So I've replied to my MSP's last reply. Below you will find the reply. As I've made some of this public, I should probably keep it that way. It's an interesting journey into the mind of a government MSP.
I have to say I was very surprised by your reply to my initial
e-mail. I'll try and explain in this e-mail why.
You didn't address the justice issue I was referring to in my
original e-mail, that is the undercharging of drivers in cyclist
death and serious injury cases. This is not just a police issue,
but is also an issue with the Procurator Fiscal. I know for a fact
that the case I sent you information on is not the only case for
concern, I personally know of one family who feel aggrieved by
their treatment within the court system. There are many more.
I would be very keen to look at the evidence that you have access
to that suggests that training is the 'way towards safer cycling'.
All of the evidence that I have come across suggests that
infrastructure improvement is the way to make cycling safer,
unless you are happy to keep cycling exclusive to those brave
enough to cycle in the current climate (which includes me, but not
my wife and children). I am more than happy to bring you along on
my cycle commute to work one day to explain, as we cycle along,
why that is the case. I'd also be interested to know if you could
provide any examples of industrialised countries where modal share
of cycling has increased from 1% to10% or beyond through
training. This is particularly relevant considering the 2020
target of 10% of cycling modal share set by your government.
I know some of the members of the ED's cycle co-op team quite
well, and I know for a fact that they agree that whilst training
can help to a small extent, mass cycling will not occur without
significant infrastructure investment. This is needed in East
Dunbartonshire just as much as anywhere else in Scotland.
I was though, most surprised by your last paragraph. I fail to see
what relevance the governments overall budget has in this
discussion. Yes, if the Scottish Government had unlimited funds,
I'm sure it would invest in cycling infrastructure. However,
budgets will always be limited. What matters are the priorities
set within those budgets. As things stand cycling and active
travel are very far down the priority list and thus receive a
tiny, completely insufficient budget.
The truth is that your government has full control over cycling
spend (and most of transport) and you choose how to spend your
capital. The lack of spending on active travel is purely a
political decision. You and the Scottish Government are spending
huge sums on roads. Transform Scotland estimates you have a £9bn
programme of major road projects, including £3bn A96 and £3bn A9,
in and to your traditional heartlands.
Trunk road spending also rises in this year's draft budget (from
£639m to £695m) whilst your cycling investment, though still
confused, looks set to fall (a reasonable estimate being from £39m
in 14/15 to £36m in 15/16) and the proportion of that going to
infrastructure also looks set to fall as Spoke have detailed
(http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2014/10/budget-infrastructure-fear/).
It would seem that despite the consequence of a NO vote, that
transport spending can increase, just not for active travel.
If you have any information that refutes these figures and thus
backs your assertion that government funding for cycling continues
to increase, I would be grateful if you could pass it on to me.
I will leave you with one comment I received in relation to the
blog I wrote about our ongoing conversation
(http://www.magnatom.net/2014/10/the-angeraction-never-ending-cycle.html).
This comment was left for me on Facebook. It was from a mother I
know from Bishopbriggs who I know is keen for her children to be
as active as possible. Her comment was:
Yes
I completely agree that the East Dunbartonshire Cycle
Coop is a fabulous project. My youngest is to do a long
distance ride with them this Friday. Does this mean that
I'm more likely to allow her to ride the open roads of
Bishopbriggs - eh absolutely naw!!!! Karen and
her team can teach my child all the skills she can but
the roads and car driver behaviour allow me no
confidence in the option of this as a means for my
child to get to school.
This lady is not part of any minority. She represents the majority
view of parents, including myself, who fear sending our children
out on the roads with training as their only protection. If you
and your government truly wish Scotland to be a healthier, less
polluted, less congested, more socially inclusive (less than 50%
of households in Glasgow have access to a car) country, then
perhaps it is time to look once again at your government's
priorities within current budgetary constraints. Training of
vulnerable road users should not be one of your priorities.
Yours sincerely,
David Brennan
*applause*
ReplyDeleteGreat response, but I fear you'll get a typical politician's answer once again - fobbed off with irrelevant & vague statements whilst she avoids actually answering the questions put to her.
ReplyDeleteProbably, but I feel it has to be said. At least it will be out there for all to see and then people can make up their own minds when it comes time to vote....
DeleteChapeau!
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as one of Cycling Scotland's volunteer trainers (so reasonably close to matters there) I concur with your assessment.
ReplyDeleteYour MSP probably doesn't know much about the structure. Most of what's delivered is Level 2, which gets the basics of on-road riding in a benign environment. The idea is that's a stepping stone to L3 which is enough to cope with the sort of thing your commute represents (assuming you're willing to try!), but hardly any L3 is delivered. Why not? Cycling Scotland only released pilot resources this past summer, and while L2 can be delivered in 8:1 pupil/instructor classes by Cycle Training Assistants, L3 needs full Cycle Trainers (who are in relatively short supply) and class ratios of 6:2 pupil/instructors. We don't have the instructors and we don't have the time.
It turns out that if you want to do training properly (never mind it won't persuade a lot of people they want to mix it with HGVs) the Government would need to spend a whole lot more money. Fancy That!
Completely agree with your arguments, and thanks for lobbying your local politicians. On the matter of training let's look at a different angle: WHO is getting the training? I think the letter implies that CYCLISTS are the ones who should be trained - but non-cyclists often don't appreciate that you often find yourself in dangerous situations that any amount of training couldn't avoid, as your own videos show....
ReplyDeleteHowever, we should promote cycling training for DRIVERS. I don't mean the usual "safe driving awareness" stuff that is often required before you are allowed to use a company car, and not a simple "changing place" (cyclist sits in a HGV for a minute, and driver stands in the blind spot for a minute), no, I mean a serious cycling course for drivers: actually experiencing how it feels when a car whizzes past half a metre away, or is tailgating you while you're struggling up a hill, and what cyclist do to reduce these risks (primary position etc.).
Also, it might convince some drivers that cycling is actually quite a nice thing to do and much less scary after a few days experience?
In my (subjective) experience, a difference between UK and the continent is not only infrastructure, but also drivers are more careful and respectful towards cyclists and pedestrians (not necessarily towards other cars though...), many cycle (at least occasionally) themselves or have friends and relatives and know this perspective.
Infrastructure is still the key, but cycle training for drivers can perhaps help a bit?