CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
Article in the Herald today http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/14169371.Cycling_report__train_schoolchildren_to_ride_bikes/
Ignore the headline - the real story is that we need to invest in the road network to make it safe for cycling if we want to boost cycling. Unfortunately I can't find the original report - it's not on the Cycling Scotland website as far as I can see.
Interesting article. We need more like this: drip, drip, drip, little by little the message may get though eventually to government...
crowriver - agreed, but this is the worst possible time for a story like this to come out, effectively a political dead zone. Also, the spin on "cycle training" (which doesn't seem to feature in any big way in the report) which just happens to be managed by Cycling Scotland is disappointing - taking away from the real message about investment in high quality infrastructure.
I can't find the report either.
Aye, I'd had similar thoughts too: nobody will notice due to the time of year.
However, if the report can be found (maybe not publicly available yet, again due to time of year?) then campaigners can make sure ministers and MSPs don't forget it, perhaps?
I think a few blogs might help give it some life, if we can find the original...
The original is now here http://www.cyclingscotland.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-12-27-Cycling-Scotland-Comparator-Study-WEB.pdf haven't had a chance to read it yet but will look at it later. Be interested to hear what people think
I've just skimmed it. I certainly hope Cycling Scotland didn't spend much money on it as it is a very poor piece of work. Large chunks seem to have been cut and paste from other documents, given the changes in language and style throughout the document. There is no real analysis - just two pages are dedicated to identifying "common trends" from the comparitor countries and a further two pages of "lessons for Scotland".
The "lessons for Scotland" also neatly set the scene for dropping the Scotland-wide 10% mode share "vision" and allow the SG to claim they are already meeting the other requirements, e.g. Scotland has a national cycling policy, scheme for child cycle training and measures cycling modal share.
Hm. From a detailed scan, it seems interesting, if a little underwhelming in its conclusions. Nothing we didn't know already, really.
One point that may be worth repeating to politicians is about cycling spending and its relationship to modal share. This seems to be a very direct relationship of €0.8 per person.
"As a guide, the ECF has calculated that each 1% increase in cycling mode share requires an average of a €0.8 per person per year. The 2010 figure for the Netherlands was around €25/head, for a 27% mode share; which compares with the current UK figure of around €2.4/head for a 2% mode share." (p.74)
Also this is a worthwhile message:
"The evidence strongly indicates that, to grow cycling appreciably, the primary investment focus should be on enabling cycling through changing the physical environment (e.g. providing protected cycle tracks and/or managing motor traffic). Measures to encourage cyclling (e.g. through training and promotion) should also be part of the package (see below)."
I couldn't help but be a bit disappointed by the following piece of "realism", only insofar as it will let central government off the hook in a Scottish/UK context:
"In any country, the national mode share for cycling will always be lower that the mode share in the best regions or cities. This in turn suggests that the national aspiration for cycling in Scotland should be lower than that for the best cities; which in turn indicates that cycling target-setting should be reviewed at a local level. Any mode share target should be based on the current mode share; and although ambitious targets can help drive positive change, it is important that these are not set unfeasibly high."
"Any mode share target should be based on the current mode share; and although ambitious targets can help drive positive change, it is important that these are not set unfeasibly high."
So 10% is unfeasIble, except in Edinburgh.
Sorted.
"So 10% is unfeasIble, except in Edinburgh."
Which, to be fair, is probably true, given where we are now. Certainly not attainable anywhere else in Scotland by 2020.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts