Letter: Drivers Also Benefit from Improved Cycle Infrastructure

Published on: 1 Nov, 2024
Updated on: 6 Nov, 2024

London Road, Burpham. Image Google

From Sam Peters

Former Green Party candidate in local elections

In response to: Only One in Ten of Us Are Potential Cyclists

Pulling a random number out of a biased hat isn’t how we design infrastructure.

Survey after survey has found the vast majority of people – up to 85 per cent – support improving walking and cycling infrastructure even if it takes up road space, with most saying they’re more likely to walk or cycle if it’s made safe to do so.

Huge boosts in walking and cycling are invariably seen in practice across the UK and worldwide whenever the infrastructure is built.

Improving active travel infrastructure isn’t just for the benefit of non-drivers – it’s the number one way to reduce traffic and congestion, make roads safer, and cut air pollution too which, in response to one of the comments, is actually worse inside vehicles stuck in traffic. Cycling by comparison exposes people to the least pollution, with walking in the middle, due to cyclists being able to more quickly cut through traffic caused by vehicles.

Guildford is unique in many ways, but not in the way its transport networks work or respond to changes. If we make walking, wheeling and cycling safer and more accessible, more people will do so, reducing traffic on the roads in turn. This has been shown time and time and time again in the UK, across Europe and worldwide. Guildford is no different in this regard.

To leave the key transport corridor between the town centre and an entire quarter of the town’s outskirts highly dangerous and unpleasant for anything but drivers is absurd, particularly given the already enormous congestion it causes.

This route is used by thousands of commuters and has around 4,000 schoolchildren at schools along or just off it. If even just 10 per cent of those thousands became able to walk or cycle, the benefits would be felt by all – perhaps even by drivers the most.

Responses to Letter: Drivers Also Benefit from Improved Cycle Infrastructure

Anthony Mallard Reply

November 1, 2024 at 4:39 pm

Sam Peters makes a number of good points and when applied to suitable infrastructure may well work. However, The London Road in Burpham, is too narrow at many points for the former and now defunct scheme to be implemented. It would have been unsafe and, without doubt, cause increased congestion and thus pollution to all road users and the occupants of nearby houses.

The scheme is dead, let’s stop trying to resurrect a dead horse and move on.
Mark Percival Reply

November 1, 2024 at 5:53 pm

A well explained set of factual observations from Mr Peters.

Far from being dead, the pressure will continue to be applied to Surrey County Council to provide the majority of residents the safe travel options they desire.

With council elections in May then local issues such as this failure will become decisive at the polling booth.
Malcolm Stanier Reply

November 1, 2024 at 9:31 pm

Can Sam Peters please state which surveys “have found the vast majority of people – up to 85 per cent – support improving walking and cycling infrastructure”? For very many reasons, such as those stated by David Roberts, people are not going to transfer to cycling in the vast numbers the cycling fraternity thinks.

Sam Peters states, “If we make walking, wheeling and cycling safer and more accessible, more people will do so, reducing traffic on the roads in turn. This has been shown time and time and time again in the UK, across Europe and worldwide”. But what guarantee is there of that. Examples need to be provided.

As David Roberts has already pointed out, people unlikely to cycle are: the young and old, the disabled, the overweight, unfit, nervous or infirm, people carrying shopping or luggage, those with too far to go, people who like to travel in comfort or company, people who treat their car as a safe, personal space, those who are too short of time to cycle and need to arrive looking neat and tidy, people in flats and small homes with nowhere to store a bike for themselves, let alone each family member, people with nowhere secure to park a bike at work or locations, many people who can’t even afford a bike.

I strongly suspect that the numerous “surveys” which cycling advocates put forward are completed by people who already have a pro-cycling outlook and are also willing to take the time to take part in surveys. I would like to see a survey that properly represents the whole population.

It is claimed that London Road is a dangerous one. It is no worse than many other A roads and in the over 30 years of living in Burpham I am not aware of constant crashes and accidents taking place.

Richard Taylor states that “There is no need to guess about the number of people who could be encouraged to cycle”. People being “encouraged” to cycle does not equate to new cyclists.

And from Terry Newman, The Department for Transport publication “Active Mode Appraisal Toolkit” provides “advice for assessing the overall benefits and costs of proposed walking and cycling interventions” In the sub-paragraphs of 3.26 is the statement: “… based on research undertaken on behalf of DfT… the proportion of new cyclists or walkers that are expected to switch from travelling by car, because of the intervention, is 11 per cent. This means that if a new cycle intervention results in 100 new cycle trips there would be expected to reduce the number of car trips by 11.”
Jim Allen Reply

November 2, 2024 at 9:27 am

Traffic reduction?

Before the election, it was proposed that the local population should increase by 47,500. And the election, there will be 95,000 if the planned houses are built. How can travel needs be reduced?

Surrey’s globalist, cut-and-paste transport plan calls for reducing road space. They’re ignoring central government demands. Everyone needs to read the fine print and understand the root causes of our country’s, counties’, and boroughs’ travel problems.
Ben Paton Reply

November 3, 2024 at 3:12 pm

When you take a given road with a given finite width that is currently 90 per cent devoted to 4-and-more-wheeled traffic and you cannabalise it by taking a large part of the road and devote it to two-wheeled traffic and pedestrians it is as sure as 2+2=4 that you must have a negative effect of the 4-wheeled traffic. It is a zero-sum game. Anyone can see that.

To say that is not correct is as barmy as saying that King Canute could control the tides.

This simple logical deduction is not a ‘value statement’ about two-wheels good and four-wheels bad. It is just a fact.

So far as confirmation bias is concerned, you can find support for any proposal under the sun if you canvas a minority of the population – and especially if you exclude those who are negatively affected. Ask people who do not pay any taxes if taxes should be raised and it is likely that a majority will agree.

That’s why I asked for Surrey County Council to produce evidence that it had seriously canvassed the opinions of the four-wheeled traffic users of London Road. Did anyone put up a road block, inform drivers of the proposals and seek their informed opinion? I rather doubt it. But if they did and it was an honest exercise, what was the result?

The Russian people were not asked for their opinion of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. But it is quite likely that a majority of a subset of the population would have voted for it. That is not equivalent to informed consent by a majority of the people affected.
- Keith Reeves Reply
  
  November 4, 2024 at 11:29 pm
  
  We have jumped the shark if revolutionary upheavals of a century ago are being referenced in connection to opinions concerning a cancelled scheme. Perhaps the editor could apply the coup de grace with the traditional ‘this correspondence is now closed’?
  
  Editor’s response: The number of comments have not been overwhelming and an important function of The Guildford Dragon NEWS is to provide, unlike social media, a properly moderated forum for comment.