Graham Smith calls for action for those on two wheels

THE best way to get people onto bikes is to enable them to ride, safely, on the road.

Cycling isn’t dangerous but the risks we are obliged to run are imposed by the Highway Authority.

A recent study reports: “You need your wits about you the whole time and it is hard to see how and when I will be confident to let my son cycle by himself on the road as I can’t trust other people to take care.”

For regular cyclists, incidents that are ‘very scary’ (rated as 3 on a 0–3 scale) are, on average, a weekly experience, with deliberate aggression experienced monthly .

We can always ride bikes on trails and in playgrounds but the bike was invented as a means of transport. Most journeys are short and most journeys could be made by bike.

One key reason why more journeys are not made by bike is that our roads are contested space. Before asking ‘but, can our roads be made safe to ride?’, we might ask ‘does it matter if they’re not?’ It certainly does matter.

County council transport planners are acutely aware of congestion with existing travel habits. In a do-nothing scenario, with more homes and jobs, they see a future of ever-increased traffic volumes. To avoid this future, the council has adopted dramatic aspirations for increased cycling (Oxford Transport Strategy, 2015).

A 10 per cent reduction in the future ‘share’ of car-driver mode is the aim. Cyclox welcomed the strategy, and its map of ‘Super’ and ‘Premium’ routes, with both delight and surprise. Could this ‘animal be changing its spots’? Well, it hasn’t yet. ‘Access to Headington’ is the first big project since the strategy. Most of the route is supposed to have best quality, segregated provision for cycling. But there is too little to match their aspirations. The planners and consultant engineers don’t seem to have read the script.

‘Effecting change’ is the big issue. The council prefers to design big corridors for funding bids. Surely the better approach is incremental and continuous, as well as the big projects?

For instance, the strategy plans ‘Super’ quality provision from Folly Bridge, past Westgate and along Oxpens to Frideswide.

The council would say they have no money for this but most of this route will be remodelled at little or no cost, as the Westgate, then Oxpens, ‘Oxford West End’ and the huge Oxpens Industrial Estate are redeveloped. Shouldn’t the council be putting their ‘Super Route’ plans before the developers? Changes could be made before building takes place, for next to nothing.

And, as we discuss expenditure, road maintenance should be considered. In 40 years, over half of the main city roads have been rebuilt (most recently London Road, Headington). There are separated cycle tracks but they stop everywhere, and none conform to Super Route description (i.e. a high level of continuous and uniform provision for cyclists travelling in both directions).

With all this reconstruction, Oxford could have become a really cycling-friendly city at a negligible cost. The next projects on the books are Botley Road, Woodstock Road. Will the council manage to change paths and build super routes?