62
BIKE TO WORK BOOK
PARTITION IS NOT A PANACEA Let’s campaign for segregated cycle facilities and safer roads
I
n the Netherlands, from the early 1970s on, politicians with balls took it upon themselves to rein back King Car. Roadspace was taken from the automobile and given to pedestrians and cyclists in the form of protected paths. Now, it’s possible to cycle in the Netherlands segregated from motorised traffic. This is clearly an attractive cycling environment for newbies, older people, children and others who don’t fancy mixing it with juggernauts. In the UK and the US, piecemeal cycling infrastructure has been put in place and much of it is well below Dutch standards but a growing number of people are recognising that cities would be more civilised places if they were friendlier to cyclists and pedestrians. Over the next few years, Dutch-style infrastructure may be built but in the meantime, if we want to get around by bike, we have to put up with a less than ideal infrastructure. In such car-centric societies as the UK and US it is politically naive to believe meaningful space will be taken away from cars without a massive and democratic reaction against such a move. There’s no will from national leaders for such a revolution nor is there any cash. At the local level it’s just as bad, perhaps even worse. Local highways departments have been car-centric since the 1930s. The majority of local politicians - with a windscreen perspective, and one eye on the ballot box - are pro-motoring; some are actively anti-cycling. Motormyopia is endemic. Mad, bad and sad, but true. Some cycle advocates insist that cycling won’t grow in the UK, or the US, without Dutch-style cycling facilities. But, ‘infrastructure or nothing’ is a position doomed to failure. We have to recognise we’re not going to get anything perfect for cycling from the present bunch of politicians in the US and the UK. And the majority of voters would back them to the hilt: anything that smacks of taking space and ‘rights’ away from motorists is something that will be fought tooth and nail. Cycle campaigners can dream all they like but there’s got to be a realisation there’s an existing cycle network: roads. Roads go everywhere; segregated cycle facilities in the UK and the US never do, and probably never will. They don’t in the Netherlands or Denmark, either. Yes, there are some wonderful segregated facilities but there are also lots of places when cyclists have to mix it with other traffic. Good infrastructure design is key but the real difference in the Netherlands is driver attitudes to cyclists, backed up with legislation should a driver dare to use the ‘I didn’t see you’ excuse. And in Freiburg, Copenhagen, and other bike-friendly places in Europe, motorised traffic is more mindful of cyclists. This doesn’t yet happen in the the UK or the US because there’s scant legal protection for cyclists, and there are not yet enough of us. It’s chicken and egg, of course, but fantasising about a utopia where segregated cycle facilities cure all carries the very real risk of keeping cycling on the margins of society. The fantastic cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands took many years to develop and cycling was given both cash and clout. In the UK and the US, no amount of pushing from a small number of visionaries will change the motorised status quo any time soon. For a start, we need to make the best of what we’ve got. As roads go everywhere, we need to keep access to those roads for the current crop of cyclists and for future generations. Roads are not