The national targets are to double and redouble the number of journeys undertaken by bike by 2012 against a baseline of 1992 and 2002. The hierarchy of provision puts cyclists behind pedestrians, but before public transport, commercial and private motorised vehicles. The strategies and policies of the Borough of Poole support both these national aims, but sadly experience on the ground in Poole falls far short of these ideals.
Statistics collected by the borough indicate the reverse, that cycle numbers are declining. This ties with my own experience, and that of those I talk to, that cyclists are being squeezed off the road, both by enhanced pedestrian provision, and by measures intended to constrain the car.
The graph above highlights that whilst peaktime journeys are steadily increasing, the 12 hour equivalent has dropped over the last 4 years by nearly 1/4 on this prime cyclepath. Taking all the locations surveyed by BoP in 1992 as against those in 1991, the number of journeys by bike dropped in the one year by 13% (over 1,080 less journeys on a range of dates). This drop is almost identical if you look at only the sites which were counted in both years.
Accident statistics provided to CLAG by the borough also show that there are now more cyclists than pedestrians involved in reported accidents per year. Cycle provision at junctions is particularly poor, and prejudicial towards safe and efficient negotiation by bike, indeed where particular provision at junctions is designed to incorporate cyclists, it is often of such poor quality as to be ignored by most users.
Poole Agenda 21 are interested in encouraging provision of environmentally responsible alternatives to the private car, and encouraging citizens to make choices. Cycling is an extremely sustainable option for trips of less than 5 miles (nationally 72% of total journeys).
Provision for the disabled at junctions, and raised kerbs for bus users at busstops are being universally and consistently applied across the borough. Cycle provision is more complex, but by contrast is fragmented, of variable quality and intent, and easily aborted or overruled in favour of protecting parked cars, right-turn lanes, traffic islands and/or build-outs.
Whilst the borough cycling officer takes much trouble to seek the opinions of CLAG members, and reflect other views from individual cyclists, pedestrians and other road users, almost all suggestions, changes and concerns made by CLAG on designs we have been shown have been ruled too early for detailed design work, too late to change, overruled by needs for other road users, or abandoned on cost or committee decisions. As an example: The Aaron Close to Poole Town backroute cycleway was originally suggested by Poole Agenda 21, via CLAG.
The group were consulted on the route twice, about one year apart. The comments raised the first time were completely ignored. The second time was one week before work was to commence. CLAG disagreed with plans for all the junctions. We recommended slowing traffic in Garland road at the St Marys Road crossing (the blind chicane with new large traffic islands pictured). All our comments were ignored. Together with the residents only parking in this area, the results for cycling along the route are poor, but the impact on transverse routes hits safety of cycling above all other modes. It is so frustrating when we predicted this. (and the biggest hazard on my daily cycle to work)
We have lately reached a level of understanding with the Transport department on why we are so interested in detailed design as well as principles, and a promise that practice will change, but there are so few schemes coming forwards that we have yet to see the new regime applied.
All that is required (!) is for the Borough engineers to read and apply existing BoP policies (together with reams of national and best practice guidance); for the council to put adequate monies into a development programme for cycle provision (and not just a small pot shared with walking, safe routes to schools and other priorities); and then for councillors involved in transport decisions to balance any lobbying for a few parking spaces or whatever objections to cycle provision against the mortality of those who persist, against the odds, to adopt Mr Tebbit’s plan of getting on yer bike.
Poole should continue to strive for the national targets, and to retain the hierachy of provision which places vulnerable road users at the top. If a beautiful place like Poole, with our balmy climate is unable to meet the targets of doubling and redoubling cycling, and thus reducing the relentless pressure for more cars and ever more roads to put them on, then God help Britain
Andy Hadley
May 2003
