CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

“Is there a war on the motorist?” - SPICe briefing

(75 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. neddie
    Member

    Spokes should not be getting involved in, and stoking, culture wars like the "war on ...". Very foolish of them to amplify this divisive language.

    Also, I'm sure it was not meant to be malevolent, but we already see "the war on cars" has been escalated to "the war on motorists" in the post above.

    At the end of the day, it's all just people, just trying to get around. Some modes are beneficial to society and individuals so should be prioritised and encouraged. Some modes are harmful at many levels and should be discouraged. Quite simple really.

    Posted 2 days ago #
  2. Frenchy
    Member

    @neddie - Any issues with any of the actual quotes from Spokes?

    Posted 2 days ago #
  3. neddie
    Member

    Yes, I do take issue with Maxwell's quotes:

    What that means, to me anyway, is a ramping up of what's sometimes called the war against cars

    for the reasons I stated above.

    Also:

    Given very limited space on the road and for pedestrians [on North Bridge]

    North Bridge is 5 lanes wide. There is plenty of space for tram lanes shared with buses, segregated cycleways, and wide pavements. What there is not space for is general traffic lanes.

    And why is the Meadows seen as an option? That's going to involve damaging the tree roots of ancient trees, or worse, putting the tram on the green space to avoid "upsetting drivers"

    However, since it was Spokes who, years ago, argued to install tarmacked paths on disused railways which were entirely occupied by nature, including draining wetland cuttings, perhaps we cannot complain too much

    Tarmacking some paths versus installing a tram is hardly the equivalent in terms of nature destruction. It's a complete nonsense to believe they'll keep 70% of the trees. Just wait until they "discover" that the embankments and cuttings are not up to modern standards for stability...

    The Orchard Brae option introduces new onroad tramline dangers

    Only because they've designed cycling out! Orchard Brae is currently wide enough for two painted-on cycle lanes, two general traffic lanes, and a layby on one side. Again, it's perfectly possible to have protected cycle lanes here, given the will.

    Spokes urges that the plans include a cycle and pedestrian bridge over the tram and mainline railway, ... avoiding the long ramps down to road level and up again ... and would be a truly transformative improvement...

    Very naive for Spokes to be in favour* of saving money via the Roseburn option and somehow at the same time think that more money will be spent on an expensive bridge across the mainline, for the sole purpose of avoiding a climb on bikes. While such a bridge would be nice, I disagree it would be "transformative" - what would be transformative is actually completing the safe link to the canal and on to the Meadows.

    *let's face it, they secretly are in favour of Roseburn, with Dave du Feu being on the board of CRAG (Capital Rail Action Group) - there is also a conflict of interest.

    Posted 2 days ago #
  4. neddie
    Member

    The council have shown on both tram builds that cycling is only ever an afterthought. The original tram designs:

    - didn't carry the cycle path over the bridges along the Bankhead path, instead dropping down to awkward and slow junctions
    - didn't provide an off-road cycle link from Maybury to the airport
    - left many dangerous junctions in the city centre
    - CCWEL diversion through the back streets
    - was completely designed out of Leith Walk, until last-minute intervention
    - no cycle lanes on Princes St

    Then when cycling was "shoehorned in", the result was a compromised bodge, e.g. the Leith walk lanes, expensive and time consuming retrofitting of city centre junctions, and so on...

    And it's clear that this is going to be the case again with the new tramline - nothing seems to have been changed or learned - cycling is designed out of North Bridge for example.

    Spokes are very naive to believe it will be any different this time. And it's a very poor negotiating position to say, "well you're going to build the tram, so we'll just ask for some incremental improvements, and hope for the best".

    This "we mustn't upset the council, we must congratulate them and keep them on side" is the whole reason progress has been so slow. It's also partly the reason why other grassroots active travel organisations have formed to take a stronger stance, orgs like:

    - SW20
    - BEST
    - Infrasisters
    - the bike buses
    - BANZAI
    - Car free Holyrood
    - Critical Mass
    - edi.bike
    - Blackford Safe Routes
    - Porty Energy
    - Low traffic Corstorphine / Leith etc
    - the various Spokes breakaway groups

    Posted 2 days ago #
  5. chdot
    Admin

    That’s a useful list

    Anyone know other/similar groups?

    Posted 2 days ago #
  6. gembo
    Member

    Citycyclingedinburgh

    Posted 2 days ago #
  7. chdot
    Admin

    PoP

    Posted 2 days ago #
  8. bakky
    Member

    Leith is 'Liveable Leith' / Porty is 'Porty Community Energy'. I would have The Bike Station on the list, though they engage more in behaviour change work. EdFoC I would say is on there too.

    Couple of things I think are worth adding to this thread.

    Spokes' use of 'War on cars'

    Fuller context for the quote:

    “The project,” Maxwell says, “should also be accompanied by complementary measures to further encourage use of public transport and active travel, such as bus gates, traffic filters and congestion charging. Research is clear that a combination of carrot and stick is the optimal approach to traffic reduction.”

    What that means, to me anyway, is a ramping up of what's sometimes called the war against cars.

    For Spokes, tram introduction should be about creating “an integrated sustainable transport place-making project”.

    You will note that the doublequotes around Ian's speech end prior to the middle paragraph. It's not attributed to Spokes, but is the article author's input. I agree that Spokes should avoid divisive language, but I also think they're already doing so.

    Progress and on-side-ness

    It's my belief that the ecosystem of organisations and campaigning voices we have at present is not only backing up what Spokes have to say, but I would hope also emboldening their campaigning; I also think there is absolutely a place for being the organisation that gets alongside council officers and policymakers, and is as diplomatic as possible while still trying to effect change - and as a backdrop to that, deputations, media and campaigning from organisations that are using perhaps more radical language and rhetoric.

    This "we mustn't upset the council, we must congratulate them and keep them on side" is the whole reason progress has been so slow.

    I know I'm as green as spring grass here but I don't agree with this. The council's 'Edinburgh is very special and unique, better have a consultation' culture, endless hand-wringing, having staffing issues in Active Travel and then finally the funding landscape we now have, all contributing factors. If I had to pick one thing responsible for the slow progress, it's far more likely the Edinburgh NIMBY / 'why wasn't I consulted' noise from folks who take to fainting the second anything in their area is set to change, platformed and egged on by community councils that are about as demographically diverse as Clambers soft play on a Tuesday morning and delusional about their role in the democratic process.

    The council need both the carrot and the stick; their officers need encouragement and backup, but the organisation also needs telt on an ongoing basis. Don't forget that Spokes' expertise around process and who's who was key to the drafting and eventual success of the TRO Sub-Committee victory that helped ensure the continuance of the Travelling Safely schemes.

    Posted 2 days ago #
  9. neddie
    Member

    You will note that the doublequotes around Ian's speech end prior to the middle paragraph. It's not attributed to Spokes

    OK, fair point, my mistake for misreading the article (which I also think is badly written). Most of the article, except the first two, and the last four paragraphs, is written factually about Spokes. But then randomly in the middle, there's an "opinion", disguised with "What that means, to me anyway, ..."

    Posted 2 days ago #
  10. bakky
    Member

    It caught me out on my first reading of it too - it's not great editing I think. And more to the point, casually chucking that in there will have more than just us thinking that's come from Spokes, which isn't ideal for perceptions either way.

    Posted 2 days ago #
  11. Frenchy
    Member

    @neddie - Thank you.

    One important point just now - Dave du Feu is not, and never has been, on the board (or any committee) of CRAG.

    Posted 2 days ago #
  12. chdot
    Admin

    Without Spokes Edinburgh would _ _ _

    Fill in the blanks as you choose…

    It’s easy to criticise Spokes, I have, not least on some aspects of the way it tries to hold a firm but cautious (my words) line/way of working - mostly as regards dealings with CEC.

    THAT is more about my frustrations/impatiences over the same decades that Spokes has operated. It must be worse for those directly involved…

    There are various people who have had considerable involvement, not least DdF who has been there since almost the first meeting.

    Nearly 50 years of “Bulletins” - sometimes criticised for small print size and looking too much on the bright side…

    In the grand scheme of things, minor details compared with the genuine achievements of Spokes.

    Several key people post here (it really isn’t a one person organisation). One who never did was (the much missed) Sandy Scotland - too busy poring over planning applications or umpiring cricket matches to bother getting involved with CCE!

    CEC is a stranger organisation than Spokes really. It has all the problems (and potential) of any large organisation.

    Like all LAs now, it is underfunded and understaffed for the things it’s supposed/expected/legally obligated/wants to do.

    Like all LAs, it tries to run (this is simplistic but complicated) with two sets of people - councillors and officials who don’t always seem to have the same agendas (at best, improving Edinburgh). Some seem more interested in opposing other Parties or even colleagues.

    Keeping up with all this, and making any sort of progress, is hard for any vol org.

    Of course many vol orgs have paid staff. Many have careers which often involve moving elsewhere.

    Spokes, unlike say London Cycle Campaign, has never had staff, or wanted to.

    (For transparency, I have worked for Spokes on various projects - paid. I also set up the first Spokes web site - unpaid.)

    In short it’s a fairly unique organisation that can’t get everything right, but has done more good things than bad!

    It (I suspect I’m right in saying) welcomes the variety of other groups campaigning on local (or city wide) cycling/ActiveTravel/etc things.

    Posted 2 days ago #
  13. spytfyre
    Member

    An interesting article about "car spreading" which really highlights the sheer arrogance of people defending the "need" for a land rover defender because

    "I need to have enough space to put children in, with all of their kit - also, you can fit a door or a three-metre length of pipe in it,"
    WHAT KIT are you carrying? An estate skoda fabia has never seen me say I need more space for kit. Unless you keep all the rugby/cricket/tennis/etc kit all in at the same time... come on!
    If there is a war or the car/motorist this type of motorist in particular is bringing it on themselves and indeed separate themselves from other motorists with regular width cars that then get stuck behind these wider vehicles as they cannot fit down a two way street for their width/fear or wing mirrors/lack of skill (driving) or only drive down a street in the middle to avoid speed cushions as they "own the road" for their size/height

    </rant>

    Posted 18 hours ago #
  14. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Same argument from USAnians who 'need' their Ford Super Thunder Patrolmeister trucks to transport their everyday piles of 8×4 drywall and OSB. It's mental and it's nonsense.

    You can fit a recumbent trike whole inside a Vauxhall Agila with some seats folded down.

    Posted 17 hours ago #
  15. gembo
    Member

    The cars are bigger than bars
    And cant fit down the street
    Killing the planet and driven real sheet

    To quote the excellent artistes M.Munro from their song Goldfinches available free over on SoundCloud. Check em out

    Posted 16 hours ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin