# When designing infrastructure for new cyclists, ignore the existing ones, says study



## gaz (8 Sep 2011)

> *‘Cyclists dismount’ signs; narrow paths shared with pedestrians; bike tracks with priority given to motorists entering from side roads; short, pointless cycle lanes strewn with obstacles. This the sort of woeful cycle infrastructure put in place by local authorities who fail to consult with cyclists or who go ahead ignoring user advice.
> *Controversially, a study from green-leaning academics at three English universities urges policy makers to ignore the views of existing cyclists and pedestrians and only focus on non-cyclists and non-pedestrians. CTC said such a stance was “extremely damaging”.



Read more >


----------



## growingvegetables (8 Sep 2011)

Hmm, I know who I'd listen to ........................ and it just might not be a Professor of Social and Historical Geography, whose research "focuses on the social geography of Britain and continental Europe since the eighteenth century, especially aspects of migration, mobility, ethnicity, housing, health, crime and social change. Essentially, I am interested in how and why society has changed, and the impacts of these changes on people and places."

Unless he's talking sense, of course


----------



## Red Light (8 Sep 2011)

Actually if you read it there is a lot of good sense in it and there are some competent people behind it like David Horton (author of the worth reading Fear of Cycling). Although Sustrans seize on it to say that it supports their segregated view of the world, it actually says that the reasons people don't cycle (as has been found in other surveys) is because its seen as abnormal (hence the value of things like Boris Bikes) and it calls for traffic to be controlled to make it appear safer etc.

It does produce the interesting conundrum though of whether the authors cycle and therefore should be ignored or don't cycle and therefore don't know about the realities of cycling and should be ignored.


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Sep 2011)

Essentially that's what happens now. So our infrastructure is shoot, and once the new cyclist realises that, they either move to the road, or give up.

Ignore current cyclists BUT listen to Dutch traffic engineers would be better.


----------



## snorri (8 Sep 2011)

I find it difficult to read the whole article after disagreeing with a sentence in the first paragraph.

*This is the sort of **woeful cycle infrastructure** designed by engineers who don’t cycle and put in place by local authorities who fail to consult with cyclists or who go ahead ignoring their advice.



Cyclists were consulted when the cycle infrastructure design guideline document was being drawn up, so why consult them again? Many of the problems arise when LAs choose to ignore the guidelines or take short cuts in standards in order to reduce costs.*


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (8 Sep 2011)

snorri said:


> I find it difficult to read the whole article after disagreeing with a sentence in the first paragraph.
> *This is the sort of **woeful cycle infrastructure** designed by engineers who don’t cycle and put in place by local authorities who fail to consult with cyclists or who go ahead ignoring their advice.
> Cyclists were consulted when the cycle infrastructure design guideline document was being drawn up, so why consult them again? Many of the problems arise when LAs choose to ignore the guidelines or take short cuts in standards in order to reduce costs.*


Why do you disagree with those? The first one is demonstrably correct - just look at the site that's referenced. The second one seems to reflect my experience at least - if my local authority actually adhered to the guidelines*, cycling to work would be a damned site easier and more pleasant.

(* The key point being: if you can't put in facilities that meet the guidelines, then don't put them in at all, but use other measures to improve safety.)


----------



## snorri (8 Sep 2011)

Mr HC, I think you and I are in agreement, it seems my wording was unclear, your 'Key point' sounds good to me.


----------



## ohnovino (8 Sep 2011)

Apparently, that report was from some "green leaning academics".

Well we've had years of green leaning academics producing reports on climate change and it doesn't seem to have fixed the problem. So how about a ban on consulting them in future, and all green policy being decided exclusively by people with zero experience in the subject?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (8 Sep 2011)

ohnovino said:


> Well we've had years of green leaning academics producing reports on climate change and it doesn't seem to have fixed the problem. So how about a ban on consulting them in future, and all green policy being decided exclusively by people with zero experience in the subject?


Surely that's what we have already. People who have studied the subject producing reports and then politicians who haven't a clue making policies that completely ignore those reports.


----------



## Richard Mann (8 Sep 2011)

They got some funding to do some research into what "people who don't but might" say. They've done the research, the results are quite coherent, but they are still just "what those people say".

They don't demonstrate that "what those people say" works. In fact they don't even try to demonstrate it, let alone that it's better than other approaches. It's more a case of "we won some funding so our results must be relevant". I think they spent 3 years looking under the wrong stone, and all they found was a can of worms.

It's entirely true that the people that they studied (in Worcester, Leicester, Leeds and Lancaster) won't cycle unless something dramatic happens to main roads, and it's entirely true that some existing cyclists can't really help when it comes to achieving "something dramatic". But the professor was being a prat when he took that to mean all existing cyclists. He clearly has the standard problem of assuming that all cyclists are the same!


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Sep 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> They got some funding to do some research into what "people who don't but might" say. They've done the research, the results are quite coherent, but they are still just "what those people say".
> 
> *They don't demonstrate that "what those people say" works. In fact they don't even try to demonstrate it, let alone that it's better than other approaches. It's more a case of "we won some funding so our results must be relevant". I think they spent 3 years looking under the wrong stone, and all they found was a can of worms.*
> 
> It's entirely true that the people that they studied (in Worcester, Leicester, Leeds and Lancaster) won't cycle unless something dramatic happens to main roads, and it's entirely true that some existing cyclists can't really help when it comes to achieving "something dramatic". But the professor was being a prat when he took that to mean all existing cyclists. He clearly has the standard problem of assuming that all cyclists are the same!


I think that's about the size of it. 

'In other studies ballroom dancing academics from Newcastle found that people who'd never been to university said that all university courses should be in Dance and Beer'.

I've just read the Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations. It's all cack. In fact, if this is the kind if cack that comes out of universities, then my Finding and Recommendation is that they should be closed down.


----------



## Red Light (8 Sep 2011)

For the price of that research you could have had a mile of Boris Blueway 

http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/G00045X/1


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> For the price of that research you could have had a mile of Boris Blueway
> 
> http://gow.epsrc.ac....ef=EP/G00045X/1



what! *Nine hundred and thirty six thousand pounds!* I am absolutely staggered! That is beyond belief!


----------



## jonesy (8 Sep 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> They got some funding to do some research into what "people who don't but might" say. They've done the research, the results are quite coherent, but they are still just "what those people say".
> 
> *They don't demonstrate that "what those people say" works. In fact they don't even try to demonstrate it, let alone that it's better than other approaches.* It's more a case of "we won some funding so our results must be relevant". I think they spent 3 years looking under the wrong stone, and all they found was a can of worms.
> 
> It's entirely true that the people that they studied (in Worcester, Leicester, Leeds and Lancaster) won't cycle unless something dramatic happens to main roads, and it's entirely true that some existing cyclists can't really help when it comes to achieving "something dramatic". But the professor was being a prat when he took that to mean all existing cyclists. He clearly has the standard problem of assuming that all cyclists are the same!




Quite. Yet again no-one seems to have noticed all those cyclists riding round Oxford and Cambridge in ordinary clothes without segregation...


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (8 Sep 2011)

I actually find that I agree with a lot of what is being said in the report, and that it fits with my own experience.

I cycle to work, yes, but I realise that I do it in a hostile environment, and mostly keep going because I'm stubborn and pig-headed and have a fear of getting back up to 15 stones in weight. There are many occasions when I do not enjoy it. I don't enjoy the frequent conflicts with ignorant gits in cars, when all I'm doing is putting into practice the recommendations that I have been taught. I don't enjoy the fact that I have to keep my wits about me at all times and am never able to relax and just enjoy the ride. I get angry that the council wastes my money on facilities that are dangerous and inadequate.

Many a time, I arrive home after the 12.5 mile ride from work, and almost immediately get into the car to do a quick local journey because it would be so damned inconvenient to do it on my bike: emptying panniers to make space, thinking about bicycle security, locks, etc., worrying about how I'm going to carry this, that and the other, and secure those things when I get to the destination, or having to carry everything when I get there, including the bl**dy panniers - and that's when there's only me going! If others are involved, it gets even worse!

The picture that is painted in the report really is quite familiar to me - and I'm one of the people that is pro-cycling.

Quite why it cost a million pounds to find all that out is a bit of a mystery, but I am also surprised to hear that a million pounds will only buy you one paltry mile of cycle superhighway! RL - where did you get that information?


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Sep 2011)

jonesy said:


> Quite. Yet again no-one seems to have noticed all those cyclists riding round Oxford and Cambridge in ordinary clothes without segregation...


and that is the key to the laziness in this publication. No differentiation between towns where cycling is increasing exponentially and towns where it is moribund. No understanding whatsoever about permeability. No real inquiry in to what cycling is for, and certainly no understanding that it is a means to an end. And, since the single motive is, apparently, to reduce reliance on car driving, no appreciation of how car travel can be disincentivised, and urban form made more amenable to cycling and walking. It's a talentless, witless piece of work, but that I don't mind so much as that fact that we paid a million quid for it. I want the money back.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (8 Sep 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> and that is the key to the laziness in this publication. No differentiation between towns where cycling is increasing exponentially and towns where it is moribund. No understanding whatsoever about permeability. No real inquiry in to what cycling is for, and certainly no understanding that it is a means to an end. And, since the single motive is, apparently, to reduce reliance on car driving, no appreciation of how car travel can be disincentivised, and urban form made more amenable to cycling and walking. It's a talentless, witless piece of work, but that I don't mind so much as that fact that we paid a million quid for it. I want the money back.


OK, that I agree with. It's not so much what they did, it's what they didn't do.


----------



## snibgo (8 Sep 2011)

The bikehub page contains a link to the paper (http://www.bikehub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Understanding_Walking__Cycling_Report.pdf), but when I download it and read with the latest Adobe reader, Adobe goes unresponsive on me. Can other folk read the paper? Is a working copy available from elsewhere?


----------



## gaz (8 Sep 2011)

snibgo said:


> The bikehub page contains a link to the paper (http://www.bikehub.c...ling_Report.pdf), but when I download it and read with the latest Adobe reader, Adobe goes unresponsive on me. Can other folk read the paper? Is a working copy available from elsewhere?



I can't find another version. I have no problem reading the pdf from bike hub.
Have you tried updating your adobe reader?


----------



## snibgo (8 Sep 2011)

Yes, I tried that. And reading it while no other software was running. And downloading it again.


----------



## enas (9 Sep 2011)

Another view on this study can be found here.

I agree with the entirety of this text, both about the wrong and largely exaggerated negative interpretation of the reports findings, and genearally about the opinion that the report is mostly stating obvious facts, nothing very controversial indeed.

Here's a quote:


> The words it uses - to reiterate - are 'do not base policies on [their] views and experiences’. This is not the same as ‘ignoring’. I ‘do not base’ my cooking repertoire on chips, but this does not mean they are absent from my meals. ‘Basing’ a policy of increasing cycling levels on the views and experiences of those who are currently put off from cycling does not preclude the input of those who do cycle.


----------



## Richard Mann (9 Sep 2011)

snibgo said:


> Yes, I tried that. And reading it while no other software was running. And downloading it again.


Adobe 10.1 lets me see all 26 pages, but no text!!!!


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Sep 2011)

_First, it is essential that the urban environment is made safe for cyclists and pedestrians. This requires the provision of fully segregated routes on* all arterial and other busy roads* in urban areas. It is clear from the research that most non-cyclists and recreational cyclists will only consider cycling regularly if they are segregated from traffic, and that pedestrians are hostile to pavement cyclists._

that's bollocks for a start. Has he not looked at the A24?
What's really sad (and that's £963,000 sad) is that the man has absolutely no conception of public space. No clue as to how land values affect trip generation and vice versa. And maybe my Adobe reader is playing up (I've just updated it) but there's no mention of the word 'bus'. Because, as the great Dave Holladay (who could have produced a better report for nine hundred and sixty three quid)  has it 'when it rains you need more buses'


----------



## stowie (9 Sep 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> _First, it is essential that the urban environment is made safe for cyclists and pedestrians. This requires the provision of fully segregated routes on* all arterial and other busy roads* in urban areas. It is clear from the research that most non-cyclists and recreational cyclists will only consider cycling regularly if they are segregated from traffic, and that pedestrians are hostile to pavement cyclists._
> 
> that's bollocks for a start. Has he not looked at the A24?
> What's really sad (and that's £963,000 sad) is that the man has absolutely no conception of public space. No clue as to how land values affect trip generation and vice versa. And maybe my Adobe reader is playing up (I've just updated it) but there's no mention of the word 'bus'. Because, as the great Dave Holladay (who could have produced a better report for nine hundred and sixty three quid)  has it 'when it rains you need more buses'



To be fair, the report was specifically concerning walking and cycling.

I have only skimmed the report, but it doesn't appear to be particularly controversial. The paragraph which implies "ignoring existing cyclists" says that policies should not be based upon the views of existing committed cyclists and walkers. This has been clarified by the writer that he meant shouldn't be solely based. I am guessing that he wanted to make a point and the paragraph reads very badly. There is a point in all this hyperbole though. If I am looking to increase the usage of my product, I may ask current users what they like about it, but would be also very interested indeed in understanding the views of potential users. I also agree that cycle policy hasn't been made bad by listening to current cyclists, but by not listening to anyone.

Interestingly the survey indicates that the reason people don't cycle is not only the "danger" problem. Looking a bit silly in a plastic hat and being sweaty were also cited. I guess the plastic hat wearing may relate to the perceived danger of cycling, but the sweaty issue intrigues me. Do the dutch - with their similar climate - not worry about being sweaty? Have they somehow removed their sweat glands? Or maybe they are OK with smelly? Why are we worried when they aren't?


----------



## Dan B (9 Sep 2011)

stowie said:


> the sweaty issue intrigues me. Do the dutch - with their similar climate - not worry about being sweaty? Have they somehow removed their sweat glands? Or maybe they are OK with smelly? Why are we worried when they aren't?


Because our image of a cyclist is the sports cyclist, not the elderly-woman-cycling-to-church cyclist. It's perfectly possible to cycle places and not get sweaty, if you're not having to move at car-comparable speeds in order to establish your space on the road


----------



## jonesy (9 Sep 2011)

Agreed, but it isn't just speed of course: Dutch cycling distances are short, as they are in places in the UK with high levels of utility cycling. It would be interesting to get some real data (from existing cyclists...) on how far people will cycle to work in normal clothes and without a shower.


----------



## byegad (9 Sep 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Essentially that's what happens now. So our infrastructure is shoot, and once the new cyclist realises that, they either move to the road, or give up.
> 
> ...edit...




AND far too many of them give up as they can't make progress for the unnecessary signs and multiple give ways built into the stupid 'infrastructure' which makes cycling seem more dangerous than it actually is. 

You'd think they were doing it on purpose!


----------



## al78 (9 Sep 2011)

jonesy said:


> Quite. Yet again no-one seems to have noticed all those cyclists riding round Oxford and Cambridge in ordinary clothes without segregation...



They aren't really typical examples of UK towns and cities though.

Both have high student populations, the colleges are spread about the town, parking is difficult and expensive and students are prohibited from bringing their cars with them. That doesn't leave a lot of options left for getting about other than walking and cycling.


----------



## jonesy (9 Sep 2011)

Again, it isn't just the students that cycle in Oxford and Cambridge Don't forget that the modal share figure most usually reported is for travel to work, i.e not students. I'd agee they aren't 'typical' towns- apart from anything else they've got a high modal share for cycing! Don't you think researchers ought to be more interested in why that might be? I also agree limited parking and traffic restraint are important factors , but that is most definitely relevant to other towns, university or not. People will cycle if it is advantageous to do so in comparison with other modes.


----------



## Richard Mann (9 Sep 2011)

Essentially what happened in Oxford is that people realised that they could never make enough room for cars, and they needed to find alternatives if they wanted the city to thrive. There was a whole lot done (bike lanes, bus lanes, quiet bike routes) to improve alternatives, and a lot done to make parking less available / more expensive. In two stages, traffic has been pushed out of the centre, with buses getting less congestion and faster routes as a result.

I'd say the hard part is getting started. And a key part of getting started is a belief that change is both possible & desirable.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (9 Sep 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Essentially what happened in Oxford is that people realised that they could never make enough room for cars, and they needed to find alternatives if they wanted the city to thrive. There was a whole lot done (bike lanes, bus lanes, quiet bike routes) to improve alternatives, and a lot done to make parking less available / more expensive. In two stages, traffic has been pushed out of the centre, with buses getting less congestion and faster routes as a result.
> 
> I'd say the hard part is getting started. And a key part of getting started is a belief that change is both possible & desirable.


I like this point. There is a difficult balancing act for councils here, though. Out-of-town shopping centres with huge amounts of free parking (e.g. Trafford Centre in Manchester, Metro Centre in Newcastle, Meadowhall in Sheffield) are drawing people away from the town centres. Making it hard for cars could have the effect of making this worse if there isn't some huge culture change happening in parallel, and I can think of no way to achieve such a culture change in much less than a generation (but I may be wrong of course).


----------

