Well, its all over the news here in Cambridge.
Seriously, by reducing the normal rush hour traffic from stop-start acceleration averaging at walking speed to a smoother pace of motorists who've got out of their cars and walked, they've proved beyond any rational doubt that except perhaps for the disabled private cars have no sensible place in the commuter mix in Cambridge.
I faced a longer delay on my bicycle due to a film crew on Kings Parade (more of that god-awful Grantchester thing I should think, where for some reason every journey in Cambridge involves a rugged vicar riding past Kings on a sweet old bike with the saddle annoyingly far too low) than anyone who rode past this paradoxical event has reported.
So, whats it all about? Well, its all about Braess paradox. Old hat, really, look it up on Wikipedia if you've never heard of it. Closing some roads means some people choose to travel via, a different mode or route, so those who still drive might face a longer journey but a shorter journey time, thus actually burning less fuel, wasting less time, and polluting less. You move from the individual competetive choice of route that creates a god awful mess of junctions to a collaborative, more efficient routing. It isn't controversial to anyone who's ever looked at the impact of road closures on traffic modelling.
The truth is I don't know whether the specific closures suggested are the right ones - and neither do the protestors, because (correct me if I'm wrong) the modelling hasn't been shared yet (if, indeed, it has been done). I support the proven principle behind such closures but I question whether these are the right ones - and I'd like to see the supporting evidence for the specific measures suggested before supporting or opposing. You know, give me the evidence to decide. Why the fuck is that controversial? Unfortunately this makes my approach radically different to these protestors, who are just another subdivision of the NIMBY movement against change in Cambridge.
Truth be told the protestors have no alternative suggestions and don't have evidence against the current plans. There's talk of setting up a traders lobby group against them (but not, apparently, FOR anything else), and councillors are saying 'we're listening'. So the NIMBYs win this round.
What does this protest mean for the wider city deal and for activism in Cambridge in general though?
Firstly it means getting off your arse and protesting works. Unfortunately its always easy to get people to protest against something, its very hard to get people marching FOR something else. Fear is a better motivator for protest than anything else. So we're going to continue to see protests against, well, more or less any kind of change that the City Deal wants to look at, and that sort of de-values rational, evidence based criticism as it is drowned out in the noise.
Secondly it means that where activists are neither united nor vocal, it'll remain easy for City Deal and for Councillors to ignore them. I'm looking at you, @camcycle. You saw that actually quite trivial critical mass campaign this morning? That wasn't us. That was motorists gaining a victory over a process actually set up to benefit them - holding an on-foot peak commuting time critical mass. You want to be listened to like they are? Then we have to act like they do, we have to mobilise - but for as long as you're the ones at the top table for discussions on behalf of cyclists who for the most part are not your members but who the City Deal and the County allow you to speak on behalf of such activism can achieve nothing because they'll do what the County has always done - point at you as representative and maintain anyone else is fringe. We're past reasoned discussion - what do you say, Critical Mass, Milton Road?
Cycling oils the wheels of Cambridge transport. Without us, if so many didn't ride, the city would grind to a halt, and yet we're taken for granted because we don't stand up for ourselves. Enough. City Deal stands at the brink of failure because short-sighted NIMBYS oppose every version of positive change. Come on guys, who's up for it?
I lose track - are we supposed to like Critical Mass this week, then? ;-) It seems like the attitudes of the "cycling community" toward CM varies from week to week: sometimes we hate them because they block up roads and p*ss off motorists, invoking 'shared responsibility' and making things worse for all cyclists; sometimes we like them because they (when done 'properly') are a highly visible protest which seems to work in making a high profile demonstration of cycling rights on the roads.
ReplyDeleteI like critical mass, largely because its about claiming space in a feel-good sort of way. It proves that if we ride within the law, just using the road as we can, that the roads aren't designed to get us safely where we're going. If a 'critical mass' of cyclists can't use the road without blocking it then its not a good enough road for cyclists.
DeleteHere in Cambridge the Cycling Campaign has always had a downer on CM, largely because its always been the home of fuddy-duddy-don't-rock-the-boat-and-upset-people types. Theyr're a bit more proactive now, but I see this as a test for them. We've just seen a shining example that direct action works. It works here. It works now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRiding within the law is the key. Unfortunately a large proportion of Cambridge cyclists do not. I cycle and drive. Silly comments about Cambridge not for cars does not help sort out the issues. The key is that Cambridge thankfully is a residential city so residents have to come first in any scheme. Not cars and cyclists from outside. Residents need to drive and cycle to their home when they need to. They need to also be able to walk to where they want to and that is one of the main problems. Cyclists going through red lights, locking bikes on railings/lamp posts blocking pavements, riding on pavements. Cars parked on pavements too. What we need are more officials in Cambridge issuing penalties to both groups and that means cyclists registering their bikes and having ID just like car drivers. Then l would be more safe in my City!
ReplyDeleteWhat a shit rant that is, Teachers Pets. Riding within the law? Well thats fine, lets put off all improvements for motorists until they don't speed, park on the pavement, drive aggressively etc. Until there aren't any uninsured motorists. After all, its the people breaking the rules causing all the problems. Not the 600 cars queueing on Milton Road.
DeleteThe solution to our transport woes isn't to enforce existing rules with an iron fist - there are too many cars, in too small a space, blocking roads and junctions to a point where they are impassable. Roads do exist for residents - and commuters, and kids, and people on bikes and walking. The answer to making them safer and more appealing for the most space efficient users of the space. Pedestrians, cyclists, buses, then cars - in that order.
So if, primarily, you want to rant about cyclists, here's an idea. Go fuck yourself.
What a shit rant that is, Teachers Pets. Riding within the law? Well thats fine, lets put off all improvements for motorists until they don't speed, park on the pavement, drive aggressively etc. Until there aren't any uninsured motorists. After all, its the people breaking the rules causing all the problems. Not the 600 cars queueing on Milton Road.
DeleteThe solution to our transport woes isn't to enforce existing rules with an iron fist - there are too many cars, in too small a space, blocking roads and junctions to a point where they are impassable. Roads do exist for residents - and commuters, and kids, and people on bikes and walking. The answer to making them safer and more appealing for the most space efficient users of the space. Pedestrians, cyclists, buses, then cars - in that order.
So if, primarily, you want to rant about cyclists, here's an idea. Go fuck yourself.