessarily those for existing cyclists, a tiny group - that a cycling culture (or a people-first culture) will help solve. These include (but are not limited to!) health, congestion, cost of living, freedom for children, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. 

Think About the Big Picture

Stop getting distracted by talking about the little and stupid things. In an hour-long radio programme, the following points, which are of no relevance to increasing cycling modal share, were mentioned:

• the arrogance of cyclists
• red light jumping and other 'rule-breaking' (only by cyclists, no other road users)
• cyclists wearing headphones
• pavement cycling

We need to talk about the towns and cities we want to live in. Where people come before traffic. Like this. Those pictures can appeal to all kinds of people, current cyclist or (more likely) not. Who would choose to live in a traffic-filled city?

Thinking about the Big Picture means thinking big. It means neither asking for, nor accepting, crumbs. Crumbs tend to coincide with cycling being part of the margins, something fitted in around the real priority, traffic flow. Dual-networks are an anti solution, and we shouldn't be afraid to say so.

Happy New Year

Edinburgh's Quality Bike Corridor

Not worth the paint

There has been a lot of talk recently about why painted bike lanes are largely, well, not worth the paint they're painted with. This has largely been prompted by the tragic deaths on London's blue-paint network, also known as Barclays Cycle Superhighways. There's a good analysis of why paint (in any colour) is not a solution here.

Today, I'm going to be looking at Edinburgh's flagship infrastructure. The 'Quality Bike Corridor' (QBC). Why now? Because if I cycle to work (Brompton pending - I'm currently walking) it'll largely be on this route. And because I walk along this road every day and witness what a disaster it it. Finally, because a lot of cycling money was spent on it, and that shouldn't be allowed to happen again.

This scheme has been covered by others before, doubtless better - firstly here and also here.

Laudable aims

The choice of route for the QBC seems very sound. It connects two campuses of Edinburgh University, approximately 3km apart. Students are great targets for cycling and 3km is a nice distance to cycle - about half an hour to walk, or 12 minutes on a bike. Two trips a day make a 3 hour a week time saving. With the right approach, this could have been a massive success. 

There's also a primary school along the route (Sciennes School), so a great opportunity to encourage cycling to school. Finally, since one of the campuses is next to the city centre, it's perfect to connect parts of South Edinburgh (eg Blackford, Mayfield and Newington) to Princes Street and Waverley Station.

You can view the route here, on Google Maps.

The Problem

So many, it's hard to know where to start. Let's take a look at a few pictures.

Can't see the QBC? You're looking at it!

Unfortunately, there's no room for a cycle lane on both sides of the road here. Well, certainly not where you have a right turn lane and a traffic island which usefully doubles up as a dangerous pinch point. This is a great example of prioritising motorists (those behind someone turning right) over cyclists. If we don't prioritise cycling on a flagship scheme, when do we? Disgraceful, and a potential accident spot.

Just duck under the van!

What do you mean your granny wouldn't cycle here?

I didn't bother to check if this parking was legal - there's a fair amount of legal and illegal parking on the QBC. Cyclists are forced into the main carriageway frequently. It's a recipe for disaster. Edinburgh Council's FAQ on the QBC asks, "Why are people parking on the route?'. The answer is interesting, in that instead of focusing on safety, it focuses on speed. They've missed the point. "Cycle lanes provide a fast way of getting along the route. These are protected from parking by yellow lines during the day – the time when road traffic is heaviest."

Of course, parking on a bike route shouldn't just be discouraged by law (and certainly not only at certain times!!!), but made impossible or completely unnecessary by infrastructure.

From  Cyclists in the City - how it's being done in New York

The above picture shows how it should be done - notice the parked cars are between the bikes and moving traffic - actually increasing the cyclists' safety. Also, the bikes are travelling the opposite direction to the parking, so the chance of 'dooring' is reduced. The excellent buffer area helps here too.

Roadworks Ahead - Cyclists squeeze by

This is an easy-fixed problem (move the damn sign), but it is a good indicator that the council don't take the QBC seriously. They'd never block 70% of a car lane with a sign, so why do they think it's acceptable to do it to cyclists?

From Google Maps

Finally, this surprisingly dangerous junction. There are a few similar examples. Notice the widening of the car lane just before the junction, so that it's wider than required for one vehicle, but not quite wide enough for two. It seems drivers frequently cut across the cycle lane, to undertake vehicles turning right or to turn left themselves. The nearest near miss I've seen on the QBC was at a junction of this style, where an undertaking car had to stop very suddenly to avoid a cyclist on their left. It's not good enough.

I've seen some brave parents ride to school with their children on this road. I've seen them overtake a parked lorry, then be overtaken by a double decker bus. To be frank, my heart has been in my mouth watching on a few occasions. I love cycling - heck, I write a blog about it! - but I don't think I could do it if I had kids of my own. It'd be walking, or yet another car on the school run. And that's sad.

Compromises

As you can doubtless see, this flagship scheme is full of compromises. Motor traffic is almost never impeded. The closest thing to inconveniencing motor traffic is a 20mph limit along part of the route, which appears to be almost universally ignored. Perhaps the lanes have been narrowed, but they're not terribly narrow now. The aforementioned FAQ mentions this issue:

"Why aren’t the cycle lanes continuous all along the route?

Some sections of road along the route are not wide enough for cycle lanes in both directions, even when the width of the road for car users has been reduced. Where this is the case we have introduced a 20mph speed limit (see below)."

As we know, 20mph are a good thing for cycling. But in this case, I'd argue that they're useless. Firstly, because the volume of traffic is still far too high. The start of this blogpost gives some idea of the number of vehicles that we should consider too high, even with a 20mph limit.

The second reason they're useless here, is that they're widely ignored and there doesn't appear to be any enforcement of them. You could call it box-ticking. That's what it seems like.

Essentially, when we have to compromise, it's people on bikes that lose out. Given that we're trying to encourage cycling and discourage use of polluting, traffic-causing, obesity-raising vehicles, that doesn't make sense to me.

Welcomed by...

SPOKES, who are the most prominent cycle campaign in Edinburgh responded to the proposals quite tamely. You can read it yourself here. They do suggest improvements, but this is not the complete rejection of a waste of money that this scheme deserved. Again, I'll link to a spot-on blogpost about responses to the QBC.

The solution 

The real solution is easy. Perhaps not politically, but in terms of having an environment where cycling is safe and feels safe. Even more frustratingly, Spokes know the solution - one of their members posted it on a comment on a local councillor's blog! I'll quote:

Biggest problem is car parking - tackling this needs political courage - that is the main reason why QBiC was too timid - it's a decision for the politicians, not the officers! Another powerful but politically difficult option would be to not allow through motor traffic in the narrow section - or make it bus/bike/walk only - after all, there are 2 other parallel north-south roads available for cars!

There are two parallel roads. Let's look at one on Street View.

The road cars should be on, from Google Maps

The bus lanes are only active during the morning and evening weekday peaks. This road (the name changes a few times, but the configuration is the same) runs along pretty much all of the QBC. The fact that we're having to debate this is insane. Motor traffic goes here, cyclists and access go on the QBC. Enforce it through bollards, or making the QBC road alternating one-way for vehicular traffic.

This option should have been top of the agenda, yet it wasn't even on the agenda? Why not?

Here's a very rough diagram to show the idea.

Simple Solution? Arrows are on the QBC route.

Making the street (designated the QBC) alternating one way would give extra road space (to be given to high-quality cycle tracks) and massively reduce the amount of traffic on the road. 

Nervous about it? Want to try before you buy? Just get some no-entry and one way street signs and a bit of paint. Try it for 3 months, 6 months, whatever. This fantastic TED talk shows how New York do things quickly and cheaply with paint first. When they can show that the new design works better, they can make the changes permanent. If the data shows otherwise, it's easy to rollback and lessons can be learned.

Let's not waste another £650,000 (including money from the Scottish Government and Sustrans) on rubbish like this again.

Cycling Utopia... In Scotland?

There is a place, only 40 miles from Glasgow. A place where families cycle together; where the bikes have baskets; where cars give space to cyclists (who ride two or three abreast on roads); where few wear Lycra and helmets aren't the norm.

The place is in fact an island, about 10 miles in circumference and on the Clyde. Technically the Isle of Cumbrae, but better known as the name of its only town: Millport.

Cycling on Cumbrae

People, main from Glasgow, travel to Cumbrae for day trips and longer holidays. It's a picturesque island, and one of the most popular activities is cycling round it. There are three bike hire shops, and they do a very good trade on a hot day! The perimeter road is almost flat and some of the views are fantastic.

I feel a bit strange taking photos of strangers while cycling, so I missed my chance to take one of the dog in basket. You'll have to just take my word on that one! Here are some that I did take.

Sharing the road. Lycra-clad cyclist, cyclist with a childseat, walkers and a van

Lots of parked cars, but very few actually moving

A family 'taking the lane'!

I saw more kids' trailers in a day here than in 10 years in Glasgow

Almost everyone (on a sunny day!) arrives at the Fintry Bay Tearooms on foot or by bike

Another picture of Fintry Bay. Image from http://www.millport.org/place/fintry-bay-tearoom/

Explaining the phenomenon

Why do so many people cycle on Cumbrae? Why do families feel safe cycling on a road (that has a speed limit of 60mph for the most part, and a recommended maximum of 30mph throughout)? Can we replicate it elsewhere?

A big part of why cycling on Cumbrae is a joy (and it is - at any speed) is that the number of cars is tiny. The island is very small (as I said, its circumference is about 10 miles) and there is only one main town. A bus meets the ferry from the mainland, taking passengers the 4 miles trip from 'Cumbrae Slip' to 'Millport'. Unless you are transporting a lot of goods, or perhaps someone with mobility problems, there is no need for a car on the island. That fact, combined with the ferry charges for cars (usually £19.65 return, plus normal passenger charges for each person in the car - effectively a congestion charge) mean taking a car onto the island just doesn't make sense in most cases.

While I don't believe in the principle of 'safety in numbers' in general (it doesn't seem to be holding true in London, sadly), there is an element of it here. The car drivers know they're in the minority, and almost without exception act accordingly. The fact that the people on bikes are largely families including children doubtless affects their behaviour too. There is no comparison to the stories of 'road wars' and 'Lycra louts' in Surrey. Finally, most people are on holiday (tourism is pretty much Millport's raison d'être) which seems to also put people in a calmer mood!

Suppressed Demand

What Millport does perfectly, is debunk the argument that British people, Scottish people, Glaswegians or whoever don't want to cycle. Like the 'SkyRides', it shows that people will make a big effort to go somewhere to cycle in (subjective and objective) safety. A good overview of suppressed demand here.

I can't (and don't) believe that these same people, most of whom have travelled about 40 miles and taken a ferry to come to Millport wouldn't cycle to the shops, to schools, to their friends' houses day in, day out if they felt as safe. 

Like it or not, we can't reduce traffic levels in cities and towns across the country to Millport's levels. In that sense, it is a special case. Normal people will take the lane here, but they won't (and don't) elsewhere. The only way to experience this level of subjective safety is Dutch quality segregated cycling infrastructure. If it comes, really comes, I've no doubt it'll be used.

Cycling in Renfrewshire

I'm back in (surprisingly) sunny Erskine, Renfrewshire for this blog post. As an avid follower of many UK based cycling blogs, where there is some (if certainly not enough) political will for change, up here we're still way-behind. I'll try to find Renfrewshire Council's cycling strategy and look at why normal people don't cycle normal journeys here.

Strategy

To get started, I thought I'd look for Renfrewshire Council's cycling strategy, or some similar documentation. In the 'Transport and Streets' section of their website, there are sections about 'Parking and car parks', 'Road safety', 'Winter Gritting' and 'Public transport' among others, but no mention of cycling (or, indeed, walking). In fact, cycling information is to be found under 'Leisure and culture'/'Parks and recreation'. Is going to work 'leisure' for you?

There are mentions of cycle tourists, BMX, a 9 year old document 'Renfrewshire Outdoor Access Strategy', featuring this classic picture. In the intervening 9 years, that paint has faded to almost nothing.

Shared use, a dismount sign and a helmet. Yep, we've got it all here.

Making progress. Image from Google Street View

(Sources: [1], [2])

There's one positive mention of an off-road path to a school for cycling (sounds promising, haven't seen it personally), but the other cycling links include the 'Bike Helmet Initiative Trust'. 

In the section, 'Glasgow International Airport', there's this gem: "The suggested routes are largely on road and can be busy, particularly at peak hours. Cyclists should take care using the routes. Please also note that the routes are not signposted and that you should use the map to navigate your way." (Source)

Car Sickness

Perhaps the most frustrating thing is that there is so much car dependancy and it's so unnecessary. The town I'm from, Erskine, is pretty small. A few measurements on Running Map show the maximum distance North to South is 1.5 miles, West to East is 2.2 miles. Yet the town's biggest shopping area (Bridgewater) has got two large car parks (space for far more than 100 cars) and no more than 15 cycle parking spaces.

The nearest big shopping centre (Braehead, among the biggest shopping centres in Scotland) is as little as 4.7 miles away, the next town, Renfrew, is 4 miles away, Paisley (Scotland's biggest town) is 5.7 miles away and the nearest train station (with fast, direct trains to Glasgow) is 3.5 miles away (featuring 192 car parking spaces and space for about 10 bikes).

All but one of the journeys mentioned are less than 5 miles. The excellent 'As Easy As Riding A Bike' blog focuses on these kind of journey lengths in this post. In the Netherlands, 34% of trips of less than 5 miles are made by bike. In the UK, 2%.

I don't think the people of Erskine are lazy. I really don't. Nor do I imagine they want to be stuck in traffic or suffer from health problems due to inactivity. However, the infrastructure opposes cyclists and cycling between Erskine and nearby towns and villages is subjectively unsafe. Cycling just doesn't seem like an option to most people. That's why people aren't cycling to work, to the shops, to meet friends as they would do in the Netherlands.

Renfrew is a real bottleneck for traffic, with frequent delays for Erskine commuters. There are too many cars. However, one of Erskine's local councillors has a solution - build another road! No mention of cycling (or even public transport or carsharing).

Space For Cycling

Of course, we know that unlike the Dutch, we simply don't have space for cycling! Renfrewshire is no exception. I'm going to focus on the journey from my house to Renfrew. At 4.6 miles, it should be a great candidate to cycle. Google Maps is our friend. I'll follow the route shown below. I'm not choosing this route because it's exceptional, rather because it's very typical. It's a route I do from time to time, to go to my local bank and barbers.

http://goo.gl/maps/jccWM

From Linburn, we first hit a road with a 60mph limit and no facilities for cycling. I'd guess most people will give up before getting to this point. I find myself riding defensively and faster than I'd like. It's not fun. A child doing it alone? No way.

http://goo.gl/maps/4HHNO

Then, this roundabout. Two approaches are 60mph roads, the other two 50mph. All approaches are two lane. As you can imagine, a lot of people travel through it pretty fast. Going straight ahead, we must use the outside lane (there are lane markings stating this). A local councillor recently suggested it needs upgraded, but it's not clear in what way he suggests. Dutch-style priority for cyclists would make a big difference here.

http://goo.gl/maps/WFbyR

Immediately after, the two lane entry (no good reason for that) narrows into one. So much room for something better.

This is a 50mph limit road in Erskine. Shame there's so little space. http://goo.gl/maps/9mk3S

We then go through a 30mph road for a little while - it's OK (though no cycling facilities), pass some more roundabouts with no cycling facilities. Some Dutch roundabouts and a 20mph limit would be great.

We then want to enter Inchinnan, but it's illegal! Let's be clear, I think stopping cars use Inchinnan village as some sort of rat run is an excellent idea. By making car journeys less convenient and reducing traffic through a village, it's exactly the kind of thing I like to see. But allow cyclists! I note that cycling campaign group Go Bike have highlighted this issue in the past. We can break the law or push the bike for a few yards here.

http://goo.gl/maps/7FMbP

Cycling through Inchinnan itself is OK, some is 20mph (next to a school, supported by speed bumps), the rest 30mph. It'd benefit from 20mph throughout, but is OK to cycle through.

Then, another 50mph road. In theory. I'd bet the average speed is substantially more than that. As you can see, there should be plenty of space for a segregated lane here. It's horrible to cycle on, and I'm always tempted to use the path (which has very little use). The one person Street View has captured on it is one of the only person determined enough to do it on a normal bike with no helmet - yep, me. Can you imagine a family cycling on this? No chance.

http://goo.gl/maps/nCthq

On entering Renfrew, now back to 30mph limit, and this is the photo that frustrates me the most. Look at the space. Look at it! There is absolutely no excuse for not having segregated cycling infrastructure here. None. Yet, what we have is a fairly narrow lane with frequent pinch points where drivers frequently cut in front of people to avoid. This is unpleasant to cycle on.

PS - there is an off road cycle path we could take instead of the road in the picture below, but it's indirect, is very isolated and so subjectively unsafe for that reason and is not well-maintained. I don't think it's a realistic alternative.

Space for hatching? Yes. Cycling? No http://goo.gl/maps/wL8w3

Looking at this, nobody should be surprised that the modal share of cycling for journeys up to 5 miles is 2%. It's not surprising. How can you blame people for not cycling on those roads? Education campaigns are not the answer. Dedicated, segregated infrastructure in Dutch style is. What are we waiting for?

Summary

The status quo just isn't good enough. Leisure cycling is all well and good, but I shouldn't feel unsafe cycling in my local area. Nobody should. Families should be able to cycle together being subjectively and objectively safe. Cycling should be pleasant and enjoyable. For all people, all ages. Infrastructure instructs behaviour. Building more roads will only get us deeper in this car-dependancy nightmare.

Support the Cycling Embassy of GB and the Campaign for Childhood Freedom. Tell your MP, MSP and councillors, as well as anyone who will listen.

I've just started a new Twitter account about cycling - please find me there. @justacwab