Cycling article in Telegraph.

[Simon Mason]

You need to subscribe, so I posted the text:

£60,000 on riding lessons? On your bike, drivers tell council
By Nick Britten
(Filed: 03/09/2004)
Commuters in a wealthy city suburb are being offered bicycle lessons in an
attempt to persuade them to leave their cars at home.


But residents said the £60,000 plan was "absolutely ridiculous" and a
"complete waste of money".
Wolverhampton city council has targeted 400 households in Tettenhall
offering them personal journey plans. Cycling training, advice on how to be
more economical when driving and promotional offers on public transport are
included. The council hopes the project will help reduce pollution, road
accidents and congestion but residents are not so keen.

Jill Colburn, 43, said: "I have been cycling since I was just six years old
and I certainly don't need any lessons. To spend £60,000 teaching adults
like myself to cycle properly is absolutely ridiculous when the money could
be spent so much better. The kids around here have got nothing to do. The
money should go towards a skate park or decent playground."

Doreen Eades, 74, said: "It sounds like a complete and utter waste of money.
I cannot think of any adult who needs to be taught how to ride a bike
properly, nor be told how to plan their journey.
"In my opinion the council has so much money it doesn't know what to do with
it and comes up with hare-brained schemes like this." Roy Campbell, 63, a
butcher, said: "Even my two grandchildren know how to ride a bike, so why
would I need lessons? I've heard of a few daft ideas in my time but this is
certainly one of the oddest.

"People are going to use a car to get to work regardless of being given
lessons or advice from experts. A better idea would be to spend the money on
buying a load of bikes and giving them away free." Judy Thacker, 57, a
pharmacist, said: "I appreciate that the council is trying to cut down on
the number of motor vehicles on the roads but this idea is a waste of
council tax. Such a large amount of cash would be better invested in
improving health care."

Milkinder Jaspal, the council's transport spokesman, said funding earmarked
for transport could not be spent in other areas.
"There are a lot of transport issues around Tettenhall and I'm trying to
look in to these problems," he said. "I know £60,000 seems like a lot of
money, but it will be well worth it." He said cycling officers were a key
part of the project and cost relatively little to train. "

A lot of people have a perception that cycling on the roads is very
dangerous," he said. "A lot of cyclists are not aware of the rules of the
road and how they've got to behave on the road."
Jonathan Yardley, Conservative councillor for Tettenhall Regis, said: "Most
people in Tettenhall know how to get to work and have already managed to
find the shops and bus stops for themselves."

 

[Danny Colyer]

Simon Mason quoted:
> £60,000 on riding lessons? On your bike, drivers tell council
<snip>
> But residents said the £60,000 plan was "absolutely ridiculous" and a
> "complete waste of money".

Seems like an excellent use of taxpayer's money to me. I think the
council spokesman was spot on:

> A lot of people have a perception that cycling on the roads is very
> dangerous," he said. "A lot of cyclists are not aware of the rules of the
> road and how they've got to behave on the road."

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[D.M. Procida]

Danny Colyer <[email protected]> wrote:

> Simon Mason quoted:
> > £60,000 on riding lessons? On your bike, drivers tell council
> <snip>
> > But residents said the £60,000 plan was "absolutely ridiculous" and a
> > "complete waste of money".
>
> Seems like an excellent use of taxpayer's money to me. I think the
> council spokesman was spot on:

A couple of weeks ago there was a festival in Cardiff Bay. The traffic
was horrendous - people circling round and round the roads, trying to
find a space to park. They should have had a cycle park, and a stall,
and anyone parking their cycle there would be given £5 if they left at
least 60 minutes later.

In fact that would be a good plan to encourage cycling generally. If you
leave your cycle parked for a certain length of time in certain places
where car-parking is hard to come by and congestion a problem, you
should get paid to do so. Obviously, the money would come from that
raised by the car parks...

Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140

 

[Pete Biggs]

Seems like a good idea to me, too. There are plenty of people who would
cycle if only they felt more confident on the roads.

> But residents said the £60,000 plan was "absolutely ridiculous" and a
> "complete waste of money".
..........
> "To spend £60,000
> teaching adults like myself to cycle properly is absolutely
> ridiculous when the money could be spent so much better."

I wonder how many inches of road 60 grand would build?

~PB

 

[soup]

Danny Colyer popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on
and said
> Simon Mason quoted:
> > £60,000 on riding lessons? On your bike, drivers tell council
> <snip>
> > But residents said the £60,000 plan was "absolutely ridiculous" and
> > a "complete waste of money".
>
> Seems like an excellent use of taxpayer's money to me. I think the
> council spokesman was spot on:
<snip>

£60,000 , surely the 'council' could get a bulk discount and get
1,000 bicycles [1]for that money, then they could divide them evenly
between the local high schools obviously there will be a % age
who dont want bikes. this 'cheap' and there will be a % age who
already cycle, this dole of bikes. along with a no stopping zone
at the schools will educate young adults into cycling and get the
mums/dads off the school run, surely this will do more to alleviate
congestion than teaching people how to ride in traffic [2]

[1] Or even half this number of bikes as someone will need to
supervise the distribution of these bikes. (and be paid), and I have no
idea of
the legal position but would it be enough to have the responsibility
of maintenance transfered at the time of the distribution or would
someone have to do a quick check once a month or so?
Can't have all and sundry suing the 'council' when the 'council'
supplied
bike's brakes fail and dump poor Johnny under a bus.

[2] Yes I know bicycles are traffic but in this case
I mean other motorised traffic OWTTE.

IVOANAL


--
yours S

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

 

[Cicero]

"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You need to subscribe, so I posted the text:
>
> £60,000 on riding lessons? On your bike, drivers tell council
> By Nick Britten
> (Filed: 03/09/2004)
> Commuters in a wealthy city suburb are being offered bicycle lessons in an
> attempt to persuade them to leave their cars at home.
>
>
> But residents said the £60,000 plan was "absolutely ridiculous" and a
> "complete waste of money".
> Wolverhampton city council has targeted 400 households in Tettenhall
> offering them personal journey plans. Cycling training, advice on how to
be
> more economical when driving and promotional offers on public transport
are
> included. The council hopes the project will help reduce pollution, road
> accidents and congestion but residents are not so keen.
>
><snipped>
>
> Milkinder Jaspal, the council's transport spokesman, said funding
earmarked
> for transport could not be spent in other areas.
> "There are a lot of transport issues around Tettenhall and I'm trying to
> look in to these problems," he said. "I know £60,000 seems like a lot of
> money, but it will be well worth it." He said cycling officers were a key
> part of the project and cost relatively little to train. "
>
> A lot of people have a perception that cycling on the roads is very
> dangerous," he said. "A lot of cyclists are not aware of the rules of the
> road and how they've got to behave on the road."
> Jonathan Yardley, Conservative councillor for Tettenhall Regis, said:
"Most
> people in Tettenhall know how to get to work and have already managed to
> find the shops and bus stops for themselves."
>
====================
Councillor Milkinder Jaspal, the council's transport spokesman, also had
another idea to promote road safety. He ordered that Stafford Road, one of
the main roads into the city centre, should be 'improved' by having all
existing bus 'pull-ins' removed to control traffic. Buses now have to stop
for passengers in the inner lane of a two lane highway and other traffic has
to filter around the stopped buses or wait behind. It certainly hasn't
improved either traffic flow or the tempers of commuters, most of whom think
that Councillor Milkinder Jaspal should stick to playing with his Dinky
toys.

Cic.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 8 Sep, Pete Biggs <pblackcherry{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote:

> I wonder how many inches of road 60 grand would build?

In late 1990s, it would get you 222 inches of dual three lane
motorway, so enough to park one car in each lane.

(Parliamentary written answer in January 1998 - 17.1 million pounds
per mile for dual three lane motorway)

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[[Not Responding]]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 20:15:52 GMT, "Cicero" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> You need to subscribe, so I posted the text:

>>
>====================
>Councillor Milkinder Jaspal, the council's transport spokesman, also had
>another idea to promote road safety. He ordered that Stafford Road, one of
>the main roads into the city centre, should be 'improved' by having all
>existing bus 'pull-ins' removed to control traffic. Buses now have to stop
>for passengers in the inner lane of a two lane highway and other traffic has
>to filter around the stopped buses or wait behind. It certainly hasn't
>improved either traffic flow or the tempers of commuters, most of whom think
>that Councillor Milkinder Jaspal should stick to playing with his Dinky
>toys.

Unless those commuters are on the bus, of course. Buses suffer a lot
of delay when car drivers won't let them out of those lay-bys.
Speeding up buses is the reason their being done away with in many
towns.

There's the secondary benefit that replacing the layby with pavement
improves the pedestrian environment as well.

It's all classic reallocation of roadspace and a Good Thing.

 

[Martyn Bolt]

from the way the original article read the spokesperson isn't a
Councillor but a profesional officer.

A Councillor attacked the proposal saying people didn't need any help
planning journeys etc.

That's why they are all stuck in the same traffic jams at teh same
time, because they don't need any help, it's every one stuck in the
jam that needs it.

Selective interviewing by the paper? Or are all the residents of that
area pensioners?

 

[Cicero]

"[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 20:15:52 GMT, "Cicero" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> You need to subscribe, so I posted the text:
>
> >>
> >====================
> >Councillor Milkinder Jaspal, the council's transport spokesman, also had
> >another idea to promote road safety. He ordered that Stafford Road, one
of
> >the main roads into the city centre, should be 'improved' by having all
> >existing bus 'pull-ins' removed to control traffic. Buses now have to
stop
> >for passengers in the inner lane of a two lane highway and other traffic
has
> >to filter around the stopped buses or wait behind. It certainly hasn't
> >improved either traffic flow or the tempers of commuters, most of whom
think
> >that Councillor Milkinder Jaspal should stick to playing with his Dinky
> >toys.
>
> Unless those commuters are on the bus, of course. Buses suffer a lot
> of delay when car drivers won't let them out of those lay-bys.
> Speeding up buses is the reason their being done away with in many
> towns.
>
> There's the secondary benefit that replacing the layby with pavement
> improves the pedestrian environment as well.
>
> It's all classic reallocation of roadspace and a Good Thing.

================
This is stated to be an experiment and it's also been stated that it may be
reversed next year despite the cost. The system was working reasonably well
prior to the changes. Apart from creating more congestion all that has
happened is that bus commuters are being given priority over other
commuters. This seems to be rather unfair bearing in mind that many car
users simply could not travel by bus because of poor transport links. The
truth is that the Council appear to be trying unsuccessfully to force people
out of cars and on to public transport. Councillor Jaspal, like so many
Councillors doesn't appear to understand that public money isn't an
unlimited resource.

Cic.

 

[DSK]

IMO, its great that something is being done to push folks towards cycling. However, £60K on teaching folks how to get from A to B and how to stay upright is pointless. I feel that to get more people to cycle (at least typical short journeys that last a couple fo minutes in a car), it needs to be approached from a different angle.

Perhaps offering some king of incentives/rewards etc, creating more useful cycle lanes on the roads, bit like the bus lanes. May be getting some celebs to help promote it etc. I dunno, all I am saying is that it would be a waste of £60K and it needs to come from another angle.

 

[DSK]

Oooh, forgot to mention that, its likely that these council folks don't ride cycles, may not have ridden cycles since they were children. If they cycled a bit, they may be able to see the situation from a cyclists point of view on where improvements could be made to encourage more people to enjoy cycling on the roads etc. Alternatively, to learn more about the activity, they could pay for people in the know (magazines, well known cyclists, local groups, general cyclists etc) to comment, make suggestions and so on.

 

[Cicero]

"Martyn Bolt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> from the way the original article read the spokesperson isn't a
> Councillor but a profesional officer.
>
> A Councillor attacked the proposal saying people didn't need any help
> planning journeys etc.
>
> That's why they are all stuck in the same traffic jams at teh same
> time, because they don't need any help, it's every one stuck in the
> jam that needs it.
>
> Selective interviewing by the paper? Or are all the residents of that
> area pensioners?

==================
Four interviewees - aged 43, 74, 63, 57 - looks like 25% pensioners.

Milkinder Jaspal, the council's transport spokesman is actually Councillor
Milkinder Jaspal, Labour Cabinet member with responsibility for transport.

Given the kind of working patterns of most people it's difficult to envisage
any major change in journey plans. People have little choice about the time
they travel to work.

Cic.

 

[JohnB]

Cicero wrote:

> Councillor Milkinder Jaspal, the council's transport spokesman, also had
> another idea to promote road safety. He ordered that Stafford Road, one of
> the main roads into the city centre, should be 'improved' by having all
> existing bus 'pull-ins' removed to control traffic. Buses now have to stop
> for passengers in the inner lane of a two lane highway and other traffic has
> to filter around the stopped buses or wait behind.

Aw, diddums.
Giving priority to PT is such a bad thing is it?

john B

 

[Cicero]

"JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Cicero wrote:
>
> > Councillor Milkinder Jaspal, the council's transport spokesman, also had
> > another idea to promote road safety. He ordered that Stafford Road,
one of
> > the main roads into the city centre, should be 'improved' by having all
> > existing bus 'pull-ins' removed to control traffic. Buses now have to
stop
> > for passengers in the inner lane of a two lane highway and other traffic
has
> > to filter around the stopped buses or wait behind.
>
> Aw, diddums.
> Giving priority to PT is such a bad thing is it?
>
> john B

=============
It's quite irrelevant to me personally because I don't commute. The point is
that people pay their taxes and have a right to choose their own mode of
transport without being penalised for their choice. That's a question of
being fair not a matter for childish sarcasm.

Cic.

 

[Terry D]

DSK wrote:
> IMO, its great that something is being done to push folks towards
> cycling. However, £60K on teaching folks how to get from A to B and
> how to stay upright is pointless. I feel that to get more people to
> cycle (at least typical short journeys that last a couple fo minutes in
> a car), it needs to be approached from a different angle.
>

I think DSK is missing the point here. I also feel that the quoted
population of Tettenhall were making the same mistake. Cycle training
does not necessarily mean teaching people how to balance or operate the
brakes or change gear. The most difficult part of utility cycling (i.e.
cycling to get somewhere as opposed to going somewhere to cycle) is
learning to cope with the fact that you are not the only person using
the road. It is possible to cycle to work using shared use roads, I know
because that's how I commute, but it is not an innate skill, it has to
be learned.

> Perhaps offering some king of incentives/rewards etc, creating more
> useful cycle lanes on the roads, bit like the bus lanes. May be
> getting some celebs to help promote it etc. I dunno, all I am saying
> is that it would be a waste of £60K and it needs to come from another
> angle.
>
>

I think the 60,000 would be extremely well spent if it taught a few more
ordinary people that cycle commuting is not only possible, but fun. The
spin off from such a programme would also be welcome, we would have
fewer cars on the road (not in my town, but Tettenhall is a start) and
hopefully a few more urc members willing to spread the word that cycling
is A Good Thing.

--
Terry Duckmanton.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/terry.duckmanton
A website mostly dedicated to cycling
http://tduckmanton.bravejournal.com
A daily log of my cycling exploits

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <6CK%[email protected]>, Cicero
('[email protected]') wrote:

> This is stated to be an experiment and it's also been stated that it
> may be reversed next year despite the cost. The system was working
> reasonably well prior to the changes. Apart from creating more
> congestion all that has happened is that bus commuters are being given
> priority over other commuters. This seems to be rather unfair bearing
> in mind that many car
> users simply could not travel by bus because of poor transport links.
> The truth is that the Council appear to be trying unsuccessfully to
> force people out of cars and on to public transport. Councillor
> Jaspal, like so many Councillors doesn't appear to understand that
> public money isn't an unlimited resource.

Road space isn't an unlimited resource, either. It isn't practical to
knock down all our towns and cities to build fifty lane motorways to
nowhere. A bus uses up far fewer square metres of road space per person
as a car; therefore busses need to be advantaged and cars disadvantaged
in everyone's interest - to economise on use of road space. And as for
those '...car users [who] simply could not travel by bus...' they
should either move house to somewhere nearer to where they work or
change job to one nearer to where they live. There is simply no reason
for the rest of us to subsidise those who through selfishness decide
that their choice of residence and occupation takes priority over
everyone else's chance of having tolerable urban space.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Lusers are from Uranus.

 

[JohnB]

Cicero wrote:
>
> "JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> > Giving priority to PT is such a bad thing is it?

> It's quite irrelevant to me personally because I don't commute.

Buses which are available to *all* get held up by not being able to
re-enter the traffic stream.To give priority to a mode of transport that
is available to all rather than one that is private and has a
detrimental (if not selfish) affect on PT is both responsible planning
and morally preferable.

> The point is
> that people pay their taxes and have a right to choose their own mode of
> transport without being penalised for their choice.

Paying a tax does not mean you are always immune to 'being penalised'.
Paying a tax does not give anyone the right to ride roughshod over
others.
In towns where the private car is not adequately controlled that is what
often happens.

> That's a question of
> being fair not a matter for childish sarcasm.

Eh?


John B

 

[D.M. Procida]

Cicero <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's quite irrelevant to me personally because I don't commute. The point is
> that people pay their taxes and have a right to choose their own mode of
> transport without being penalised for their choice.

They certainly don't have that right. Many people have their chosen mode
of transport made more expensive, difficult or unpleasant, by laws,
transport infrastructure or other people. I think that the modes of
transport which make it more difficult or unpleasant for most people
should be most penalised.

Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140

 

[Al C-F]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 21:43:00 GMT, "Cicero" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The point is
>that people pay their taxes and have a right to choose their own mode of
>transport

And with that right comes a number of responsibilities. And if they
can't be responsible without coercion, they can be responsible WITH
coercion.
--

Cheers,

Al