# That worthless and dangerous cycling infrastructure



## Tommi (15 Aug 2011)

Well, I did some digging and it seems Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Wales, as well as UK and US and OECD believe cycling infrastructure (cycle lanes and cycle tracks) increases cycling and/or safety enough to recommend investing in it. (I didn't even try counting the authors.)

Few observations that caught my interest about the studies regarding cycling infrastructure:
support is continuous (1987-present)
support is global
support is published in credible publications
As I don't have the energy or real interest in looking for the counterclaims (I'm sure someone can provide them) I'll just make few similar observations though with less material backing it up:

opposition is outdated ("cycle lanes/tracks are worthless/dangerous conclusions stop at around year 2000, except in UK")
opposition is localised (only in UK/US)
opposition is published in random web pages
 
Much of the rest of the world including quite a bunch of (presumably) smart people seem to have come to the conclusion cycle lanes and cycle tracks are very much worth every penny. Comparing the credibility between the camps I can't say I'm surprised.

I firmly believe separated infrastructure is a fundamental part of a functional cycling environment and there's plenty of research to support that theory. But if cycle lanes and cycle tracks really are as useless and dangerous as some try to claim then you should have no trouble proving with abundant research how omitting infrastructure leads to even more and safer cycling.

I'm looking forward to the research proving how the rest of the world is wrong.

  

Sweden: "In mixed traffic, the risk per cyclist seemed to decrease with an increased number of cyclists; on a cycle track, the risk seemed independent of the bicycle volume. However, for left-turning cyclists, the picture was totally different; *cyclists on the carriageway face a 4 times higher accident risk than cyclists on separate cycle tracks*. Linderholm finally suggested that cyclists should be moved onto the carriageway some 30 metres before the intersection, but that if left-turning cyclists exceeded 20 per cent of cyclists going straight ahead, *it was preferable to build a cycle track across the intersection*."
Denmark, improved cycle track design: "At all junctions, *the number of serious conflicts was reduced from the before to the after period*. Behavioural studies showed that the modified junctions had changed the interaction between cyclists and motorists in a way that appeared to promote traffic safety."
Two-way cycle tracks: "Ekman and Kronborg (1995) produced a report based on an international literature review, and interviews with experts from Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. The conclusion was that one bi-directional cycle track was cheaper to build than two one-way tracks, one on each side of the road, but that bi-directional tracks were, however, less safe for cyclists, since it made merging with car traffic before the stop line at a junction impossible."
Denmark: "They concluded that *cycle lanes and cycle tracks were safer than no cycle facilities between junctions*. There were however problems with parked cars on cycle lanes. *It was recommended that separate cycle tracks should be built* on road links when the volume of motorised traffic was high and when speeds were also high."
Denmark: "*ensure acceptable safety levels: This is best achieved by constructing, wherever possible, segregated paths*, designed in such a way as to encourage their use by cyclists."
​​​​​​​ 
Anon, 1998. Safety of vulnerable road users. In _PROGRAMME OF CO-OPERATION IN THE FIELD OF RESEARCH ON ROAD TRANSPORT AND INTERMODAL LINKAGES_. OECD, pp. 1-229.




"High quality, *integrated bicycle routes (on and off road) should be provided* to meet the challenge of increasing Australia’s participation in active travel and recreation."


Bauman, A. et al., 2008. _Cycling: Getting Australia Moving: Barriers, Facilitators and Interventions to Get More Australian Physically Active Through Cycling_, Dept. of Health and Ageing.





Costa Rica: "new infrastructure is being put in place to protect vulnerable road users, including [...] *cycle tracks*"
"The creation of networks of connected and convenient pedestrian and cyclist routes, together with the provision of public transport, can lead to greater safety for vulnerable road users. The routes will typically consist of footpaths or *cycle paths separate from any carriageway*, pedestrian-only areas with or without cyclists being admitted, footpaths or c*ycle tracks alongside carriageways*, and carriageways or other surfaces shared with motor vehicles."
Denmark: "*Bicycle paths have also been shown to be effective in reducing crashes, particularly at junctions. Danish studies have found reductions of 35% in cyclist casualties on particular routes, following the construction of cycle tracks or lanes alongside urban roads.*"
​​ 
Cameron, M., 2004. World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. _Injury Prevention_, 10(4), pp.255-256.




"This review has shown that cost-benefit analyses of cycling and walking infrastructure generally produce positive benefit-cost ratios (BCRs). Although these should be treated with caution due to the diverse methods used, it can be concluded that eight authors produced sixteen benefit-cost BCRs for various cycling/walking projects, and only one was negative (Figure 1). The BCRs were also of an impressive magnitude: the median BCR was 5:1, which is far higher than BCRs that are routinely used in transport infrastructure planning."

Cavill, N. et al., 2008. Economic analyses of transport infrastructure and policies including health effects related to cycling and walking: A systematic review. _Transport Policy_, 15(5), pp.291-304.




"The available research results indicate that *roundabouts with separated cycle lanes are safer than roundabouts with mixed traffic or roundabouts with adjacent cycle lanes*."
Daniels, S. & Wets, G., 2005. Traffic Safety Effects of Roundabouts: A review with emphasis on bicyclist’s safety. In _18th ICTCT workshop_. pp. 1-12.




"This review assesses the evidence base from both peer reviewed and grey literature both in the UK and beyond. Almost all of the studies identified report economic benefits of walking and cycling interventions which are highly significant. The median result for all data identified is 13:1 and for UK data alone the median figure is higher, at 19:1."

Davis, A., 2010. _Value for Money: An Economic Assessment of Investment in Walking and Cycling_, Department of Health South West.




"The first part of that environment is bicycle infrastructure that addresses people’s concern about safety from motor vehicles. In Portland, this includes a network of *bike lanes, paths, and boulevards*."
"Finally, *the role of bike lanes should not be dismissed* in planning for a bicycle-friendly community. A disproportionate share of the bicycling occurs on streets with bike lanes, indicating their value to bicyclists."




​ Dill, J., 2009. Bicycling for transportation and health: the role of infrastructure. _Journal of public health policy_, 30 Suppl 1(1), pp.S95-110.




"Higher levels of bicycle infrastructure are positively and significantly correlated with higher rates of bicycle commuting."


Dill, J. & Carr, T., 2003. Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them. _Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC_, 1828(1), pp.116-123.




"The estimated change in demand is relatively small: an increase in persons cycling from 11.6% to 14.2% (strict level) and to 20.9% (tolerant level) for all the regular trips, and from 6.0% to 8.3% and to 14.3%, respectively, for commuting."

Foltýnová, H. & Braun Kohlová, M., 2007. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE : A CASE STUDY OF PILSEN.






"Improved cycling infrastructure in the form of *bicycle paths and lanes that provide a high degree of separation from motor traffic is likely to be important for increasing transportation cycling* amongst under-represented population groups such as women."

Garrard, J., Rose, G. & Lo, S.K., 2008. Promoting transportation cycling for women: the role of bicycle infrastructure. _Preventive Medicine_, 46(1), pp.55-59.




"The assumptions in this analysis suggest that the basic plan will benefit most strongly from earlier investments that built the base for a functioning network of bicycle facilities, yielding roughly 4 times the amount of bicycle miles traveled per invested dollar, compared with past investments. The 80% plan yields about twice as much"

Gotschi, T., 2011. Costs and benefits of bicycling investments in Portland, Oregon. _Journal of physical activity & health_, 8 Suppl 1(Suppl 1), pp.S49-58.




"Overall, there is internal consistency in the changes of safety and traffic volumes, which indicate causality, and the causal direction seems clear."
"The magnitude of the changes in traffic volumes on the reconstructed streets, and the traffic volumes on parallel streets, however, do indicate that thousands of travelers in total must have changed their choice of transport mode."
"*The construction of bicycle tracks resulted in a 20 percent increase in bicycle/moped traffic mileage and a decrease of 10 percent in motor vehicle traffic mileage on those roads, where bicycle tracks have been constructed.*"

Jensen, S.U., 2008. Bicycle tracks and lanes: A before-after study. _Transportation Research Board 87th_, (August).




"*The conclusion is that the safety benefit of cycle lanes are very good* except at some priority junctions located alongside the cycle lane. This study therefore show that focus shall be put on the priority junctions when establishing cycle lanes. The Danish Road Directorate have as a result of that started a new project with main emphasis on cyclist safety at priority junctions."
Flaw in cycle lane design found in 1997. Please point me to a more recent report showing how dangerous Danish infrastructure is. 

Jensen, S.U., Andersen, K.V. & Nielsen, E.D., 1997. Junctions and cyclists. In _Velo-City_. Barcelona, pp. 275-278.




"*The construction of cycle tracks in Copenhagen has resulted in an increase in cycle traffic of 18-20%*"
"*Taken in combination, the cycle tracks and lanes which have been constructed have had positive results as far as traffic volumes and feelings of security go.* They have however, had negative effects on road safety. The radical effects on traffic volumes resulting from the construction of cycle tracks will undoubtedly result in gains in health from increased physical activity. These gains are much, much greater than the losses in health resulting from a slight decline in road safety."
Related discussion about the report: http://bikefriendlyo...-d-roberts-phd/

"The cycle tracks (kerb between drive lane and cycle track, and kerb between sidewalk and cycle track) increase cycling by 18-20%, whereas cycle lanes (only a 30 cm wide white marking to drive lane) increase cycling by 5-7%"
"*I do know that it will lead to better safety for the bicyclists.*"
"While the bike lanes do not seem to have an effect one way or the other, if someone tried to use Soren’s study to “prove” that an increase in cycle tracks increased accidents by 9%, they’d be guilty of cherry picking the numbers. The accident rate may have increased by 9%, but the number of bicyclists increased by 18-20%."
"To to sum up, individual accident rates dropped when bicycle infrastructure was added, and taking that a step further, Soren’s follow-up correspondence recommends that if Dallas added cycle tracks, ridership would be “much higher”, and “that it will lead to better safety for the bicyclists.” He even recommends maintaining parking on streets to further decrease accident rates."
 
I recall there was a separate conversation with the author about the same report which ended up in totally opposite conclusion. Care to publish that conversation?

Jensen, S.U., Rosenkilde, C. & Jensen, N., 2007. Road safety and perceived risk of cycle facilities in Copenhagen. _Presentation to AGM of European Cyclists Federation_, pp.1-9.




"Consequently, in most cities with cycling facilities, there are many discontinuities where the path or lane simply ends abruptly. These discontinuities are partly the result of a logical inversion: it has long been standard practice to consider existing road infrastructure as the main network for cycling and the cycling facilities as the supplement to avoid conflicts. Rather, creating a complete network of cycling facilities where they are needed, supplemented by “shared streets” where they are not, should become the standard."

Larsen, J. & El-Geneidy, A., 2010. Build it, but where? The Use of Geographic Information Systems in Identifying Optimal Location for New Cycling Infrastructure. In _Transportation Research Board 89th Annual Meeting_. p. 16.





What is already known on this subject
• Individuals, in particular women, children, and seniors, *prefer to bicycle separated from motor traffic*.
• Cycle tracks (physically-separated bicycle-exclusive paths along roads) exist and continue to be built in The Netherlands where 27% of all trips are by bicycle and 55% of bicycle riders are female.
• Engineering guidance in the United States has discouraged bicycle facilities that resemble cycle tracks, including parallel sidepaths and sidewalk bikeways, suggesting that these facilities and cycle tracks are more dangerous than bicycling in the street.

What this study adds
• *Overall, 2 ½ times as many cyclists rode on the cycle tracks compared with the reference streets.
• There were 8.5 injuries and 10.5 crashes per million-bicycle kilometers respectively on cycle tracks compared to published injury rates ranging from 3.75 to 67 for bicycling on streets. The relative risk of injury on the cycle track was 0.72 (95% CI=0,60-0.85) compared with bicycling in the reference streets.
• Cycle tracks lessen, or at least do not increase, crash and injury rates compared to bicycling in the street.*
Lusk, A.C. et al., 2011. Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street. _Injury prevention journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention_, 17(2), pp.131-135.




"The average number of bicycle crashes a year within the 2.5 km buffer of the Phase-1 of the Midtown Greenway from 1998-2000 was 78.33 crashes a year with a standard deviation of 8.33. In each of the two years after the opening of the Phase-1 of the Midtown Greenway, there were 50 bicycle crashes within the buffer. *This is a statistically significant decrease in the number of crashes.*"
"Although the transferability of the results of this study to other off-street bicycle facilities may be limited, it does present a methodology that can be used to measure the effect of building a bicycle facility on the safety of bicycling in the area. Questions remain about the safety of off-street bicycle facilities that force bicyclists to cross streets."
Poindexter, G. et al., 2007. _Optimization of Transportation Investment: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Refining methods for estimating the effect of bicycle infrastructure on use and property values_
_
_



"Within the United States, Davis, California is generally recognized as having the most elaborate system of cycling facilities of any American city. It also has, by far, the highest bicycling modal split share (22%), and a very low fatality and accident rate, among the lowest in California. If Forester were correct that separate facilities are so dangerous, one would certainly expect Davis to be overwhelmed by all the resulting bicycling injuries and deaths. Yet cycling in Davis is extraordinarily safe.
In short, those countries and cities with extensive bicycling facilities have the highest cycling modal split shares and the lowest fatality rates. Those countries and cities without separate facilities have low modal split shares and much higher fatality rates. Forester claims that this is pure correlation and proves nothing. Nevertheless, the differences we have cited are dramatic—indeed, an order of magnitude or greater—and they directly contradict Forester’s claim that separate facilities are so unsafe and inconvenient."
Pucher, J., 2001. Cycling Safety on Bikeways vs . Roads. _Transportation Quarterly_, 55(4), pp.9-11.




"The *infrastructure*, programs, and policies needed to increase walking and cycling are well known and tested, with decades of successful experience in many European cities. One key lesson is that no single strategy is sufficient. As shown by a recent international review of the literature, communities must implement a fully integrated package of measures such as those discussed previously in this paper (Pucher et al., 2010). A comprehensive approach has much greater impact on walking and cycling levels than individual measures that are not coordinated. The impact of any particular measure is enhanced by the synergies with complementary measures in the same package."




Considering cycle lanes are waste of money and cycle tracks are inherently dangerous you should have no problem pointing out another report of comparable research that shows leaving out cycle lanes and cycle tracks would have resulted much more significant results.


Pucher, J. & Buehler, R., 2010. Walking and Cycling for Healthy Cities. _Built Environment_, 36(4), pp.391-414.




"The success of Portland is important because it shows that even car-dependent American cities can greatly increase cycling by implementing the right package of *infrastructure*, programs, and policies."

Considering cycle lanes are waste of money and cycle tracks are inherently dangerous you should have no problem pointing out another report of comparable research that shows leaving out cycle lanes and cycle tracks would have resulted much more significant results.


Pucher, J., Buehler, R. & Seinen, M., 2011. Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies. _Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice_, 45(6), pp.451-475.




"*Before-and-after counts in several North American cities and London (UK) show increases in number of cyclists after bike lanes installed.*"
Off-street paths: "Two studies showed an *increase in the number of cyclists*"
"Stated preference studies almost uniformly found that both cyclists and non-cyclists preferred having bike lanes to riding in mixed traffic. The findings from the studies of off-street paths were varied, with some showing positive associations and others showing no statistically significant relationship. Only four studies examined bicycle boulevards and traffic-protected cycletracks, types of roadway infrastructure less common in the US. The findings generally showed a positive association between these facilities and bicycling, though without good estimates of the quantitative effects on actual bicycling rates."
Pucher, J., Dill, J. & Handy, S., 2010. Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: an international review. _Preventive Medicine_, 50 Suppl 1(1), p.S106-S125.




"*The evidence to date suggests that purpose-built bicycle- only facilities (e.g. bike routes, bike lanes, bike paths, cycle tracks at roundabouts) reduce the risk of crashes and injuries compared to cycling on-road with traffic or off-road with pedestrians.*"

Reynolds, C.C. et al., 2009. The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of the literature. _Environmental health a global access science source_, 8(1).




"Walking and biking remain attractive transport modes for a number of reasons:
-biking and walking infrastructure usually have a very high spatial penetration"


Rietveld, P., 2001. Biking and Walking: The Position of Non- Transport Systems Motorised in Transport Systems.




“A report commissioned by the Australian Department of Health and Ageing seeking to raise population levels of physical activity identified the barriers and recommended strategies that a whole-of-government approach could use to increase levels of cycling. These recommendations are largely dependent upon each other and would need to be implemented in an integrated, co-ordinated way:
• Improved bicycle infrastructure: to provide safe, attractive and enjoyable *on and off road bicycle routes* as well as high quality end-of-trip facilities.”
Rissel, C.E., 2009. Active travel: a climate change mitigation strategy with co-benefits for health. _New South Wales public health bulletin_, 20(1-2), pp.10-13.




The CBAs presented are based on high, though realistic cost estimates, and ‘‘low’’ benefit estimates in order to prevent overestimates. The analyses are therefore judged to produce ‘‘down-to-earth’’, conservative estimates of the profitability to society of building walking and *cycling track networks* in Norwegian cities.
(a) *Best estimates of future pedestrian and bicycle traffic leave no doubt that building walking and cycling track networks in Hokksund, Hamar and Trondheim is beneficial to society.* Net benefit/cost ratios in these cities are approximately 4, 14 and 3, respectively.
Sælensminde, K., 2004. Cost-benefit analyses of walking and cycling track networks taking into account insecurity, health effects and external costs of motorized traffic. _Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice_, 38(8), pp.593-606.
"*Infrastructure (e.g. cycleways and cycle [t]racks) is an essential ingredient for improving bicycle use and cyclists’ safety. Well-planned and well-kept infrastructure (through design, maintenance and adequate connectivity) encourages cycling and reduces road accidents.*"
Vandenbulcke, G. et al., 2009. Cycle commuting in Belgium : Spatial determinants and ’ re-cycling ' strategies.




"It was found that the bicycle network plan resulted in a *significant increase in bicycle use and in improved cycling conditions*."
"*Cycling comfort and safety clearly improved*"





While Delft already had bicycle use in the 40% range, building infrastructure still managed to increase it.


Wilmink, A. & Hartman, J., 1987. _Evaluation of the Delft Bicycle Network Plan_, Delft.




"*The benefits of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists exceed costs by a wide margin.*"
"Thus we conclude that the following 10 measures are the most important according to the PROMISING project:
1. A separate network of direct routes for pedestrians and a *separate network of direct routes for cyclists*."
"The safety approach has to be interrelated. Main elements are:
- *segregation of motorised traffic* with a flow or distribution function from non-motorised transport,
- creating a network of main traffic routes for pedestrians and cyclists,"
Wittink, R., 2001. _Promotion of mobility and safety of vulnerable road users, Final report of the European research project PROMISING_,





"The three year Danish National Cycle City project aimed to increase cycling in Odense between 1999 and 2002 through a multifaceted approach that included promotional campaigns and *infrastructural* measures. A controlled repeat cross sectional study comparing national travel survey data collected in Odense and in nearby towns and cities between 1996-97 and 2002 found an increase in the proportion of all trips made by bicycle in Odense from 22.5% to 24.6% (equating to an estimated net increase of 3.4 percentage points after adjustment for regional trends) and a net increase in the distance cycled of 100 metres per person per day."
"The Cycling Demonstration Towns programme in England involved various combinations of town-wide media campaigns, personalised travel planning, cycle repair and cycle training services, and *improvements to infrastructure for cycling*. The effect of the first phase comprising six towns (2005 to 2008) was examined in a controlled repeat cross sectional study based on telephone surveys of quota samples of local residents. *Net increases were found* in the proportions of residents who reported cycling for at least 30 minutes once per month (+2.78% or +1.89%, depending on the choice of control areas) or 12 or more times per month (+0.97% or +1.65%)."
Considering cycle lanes are waste of money and cycle tracks are inherently dangerous you should have no problem pointing out another report of comparable research that shows leaving out cycle lanes and cycle tracks would have resulted much more significant results.
 
Yang, L. et al., 2010. Interventions to promote cycling: systematic review. _Bmj Clinical Research Ed._, 341(c5293).


----------



## marzjennings (15 Aug 2011)

I failed in not replying to such a troll post.

It's just that this sort of dangerous propagation of misinformation really annoys me.

I'll add a link to John Forester, who the OP didn't have the wit to find.

http://www.johnforester.com/index.html


And a quote from that site I quite like.


*Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.*


----------



## Richard Mann (15 Aug 2011)

Excellent post Tommi.

There's no real safety issue with cycle facilities (marking lanes/tracks across side roads, and not designing them for speed next to parked cars are the main improvers).

The question is whether/how they disadvantage a vocal minority of vehicular cyclists, and whether they really increase cycling, or just correlate.

My view is that cycle lanes (ie paint on road) don't disadvantage the vocal minority, especially if car speeds are brought down, and that they do increase cycling, as long as other factors are supportive. Based on 20 years of trying to herd cats in Oxford.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (15 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> My view is that cycle lanes (ie paint on road) don't disadvantage the vocal minority



My view is that cycle lanes cause some motorists to overtake far closer than they would in the absence of the cycle lane. The the most extreme cases I have experienced have mostly occurred when I was in a cycle lane. Admittedly, the cycle lanes were usually inadequate, particularly in width; it's possible that the situation would be better if the cycle lanes were adequate, but I haven't seen one of those yet.

As Magnatom has pointed out, the existence of a cycle lane seriously hampers the ability to negotiate properly with the drivers of other vehicles, and that is a huge problem for a confident, experienced cyclist.

By all means argue that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, and we can have that debate, but your statement above is demonstrably untrue.


----------



## blockend (15 Aug 2011)

The greatest advantage to cyclists would be a national 20mph speed limit on all roads. As there's no momentum for such an initiative the question is how to make cycling safe on roads in which the cyclist has been designed out by civil engineering and traffic speeds. Most of the polemic goes into how to make cycling safe on ones own patch, some of which is transferable to the bigger picture but much is not. 

The idea that all roads that are legally cycle-able are safe to do so is clearly incorrect.


----------



## HJ (15 Aug 2011)

marzjennings said:


> I failed in not replying to such a troll post.
> 
> It's just that this sort of dangerous propagation of misinformation really annoys me.
> 
> ...



Where is the Trolling? The OP lays out case based on research, you give one quote from Forester with no data to back up the statement. Just because the OP case doesn't fit you point of view doesn't mean that he is a troll. Kindly address the issue and not simple make accusations of being a Troll because others have a different opinion.


----------



## Richard Mann (15 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> My view is that cycle lanes cause some motorists to overtake far closer than they would in the absence of the cycle lane.



I qualified my comment "especially if car speeds are brought down". If you are referring to urban roads on which car speeds exceed 30mph (regardless of the speed limit), then you may have a point. I'd say the problem is the speed of the traffic, not the cycle lane.

Tommi's point - that the international consensus is that cycle lanes and tracks are fine - still stands, though with the caveat that there's little international experience of cycle lanes on fast roads.


----------



## benb (15 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> Much of the rest of the world including quite a bunch of (presumably) smart people seem to have come to the conclusion that *well designed, safe, and appropriate* cycle lanes and cycle tracks are very much worth every penny.



tl;dr, but my edit above makes all the difference to your point.

Personally I think there are probably a significant group of people; new to cycling, nervous about cycling in traffic, without the confidence to be assertive enough, that would benefit from properly designed segregated cycle paths where they could ride without negotiating with traffic or pedestrians. 

I think these would only be of real benefit if they allowed the cyclist to avoid a hostile, busy road (i.e. there is no point building one alongside a road that is already quiet) and is just as quick and convenient as going on the road in the first place (i.e. it does not make you give way at every side street).


----------



## MartinC (15 Aug 2011)

The OP makes a fundamental assumption that all cycling facilities are the same - as all as well designed, executed, regulated and maintained as each other world wide. This assumption is clearly false - the most superficial comparison of,say the UK and the Netherlands will show this. Therefore the conclusion that *any* cycling infrastructure of *any* standard *any*where must be good is totally specious. Also, I'm not aware of anyhere in the world where there is total segregation of cyclists.

Since all of this must have been obvious to the poster the natural conclusion is that the post is just to generate a useless argument


----------



## Tommi (15 Aug 2011)

MartinC said:


> The OP makes a fundamental assumption that all cycling facilities are the same - as all as well designed, executed, regulated and maintained as each other world wide. This assumption is clearly false - the most superficial comparison of,say the UK and the Netherlands will show this. Therefore the conclusion that *any* cycling infrastructure of *any* standard *any*where must be good is totally specious. Also, I'm not aware of anyhere in the world where there is total segregation of cyclists.
> 
> Since all of this must have been obvious to the poster the natural conclusion is that the post is just to generate a useless argument


My post is in response to the tiring "cycle lanes/tracks do not increase cycling", "cycle tracks are dangerous", "riding on road is safer", ... arguments which are constantly used to excuse ignoring any investment in infrastructure.

Now, as far as I can see there's much more credible research to support building cycling infrastructure than there is against it. And yet much of the time investment to infrastructure is the first thing that seems to get excluded. Where's the evidence to support such behaviour?

Yes, some infrastructure designs can be bad, but Denmark and Netherlands have been improving the designs for years. How about we concentrate at the current designs rather than be obsessed with the ones that were already on the way becoming obsolete ten years ago when certain studies were published?

EDIT: The point is, there is clearly evidence to support cycle lanes and tracks are worth the money. If you think you're better off excluding them, please show the evidence to support your claim.


----------



## MartinC (15 Aug 2011)

Very few people think that all cycling infrastructure is bad and very few think it's all good. Much of the oppositionto it comes from the certain knowledge that nobody (who has any influence) in the UK has, or will have, any interest in providing any cycling infrastructure to a Dutch or Danish standard. Also that, if we encourage them, they'll just seize the opportunity create a heap of rubbish designed with the sole purpose of getting cyclists out of the way.


----------



## Red Light (15 Aug 2011)

Its difficult to know where to start with Tommi's long list but lets just take the first two as an example.

The OECD Report: This is several selective extracts from the OECD Report Safety of Vulnerable Road Users. It has extracts from three parts of the report. Lets just take the first one marked Sweden by Tommi and compare it with the complete text in context.


> Sweden: "In mixed traffic, the risk per cyclist seemed to decrease with an increased number of cyclists; on a cycle track, the risk seemed independent of the bicycle volume. However, for left-turning cyclists, the picture was totally different; *cyclists on the carriageway face a 4 times higher accident risk than cyclists on separate cycle tracks*. Linderholm finally suggested that cyclists should be moved onto the carriageway some 30 metres before the intersection, but that if left-turning cyclists exceeded 20 per cent of cyclists going straight ahead, *it was preferable to build a cycle track across the intersection*."



.
But lets see the Tommi's quote in context shall we (remembering where they say left turning its the equivalent of our right turn?

_VII.1.2. Letting cyclists merge before a junction

By making the road users approaching a junction more visible to each other and visible earlier,
the risk of unexpected appearance is reduced and safety improved. One way to accomplish this is to let
cyclists merge with motorised traffic on the approach to the junction.

A study carried out in Sweden (Linderholm, 1992) showed that red running cyclists were
exposed to a 2.3 times higher accident risk than cyclists travelling on green. Cyclists going straight ahead
on a cycle track displayed particularly high red-running frequencies, 3-6 times higher than cyclists riding
on the carriageway. While accident risk for a cyclist in mixed traffic did not seem to increase to any great
extent with growing flows of conflicting motor-vehicles, the same condition increased the risk for cyclists
on cycle tracks. In mixed traffic, the risk per cyclist seemed to decrease with an increased number of
cyclists; on a cycle track, the risk seemed independent of the bicycle volume. However, for left-turning
cyclists, the picture was totally different; cyclists on the carriageway face a 4 times higher accident risk
than cyclists on separate cycle tracks. Linderholm finally suggested that cyclists should be moved onto
the carriageway some 30 metres before the intersection, but that if left-turning cyclists exceeded
20 per cent of cyclists going straight ahead, it was preferable to build a cycle track across the intersection.
_​So what that part of the report is about is the problems with cycle tracks at junctions - RLJing, no safety in numbers benefit, a risk that grows with traffic volume and an unclear issue with turning left. Linderholm's original paper is not readily available or at all on-line to see what he really said but a figure from his study of 7,500 cyclists in Lund showing the relative risks of different manoeuvers at traffic signalled junctions is completely different. 








Which is why the proposal for moving cyclists off the cycle track at junctions. Its significantly more dangerous going ahead or turning from a cycle track than from the road.

If anybody wants to look at the others in context the report is here and the sections Tommi quotes are on pp 168/9, 170 & 175. It is noticeable that in his quest to present universal acceptance of his thesis, that he has omitted any examples in the report giving a contrary view. e.g. the Dutch report at the bottom of p175 which says 

_"When considering both intersections and the connecting links, there was no difference in safety for cyclists on separate cycle tracks compared to cyclists having to use the carriageway. When considering intersectionsand links separately, it was found that separate cycle tracks at the intersections are less safe than cyclists mixing in traffic on the carriageway."_

If we move on to Baureman's report, that is available on the web.

Tommi's quote is Recommendation 6, the first five recommendations being:

1. A mass marketing campaign
2. Bicycle education programmes
3. Behaviour change programmes
4. Cycling events
5. Urban design.

So not exactly top of the list and when you look at their justification it uses the Maylands to East Perth Priority Cycle Path which is built on the line of an old railway track so bypasses all the road junctions - what we would know as a rail trail. Its hardly a typical cycle path. The rest of the case is mainly based on people saying what they want but there the references are highly suspect. For example the Garrard study is reported as 

"Garrard et al (2006) found that female cyclists often choose routes that separate them from traffic, even if it may result in longer journeys. This is testament to the notion that motor vehicle traffic is a significant barrier to cycling"

What it actually found was"

"The proportion of female cyclists varied according to the type of bicycle facility (Table 2), suggesting that females preferred to use on-road lanes and roads with no bicycle facilities compared with off-road paths."

Garrard then went on to do a wonderful sleight of hand to reverse the conclusion his data gives you:

"The proportion of female cyclists observed using roads with no bicycle facilities, on-road lanes and off-road paths did not show a consistent pattern of female preference for greater separation from motor vehicle traffic. However, we found that after adjustment for distance from the city centre females preferred off-road paths over on-road lanes or roads with no bicycle facilities"

Even though Table 2 clearly shows that on off-road paths the percentage that are female is significantly lower than the percentages on-road.

I can't be bothered to go through the rest one by one but these two should give the flavour of Tommi's cobbled together weekend work to prove his beliefs.


----------



## Richard Mann (15 Aug 2011)

MartinC said:


> ... they'll just seize the opportunity create a heap of rubbish designed with the sole purpose of getting cyclists out of the way.



I can see that as an argument against on-pavement cycle tracks, and against on-road cycle lanes in the absence of speed control.

Which is why our local grand compromise is cycle lanes on main roads + speed control + separate quiet routes. There are a few diehard vehicularists who don't want cycle lanes at all, but usually they concede that some other people probably like them, and cycle lanes don't really make it harder to take the lane if you want to (probably easier actually, given the reduction in traffic speeds).

Richard


----------



## Mad at urage (15 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> I can see that as an argument against on-pavement cycle tracks, and against on-road cycle lanes in the absence of speed control.
> 
> Which is why our local grand compromise is cycle lanes on main roads + speed control + separate quiet routes. There are a few diehard vehicularists who don't want cycle lanes at all, but usually they concede that some other people probably like them, and *cycle lanes don't really make it harder to take the lane if you want to* (probably easier actually, given the reduction in traffic speeds).
> 
> Richard


Just get you shouted at more - even when they are footpaths .


----------



## Tommi (15 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I can't be bothered to go through the rest one by one but these two should give the flavour of Tommi's cobbled together weekend work to prove his beliefs.


So you're still claiming there's no evidence about cycle lanes and cycle tracks increasing cycling and cycling safety? None whatsoever?

Research shows again and again that infrastructure is at least part of the picture. I've never claimed it's the only piece of the puzzle, but you're the one claiming infrastructure plays no positive role and there's no evidence it does. Well there's plenty of research stating otherwise, but it seems it's more convenient to ignore.

And just as I am not claiming it's the only piece of the puzzle I'm also not claiming any relative priorities. You're the one claiming infrastructure has no role. Based on evidence I'm saying you're wrong.


----------



## Richard Mann (15 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Just get you shouted at more - even when they are footpaths .



Only if you stay in primary position when you're slower than the traffic, and you're not obviously preparing for a turn. There's not much shouting at cyclists here.


----------



## Tommi (15 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> _A study carried out in Sweden (Linderholm, *1992*) showed that red running cyclists were
> 
> _​If anybody wants to look at the others in context the report is here and the sections Tommi quotes are on pp 168/9, 170 & 175. It is noticeable that in his quest to present universal acceptance of his thesis, that he has omitted any examples in the report giving a contrary view. e.g. the Dutch report [*from 1998*] at the bottom of p175 which says


Yes, they were very enlightening, and presumably disturbing, findings at the time. As I already asked before, would you mind presenting more recent evidence? Preferably something that's after the lessons learned in 1998 had been incorporated, but as it's hard to estimate shall we say after year 2000?


----------



## dand_uk (15 Aug 2011)

I'm no expert but as far as I know the situation in Denmark (upon which most studies are based) are that they effectively have a seperate road network for bikes that is wide, signalised junctions and continuous. I beleive it is also illegal to cycle on the normal road network (?). 

This is definitely not the situation for any cycle facility I have seen in the UK. There is no quality guarantee for British cycle paths and they are designed as an afterthought after the motorised traffic lanes have been designed. Additionally the population density in the uk is greater and it is therefore much harder to install dedicated cycle lanes. The result is white lines down a bumpy narrow pavement, stopping at every side junction.

I would argue that there are too many factors to say "cycle path" is safe than "road". Some factors are different in different countries - Which cycle path? Are there pedestrians and DOGS? How wide? Are there many side roads/driveways? Which road? What speed limit? how busy? Is the road wide with good visibility? WHAT IS THE ATTITUDE OF MOTORISTS TO CYCLISTS? What is the purpose of peoples journeys (are they in a rush)?

I agree that these cycle facilities are useful for beginners or kids and could encourage new cyclists however they do nothing for adult commuting cyclists who can maintain speeds of around 20mph.

The best segregated facility I have seen in the UK is the Cambridge busway cyclepath - wide, traffic free, CONTINUOUS, DIRECT, and flat. 

I want one of those in hampshire!


----------



## Red Light (15 Aug 2011)

dand_uk said:


> The best segregated facility I have seen in the UK is the Cambridge busway cyclepath - wide, traffic free, CONTINUOUS, DIRECT, and flat.



Those are virtually the only sorts of facilities I agree with - ones that offer completely different route options to the roads.


----------



## Red Light (15 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> Yes, they were very enlightening, and presumably disturbing, findings at the time. As I already asked before, would you mind presenting more recent evidence? Preferably something that's after the lessons learned in 1998 had been incorporated, but as it's hard to estimate shall we say after year 2000?



2008 up to date enough for you? From a comprehensive study carried out for the Municipality of Copenhagen to examine the effects cycle facilities in Copenhagen were having on road safety, traffic volumes and perceived risk.

"The safety effects of bicycle tracks in urban areas are an increase in accident and injuries of about 10%*. The safety effects of bicycle lanes in urban areas are an increase of 5% in crashes and 15% in injuries. Bicyclists' safety has worsened on the roads where bicycle facilities have been implemented"

* From a private communication with the authors these are accident and injury rates i.e. they take into account changes in the number of cyclists.

Happy? Thought not!


----------



## Tommi (15 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> 2008 up to date enough for you? From a comprehensive study carried out for the Municipality of Copenhagen to examine the effects cycle facilities in Copenhagen were having on road safety, traffic volumes and perceived risk.



"*The construction of cycle tracks in Copenhagen has resulted in an increase in cycle traffic of 18-20%*"
"*Taken in combination, the cycle tracks and lanes which have been constructed have had positive results as far as traffic volumes and feelings of security go.* They have however, had negative effects on road safety. The radical effects on traffic volumes resulting from the construction of cycle tracks will undoubtedly result in gains in health from increased physical activity. These gains are much, much greater than the losses in health resulting from a slight decline in road safety."




Red Light said:


> "The safety effects of bicycle tracks in urban areas are an increase in accident and injuries of about 10%*. The safety effects of bicycle lanes in urban areas are an increase of 5% in crashes and 15% in injuries. Bicyclists' safety has worsened on the roads where bicycle facilities have been implemented"
> 
> * From a private communication with the authors these are accident and injury rates i.e. they take into account changes in the number of cyclists.
> 
> Happy? Thought not!




Strange, a published communication from the author show opposite conclusion:
http://bikefriendlyo...-d-roberts-phd/

"The cycle tracks (kerb between drive lane and cycle track, and kerb between sidewalk and cycle track) increase cycling by 18-20%, whereas cycle lanes (only a 30 cm wide white marking to drive lane) increase cycling by 5-7%"
"*I do know that it will lead to better safety for the bicyclists.*"
"While the bike lanes do not seem to have an effect one way or the other, if someone tried to use Soren’s study to “prove” that an increase in cycle tracks increased accidents by 9%, they’d be guilty of cherry picking the numbers. The accident rate may have increased by 9%, but the number of bicyclists increased by 18-20%."
"To to sum up, individual accident rates dropped when bicycle infrastructure was added, and taking that a step further, Soren’s follow-up correspondence recommends that if Dallas added cycle tracks, ridership would be “much higher”, and “that it will lead to better safety for the bicyclists.” He even recommends maintaining parking on streets to further decrease accident rates."
EDIT: As noted already in the report, the safety is highly dependent on whether you prohibit car parking along the cycle track on main road, by prohibiting car parking there's increased car traffic in junctions. So again there are different designs. The author seems to find both as positive, and the other is even more safe.


----------



## Richard Mann (15 Aug 2011)

1507858 said:


> Let us know when you have achieved that bit and we can think about the rest, whether it is still needed etc.



Traffic is noticeably slower on Oxford's main roads (come and have a look if you don't believe me). It's been achieved by carving out cycle and bus lanes, and reducing space for motorists. The cycle lanes etc are "still needed" but mostly because they're what slows the traffic.


----------



## Red Light (15 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> My post is in response to the tiring "cycle lanes/tracks do not increase cycling", "cycle tracks are dangerous", "riding on road is safer", ... arguments which are constantly used to excuse ignoring any investment in infrastructure.
> 
> Now, as far as I can see there's much more credible research to support building cycling infrastructure than there is against it. And yet much of the time investment to infrastructure is the first thing that seems to get excluded. Where's the evidence to support such behaviour?



Have you actually read the "research" you are putting forward? Its not actually what you think it is. Doing research is more than grabbing a few sound-bites off Google. Have a read of your Daniels and Wets reference on cycle facilities on roundabouts. What it actually proposes is a cycle facility where the cyclists go round the roundabout like a pedestrian, riding on a separate path and stopping and waiting for a gap in the traffic at every side road. The accident rate if they give cyclists priority at the junctions increases four fold. Is that what you want?



> Yes, some infrastructure designs can be bad, but Denmark and Netherlands have been improving the designs for years. How about we concentrate at the current designs rather than be obsessed with the ones that were already on the way becoming obsolete ten years ago when certain studies were published?



Why not? How about we use the Dutch Cycle Balance audit methodology to assess provision. Quick ruffle through for cycle facilities.....ah here they are......cycle parking. No mention of anything else. Probably because the person that oversees it says "How many cycle paths or lanes a town has in not important."



> EDIT: The point is, there is clearly evidence to support cycle lanes and tracks are worth the money. If you think you're better off excluding them, please show the evidence to support your claim.



When you say they are worth the money, do you know how much they cost? The Boris Blueways are costing £166m. Think of what you could do with £166m applied to marketing, education, training activities, events......

The evidence was presented in the other thread before you started a new one to avoid having to address it.


----------



## Red Light (15 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> "*The construction of cycle tracks in Copenhagen has resulted in an increase in cycle traffic of 18-20%*"
> "*Taken in combination, the cycle tracks and lanes which have been constructed have had positive results as far as traffic volumes and feelings of security go.* They have however, had negative effects on road safety. The radical effects on traffic volumes resulting from the construction of cycle tracks will undoubtedly result in gains in health from increased physical activity. These gains are much, much greater than the losses in health resulting from a slight decline in road safety."




Sigh, I can't spend this much time trying to correct your misunderstandings so this will be the last. If you want to believe that they will increase cycling and increase safety be my guest.

But the only way they can make cycle tracks safer is a plea that the health benefits of cycling will eventually offset the greater risks of cycle tracks. But I cycle anyway so I won't get that benefit, just the risk. 

And as noted in your link below they don't know whether the 18-20% increase in cyclists was because of the cycle tracks or the concurrent "concerted campaign to get more people cycling"





> Strange, a published communication from the author show opposite conclusion:





> http://bikefriendlyo...-d-roberts-phd/
> 
> "The cycle tracks (kerb between drive lane and cycle track, and kerb between sidewalk and cycle track) increase cycling by 18-20%, whereas cycle lanes (only a 30 cm wide white marking to drive lane) increase cycling by 5-7%"
> "*I do know that it will lead to better safety for the bicyclists.*"
> ...



I think the Professor of Right Brain Thinking needs to inform himself with a bit of left brain thinking. If he read Linderholm's paper he would find that safety in numbers doesn't seem to apply to cyclists in cycle tracks - out of sight out of mind means it doesn't matter how many are cycling (see earlier post).

But did you notice a) that cycle tracks in Denmark are mandatory so no option to ride on the road. Do you want that for all of us? And b) the bit you put in bold above is an out of context quote with no evidence or reasoning behind it. Lets again see it in context:

"In the past 5-8 years, the construction of cycle tracks have often been a part of a more comprehensive “campaign” in order to get more people cycling in many communities in Denmark. The size of the possible spil-over or synergy effect on cycle traffic volumes, which might come from mixing new cycle facilities with campaigning, is unknown – and is also may have implication on safety. But I do not know if an increase in bicycle traffic in Dallas will lead to better or worse safety overall (total number of road deaths etc.) – but I do know that it will lead to better safety for the bicyclists."

So what he is actually saying is not that they will be safer because of cycle tracks, they will be safer because of the safety in numbers effect - an increase in bicycle traffic will lead to better safety for cyclists.


----------



## Red Light (15 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Traffic is noticeably slower on Oxford's main roads (come and have a look if you don't believe me). It's been achieved by carving out cycle and bus lanes, and reducing space for motorists. The cycle lanes etc are "still needed" but mostly because they're what slows the traffic.



I cycled round Oxford a lot in the late 70's/early 80's before there were any cycle lanes etc and been cycling there on and off recently. Can't say I noticed a lot of difference to be honest except more bits of road in the centre are closed off now to traffic e.g. High Street.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (15 Aug 2011)

[quotename='Red Light' timestamp='1313428827' post='1799247']
If we move onto Baureman's report, that is available on the web.

Tommi's quote is Recommendation 6, the first five recommendations being:

1. A mass marketing campaign
2. Bicycle education programmes
3. Behaviour change programmes
4. Cycling events
5. Urban design.

So not exactly top of the list[/quote]

The recommendations are not numbered - you have added an order of priority that simply isn't there in the report. 

[quotename='Red Light' timestamp='1313428827' post='1799247']and when you look attheir justification it uses the Maylands to East Perth Priority Cycle Pathwhich is built on the line of an old railway track so bypasses all the road junctions - what we would know as a rail trail. Its hardly a typical cycle path.[/quote]

It is true that the path runs along a railway track. However - there are road junctions along it. See here for instance -






 
In any case, the conclusions drawn are simply that good quality infrastructure will attract cyclists. The fact there are few junctions along the track does nothing to alter this conclusion, or the data that support it. 

[quotename='Red Light' timestamp='1313428827' post='1799247']The rest of the case is mainly based on people saying what they want but there the references arehighly suspect. For example the Garrard study is reported as 

"Garrard et al (2006) found that female cyclists often choose routes that separate themfrom traffic, even if it may result in longer journeys. This is testament to the notion that motor vehicle traffic is a significant barrier to cycling"

What it actually found was

"The proportion of female cyclists varied according to the type of bicycle facility(Table 2), suggesting that females preferred to use on-road lanes and roads with no bicycle facilities compared with off-roadpaths."

Garrard then went on to do a wonderful sleight of hand to reverse the conclusion his data gives you:

"The proportion of female cyclists observed using roads with no bicycle facilities,on-road lanes and off-road paths did not show a consistent pattern of female preference for greater separation from motor vehicle traffic. However, we foundthat after adjustment for distance from the city centre females preferred off-road paths over on-road lanes or roads with no bicycle facilities"

Even though Table 2 clearly shows that on off-road paths the percentage that are female issignificantly lower than the percentages on-road.[/quote]

A) You have linked to a short 2008 paper by Jan Garrard, rather than the lengthy 2006 report quoted. The 2006 report can be read or downloaded here. I am therefore not surprised you find that an apparent inconsistency between two entirely different pieces of research. 

B) The "sleight of hand" you mention in the 2006 report was a correction for the location of the distances of the monitoring sites from the CBD - those monitoring locations without separate facilities happened to be preferentially located nearer to the city centre, where you would naturally expect a higher relative proportion of female cyclists compared to monitoring locations further from the city centre, given the shorter trip distances of women in general. This is a factor that skews the data - why not account for it? I'm not sure you can dismiss at as mere "sleight of hand."

C) Jan Garrard is a woman.


----------



## Richard Mann (15 Aug 2011)

1507862 said:


> Carry on and let me know when you have achieved this everywhere.



Do you have an alternative proposal, that might actually work?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (15 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Have you actually read the "research" you are putting forward? Its not actually what you think it is. Doing research is more than grabbing a few sound-bites off Google. Have a read of your Daniels and Wets reference on cycle facilities on roundabouts. What it actually proposes is a cycle facility where the cyclists go round the roundabout like a pedestrian, riding on a separate path and stopping and waiting for a gap in the traffic at every side road. The accident rate if they give cyclists priority at the junctions increases four fold. Is that what you want?



Interesting that you talk of "soundbites", when you yourself ignore the conclusion of the Daniels and Wets article, namely -





> No final evidence exists about the differences in safety level between different types of cycle facilities. T*he available research results indicate that roundabouts with separated cycle lanes are safer than roundabouts with mixed traffic or roundabouts with adjacent cycle lanes*.



[My emphasis]

You have simply cherry-picked one piece of research referenced in the paper and presented it as the conclusion.

I would also add that the paper *does not *"propose" a cycle facility where cyclists go round the roundabout like a pedestrian. It merely considers the safety implications of that roundabout treatment, in comparison with the various alternatives. 

I have to ask whether you actually read these papers before you reference them? If you do, you really should veer away from the highly selective way in which you do quote from them.


----------



## Richard Mann (15 Aug 2011)

1507868 said:


> Introduce strict liability in proportion to the risk posed to others by your travel choice.



Could you point me to any evidence that that's worked anywhere (somewhere that didn't have a range of infrastructure measures as well)? Even better somewhere where it's been introduced and had an effect?


----------



## Tommi (15 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Have you actually read the "research" you are putting forward? Its not actually what you think it is. Doing research is more than grabbing a few sound-bites off Google. Have a read of your Daniels and Wets reference on cycle facilities on roundabouts. What it actually proposes is a cycle facility where the cyclists go round the roundabout like a pedestrian, riding on a separate path and stopping and waiting for a gap in the traffic at every side road. The accident rate if they give cyclists priority at the junctions increases four fold. Is that what you want?


Oh, so when you present a sound-bite how a specific cycle lane/track design has safety issues it's sufficient evidence against all designs, and when I present research how specific cycle lane/track design improves safety it is not sufficient evidence for safe cycle lanes/tracks to exist? Ok...

Again I am not evaluating specific design details. I'm presenting a case that shows world wide research concluding cycle lanes/tracks increase cycling and safety, are worth the investment, and are recommending building them. As the related countries are enjoying more and safer cycling (presumably due to following the recommendations) I'd really like to see the evidence why the whole world is wrong and they should all scrap their misguided ideas about cycling infrastructure.

The roundabout design specifically? Sounds good to me. We are after more and safer cycling are we not? Or we could see how Denmark and Netherlands do things.




Red Light said:


> Why not? How about we use the Dutch Cycle Balance audit methodology to assess provision.


link?



Red Light said:


> When you say they are worth the money, do you know how much they cost? The Boris Blueways are costing £166m. Think of what you could do with £166m applied to marketing, education, training activities, events......


When I say worth the money that is the conclusion repeated in the research. I'm not making value judgements, researchers around the world are and they're finding cycle lanes/tracks worthwhile.




Red Light said:


> The evidence was presented in the other thread before you started a new one to avoid having to address it.


Evidence? You mean the brief summary about Cycling Demonstration Towns with no actual research and where the abstracts I noted are contradicting you? Or the one about Dublin for which you provided no reference at all? As I already repeated myself earlier for your convenience, could you do the same and present this evidence again as I must've missed it? (Just to be clear: I'm not avoiding addressing it, I just don't find it having anything to do with door zone.)

As much as I enjoy the back and forth and learning something new much of the time I'll be offline for a week or so and can't continue this conversation for a while. Might I ask you to present your evidence in one similar to how I started the thread? I think it would clarify the situation when you can see the big picture, would you agree?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (16 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> How about we use the Dutch Cycle Balance audit methodology to assess provision. Quick ruffle through for cycle facilities.....ah here they are......cycle parking. No mention of anything else.



Have you stopped to think why local Dutch cycling officials, and Dutch cyclists, aren't asking for cycle tracks, and are asking for more cycle parking?

It couldn't possibly be because the tracks already exist, and so many people are cycling on them that parking the bike has become the main issue of concern? Why would the Dutch be demanding something they already have?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (16 Aug 2011)

1507873 said:


> Where are the segregated facilities going on our country lanes?




A slightly redundant question, because nobody is asking for, or proposing that we should, put segregated facilities on our country lanes.

http://maps.google.c...,121.83,,0,0.31


----------



## Red Light (16 Aug 2011)

As Easy As Riding A Bike said:


> Have you stopped to think why local Dutch cycling officials, and Dutch cyclists, aren't asking for cycle tracks, and are asking for more cycle parking?
> 
> It couldn't possibly be because the tracks already exist, and so many people are cycling on them that parking the bike has become the main issue of concern? Why would the Dutch be demanding something they already have?



Ermmm....its an audit not an opinion poll. Bit like saying you wouldn't include capital reserves in an audit of a bank because they surely have lots of cash.


----------



## Red Light (16 Aug 2011)

As Easy As Riding A Bike said:


> Interesting that you talk of "soundbites", when you yourself ignore the conclusion of the Daniels and Wets article, namely -
> 
> T*he available research results indicate that roundabouts with separated cycle lanes are safer than roundabouts with mixed traffic or roundabouts with adjacent cycle lanes*.
> 
> ...



The text you emphasised is also based on one piece of referenced research carried out by SWOV so just as much a soundbite except without quantification.

Yes you are right that it did not recommend Situation 3 or 4 but the work cited went on from SWOV to be recommendations built into CROW that Situation 4 is used on rural roundabouts and Situation 3 on urban roundabouts. Situation 4 though is just like being a pedestrian walking round a roundabout and giving way at each entry or exit road and that is also what Tommi seems to want.



> I have to ask whether you actually read these papers before you reference them? If you do, you really should veer away from the highly selective way in which you do quote from them.



So show me the parts I missed where the relative safety of Situations 1 and 2 are quantified relative to 3 and 4. How much more dangerous is Situation 1 than 3 & 4? I took the only quantitative data they give on the Situations Tommi is arguing for and indicated the implications of that - the safest way is to be treated like a pedestrian being on your own path and giving way to traffic at each entry and exit road.


----------



## blockend (16 Aug 2011)

In urban areas with high cycling levels and low traffic speeds like Oxford, central London, Cambridge, it's reasonable to expect driver awareness to be great enough to avoid conflict and impact speeds modest enough to avoid serious injury. Likewise country lanes, at least those that haven't become commuter rat runs, are generally safe because of low vehicle volumes and the opportunity to avoid/evade cars.
The problem for cyclists is A roads and busier B roads where there is no likelihood of lowering speed limits due to the necessity to keep traffic moving. If we accept most riders avoid dual carriageway drag strips wherever possible (which has been my experience) that leaves the majority out of town roads as at least potentially dangerous. 

Some of that danger is ameliorated by good road craft but the onus is entirely on drivers to behave well and without a change in culpability laws and increased penalties for transgressors, there's no general impetus to do so. Basically, mixing it with cars travelling at impact speeds well above the 20 mph mortality line and few penalties for getting it wrong, will yield a regular supply of serious 'accidents' because driving standards, motor vehicle numbers and relatively low numbers of cyclists make it inevitable. 
Even if one believes the absolute number of deaths and serious injuries are few enough statistically to make regular main road cycling viable, traffic volumes and driver behaviour still make such roads unpleasant enough to be a barrier to cycling take up.


----------



## Richard Mann (16 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I cycled round Oxford a lot in the late 70's/early 80's before there were any cycle lanes etc and been cycling there on and off recently. Can't say I noticed a lot of difference to be honest except more bits of road in the centre are closed off now to traffic e.g. High Street.



The main change in the centre is the closing of the High Street. Out in the suburbs (where the bulk of miles is done), there's been a gradual whittling down of space for cars, and an increase in confidence among marginal cyclists. An experienced cyclist probably wouldn't notice much change. (So maybe you'll just have to take my word for it). Whatever - it works.


----------



## blockend (16 Aug 2011)

1507880 said:


> So what are you proposing?



I'm suggesting that cycling outside cities will remain an enthusiast activity because traffic proximity and volumes will remain a barrier for too many people. The alternatives, like reducing general vehicle speeds from 50 and 60 to 20 mph will never happen because such roads represent the commercial infrastructure of the country and are too difficult to think about from a cycling perspective and promoting the idea of separate bicycle tracks is perceived as counter-productive to cycling as a whole.

So we have what we have, which is an abundance of cycle lanes in city centres where blanket 20mph zones make them largely unnecessary, and enthusiast inhabited roads elsewhere populated by those (few?) confident enough to cycle close to motor vehicles travelling at speeds x4 or x5 his/her own. 
I'm uncomfortable with the idea such roads are_ safe_ because experience suggests the results of mishap are dire and rest overwhelmingly out of the hands of the rider.


----------



## blockend (16 Aug 2011)

1507883 said:


> So people who live in villages, for instance, are to be written off as potential cyclists because we can do nothing about the danger posed to them by traffic?



How do you conclude that from what I've written?


----------



## blockend (16 Aug 2011)

Sorry, I still don't get your meaning. You said:


1507883 said:


> So people who live in villages, for instance, are to be written off as potential cyclists because we can do nothing about the danger posed to them by traffic?




I live in a village that has seen an explosion in road bikes over the last year or so, most owned by previously non-cyclists. So far as I can tell their owners get exercise on them on summer evenings around the village and do the occasional charity ride. The regular enthusiasts who've always ridden continue to do without the new bikes owners being tempted to up their mileages. 


Are you suggesting main A-roads should be kept at 30 mph once they've left the village limits? If so I completely agree but we're perhaps the only two people in the country who believe it's viable and the chances of it happening are zero. Cycle campaigning is centred around the idea of city cycling and lobbying for greater penalties when RTAs happen. As far as I know there is no campaign momentum to reduce all road speeds to 20 or 30 mph.


----------



## blockend (16 Aug 2011)

1507887 said:


> You are talking about the bold and assertive. I am thinking about the less so.




Not at all, my belief is cycle activism and lobbying have long been dictated by existing enthusiasts. While they carry the voice of experience they are perhaps the least able to understand what inhibits a new rider venturing out or why aggressive driving might be a complete turn off.


----------



## Dan B (16 Aug 2011)

If I may interject: blockend, I believe that when Adrian asked "what are you proposing", he was asking for your suggestions to _fix_ the problem, not your restatement of its nature. Rural A and B roads are, often, unpleasant places to cycle. What can we do about it? Public opinion is broadly with us on the city cycling front, which makes it an easy sell by comparison and a big win in terms of increasing the number of people on bikes (lots of people live in cities). But when the task is to make it safe to cycle from Nether Flaterence (popn 2000) to Bigham (1600) and the number of cyclists in each is about as great as the number of Sunday churchgoers, the political will either for restricting the road connecting them to 30mph or for constructing a parallel cycle path must be somewhat limited. Ideas?


----------



## Red Light (16 Aug 2011)

blockend said:


> Not at all, my belief is cycle activism and lobbying have long been dictated by existing enthusiasts. While they carry the voice of experience they are perhaps the least able to understand what inhibits a new rider venturing out or why aggressive driving might be a complete turn off.



Were we all born experienced cyclists? I and, I know from reading here, many others here have come back to cycling after many years away. So I know what it is like to be a new rider venturing out and I have helped friends venturing out for the first time with advice and as a confidence boosting bike buddy on their first few trips. So please don't tell me I know nothing about starting to cycle because I happen to be experienced now.


----------



## blockend (16 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> . Ideas?




Yes, it's totally incurable as I suggested. Cyclists need to accept a) that we should lobby for separate provision alongside routes with a bicycle-motor vehicle speed difference higher than x2, or b) write off main roads as fit only for the bold and fearless, which is largely what happens anyway.
The deceit is in the notion that the cyclist is empowered to prevent main road collisions in any meaningful way and as such is 'safe'. He simply plays the odds.


----------



## snorri (16 Aug 2011)

blockend said:


> Not at all, my belief is cycle activism and lobbying have long been dictated by existing enthusiasts.



I'm not inclined to go along with that belief, perhaps it depends how you define activism and enthusiasts.


----------



## blockend (16 Aug 2011)

snorri said:


> I'm not inclined to go along with that belief, perhaps it depends how you define activism and enthusiasts.




It does indeed. I'm not persuaded there's a one-size-fits-all solution to integrating bicycles and motor vehicles on Britain's roads. If one suggests some roads are simply too dangerous to ride on safely the answer is to bring speeds down. If we accept that we necessarily assume any road on which a cyclist is legally able to travel must carry a survivable impact speed. As I said previously there's no movement I can discern to press for legislation that all motor vehicles must travel at no more than 40 mph and preferably 20 or 30 mph.

If we do not promote universal low speeds we must accept cycle tracks are the answer to cycling safely. That leads to accusations of 'separationism'. What works safely in cities should either be extended to the country as whole, or we have to accept that some roads are inherently dangerous. These discussions usually involve someone asking a 'where does it say we should' type question which hides the competing desires of city cyclists, leisure users, time trialists and so on, each with an axe to grind. 
In short, I'm suggesting how it is now is roughly as good as it gets unless non-lethal vehicle speeds become the campaign priority nationally, not just in city centres.


----------



## blockend (16 Aug 2011)

1507893 said:


> So what provision do we make on country lanes, where you 2x speed ratio is comfortably exceeded (comfortably in the sense of "by some margin" as opposed to anything at all comfortable)? Do we buy strips of land to create parallel cycle routes or do we tell the people there "Sorry it's for the bold and experienced only. You can drive, catch the daily bus, or man up and get on with it"?




It depends on the lane obviously. Those in Lincolnshire or South Shropshire with grass up the middle aren't really an issue as the traffic volume is negligible, some in Essex or the Manchester suburbs I can think of are rural race tracks and the answer is to enforce low speeds. How one does this is problematic without environmentally intrusive monitoring devices or chipped vehicle regulators. At any rate, such lanes are generally an extension to suburban A and B roads where such driving is the norm, so I believe those are the ones that need tackling first.


----------



## MartinC (16 Aug 2011)

I find this whole discussion totally confusing. Is it a rehash of the old segregation v, integration argument? Is it a proposal that any cycling infrastucture is a good thing (as per the OP)? Or is is it a discussion of what types of infrastructure should be created? Or, again, is it a discussion of how we encourage more cycling? No-one seems to know. It looks like it's degenerated into a useless argument


----------



## snorri (16 Aug 2011)

blockend said:


> If we do not promote universal low speeds we must accept cycle tracks are the answer to cycling safely. That leads to accusations of 'separationism'. What works safely in cities should either be extended to the country as whole, or we have to accept that some roads are inherently dangerous. These discussions usually involve someone asking a 'where does it say we should' type question which hides the competing desires of city cyclists, leisure users, time trialists and so on, each with an axe to grind.
> In short, I'm suggesting how it is now is roughly as good as it gets


Well, I find your last sentence rather defeatist, and would quite happily ideal with accusations of separationism, city cyclists by definition are not on rural roads, leisure users appear to be quite happy with segregation, leaving only sport cyclists opposed . To what extent should we be allowing the interests of a few sport cyclists to limit opportunities for the rest of the population to enjoy some diversity on our national transport network?


----------



## blockend (16 Aug 2011)

My responses are to the OP point. His data suggests cycle lanes increase rider safety in some circumstances. I agree with him in the absence of motor vehicle speeds being brought down nationally, which is unlikely. The debate centres around the extent to which cycle lanes/tracks are acceptable to those pushing the utility cycling agenda, as there are no touring and leisure cycle campaigns that amount to anything.


----------



## blockend (16 Aug 2011)

The reason I emphasised the cycling 'enthusiast' angle is because they're the ones most likely to prioritise freedom to use the roads over absolute safety, indeed would argue there is no absolute safety. That freedom includes the right to mix with cars travelling at 60 mph in close proximity, which is a sufficient turn off to widespread on-road leisure cycling take up IMO. The question is whether it matters what such cyclists think. Speaking as one of them I'm aware of a tension between what I enjoy and promotion of that activity as a safe one. I'd encourage anyone to do it, so long as they're aware of its constant and manifest dangers.


----------



## snorri (16 Aug 2011)

1507899 said:


> Bollocks are we.


Woops  

My comment was based on personal observation, I had thought the objection came from high speed cyclists rather than leisure cyclists, but welcome an expansion of your reply.


----------



## MartinC (16 Aug 2011)

blockend said:


> cycle lanes increase rider safety in some circumstances




A very worthy but very anodyne conclusion. So let's have some cycle lanes. Ah! We have already so the problem is solved. 

A facile point but it illustrates that everyone is operating within their own set of definitions. Exactly what sort of cycling infrastucture are we talking about?

I'm still having trouble deciding whether I'm a city, rural, sport, leisure, utility or enthusiast cyclist (or even some other sort), Presumably someone will be along to tell me shortly.


----------



## snorri (16 Aug 2011)

blockend said:


> . That freedom includes the right to mix with cars travelling at 60 mph in close proximity, which is a sufficient turn off to widespread on-road leisure cycling take up IMO.



More importantly it is a turn off to the take up of utility cycling. Whilst mixing it can be acceptable for leisure cycling under certain conditions of weather and light, it is unattractive for regular utility usage.


----------



## Red Light (16 Aug 2011)

blockend said:


> It does indeed. I'm not persuaded there's a one-size-fits-all solution to integrating bicycles and motor vehicles on Britain's roads. If one suggests some roads are simply too dangerous to ride on safely the answer is to bring speeds down. If we accept that we necessarily assume any road on which a cyclist is legally able to travel must carry a survivable impact speed.




But your whole premise is a house of cards built on shaky foundations. And that is the premise that cycling is exceptionally dangerous. There is about one death for every 40 million km cycled. An enthusiastic cyclist might do 4,000km a year. Its going to take them 10,000 years of cycling at that rate before they are likely to suffer a fatal injury. Serious injuries are more frequent but the vast majority of serious injuries are not life changing. Yes some cyclists do get killed and seriously injured just as some people win the lottery and some people get killed by lumps of ice falling off aircraft. But its rare...extremely rare and we need to get away from being driven in our daily activity by exceptionally rare events and get on with living it instead.


----------



## Dan B (16 Aug 2011)

snorri said:


> More importantly it is a turn off to the take up of utility cycling. Whilst mixing it can be acceptable for leisure cycling under certain conditions of weather and light, it is unattractive for regular utility usage.


Why do you say the utility cyclists are more important? I'd suggest that anyone prepared to mix it with traffic for a non-essential journey is more not less likely to entertain the same idea for a trip they actually have to make. If you're a leisure cyclist you actually want to enjoy it, whereas a utility cyclist will accept a trip that's merely tolerable.


(Unless I'm missing something important then this is a side issue to the main point, I think, so don't view this as a call to expend considerable effort on your reply)


----------



## blockend (16 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> But your whole premise is a house of cards built on shaky foundations. And that is the premise that cycling is exceptionally dangerous. There is about one death for every 40 million km cycled. An enthusiastic cyclist might do 4,000km a year. Its going to take them 10,000 years of cycling at that rate before they are likely to suffer a fatal injury. Serious injuries are more frequent but the vast majority of serious injuries are not life changing. Yes some cyclists do get killed and seriously injured just as some people win the lottery and some people get killed by lumps of ice falling off aircraft. But its rare...extremely rare and we need to get away from being driven in our daily activity by exceptionally rare events and get on with living it instead.




On the other hand I used to ride with a club in which most riders had accidents that had seen them hospitalised at some point and a couple of members had been killed. I never stated that cycling was exceptionally dangerous - base jumping and free climbing fit that bill - I said there was constant and immanent danger most of which is beyond the rider's control. Enough danger to put the majority of people off cycling on main roads and many regular cyclists to avoid them whenever possible.


----------



## blockend (16 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> But your whole premise is a house of cards built on shaky foundations. And that is the premise that cycling is exceptionally dangerous. There is about one death for every 40 million km cycled. An enthusiastic cyclist might do 4,000km a year. Its going to take them 10,000 years of cycling at that rate before they are likely to suffer a fatal injury. Serious injuries are more frequent but the vast majority of serious injuries are not life changing. Yes some cyclists do get killed and seriously injured just as some people win the lottery and some people get killed by lumps of ice falling off aircraft. But its rare...extremely rare and we need to get away from being driven in our daily activity by exceptionally rare events and get on with living it instead.




On the other hand I used to ride with a club in which most riders had accidents that had seen them hospitalised at some point and a couple of members had been killed. I never stated that cycling was exceptionally dangerous - base jumping and free climbing fit that bill - I said there was constant and immanent danger most of which is beyond the rider's control. Enough danger to put the majority of people off cycling on main roads and many regular cyclists to avoid them whenever possible.


----------



## MartinC (16 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> But your whole premise is a house of cards built on shaky foundations. And that is the premise that cycling is exceptionally dangerous.




This is one of the contradictions. There's a perception that cycling is dangerous and this needs to be overcome to increase the take up of cycling. When you've reached critical mass with take up then this perception disappears. Cycling infrastucture one way but not the only one to overcome this. Other things may be more achievable and beneficial in the long term.

To me one of the biggest barriers to cycling in the UK is the attitude of Drivers. Cycling infrastructure doesn't address this and, arguably, reinforces bad attitudes and is thus counter productive.

We can't have total segregation - I can't even get a bike out of my garage without using a space shared with cars. Cycling infrastucture to circumvent really cyclist unfriendly features (eg. tunnels at large roundabouts) is a good idea in my book. Arguing for across the board segregation isn't.


----------



## Red Light (16 Aug 2011)

1507912 said:


> We could have near total segregation. Cut and cover tunnel the roads and stick all through traffic down there. This leaves the above ground for people and motorists (I draw the distinction because the act of driving tends to dehumanize people and is the fundamental problem) making end parts of journeys at walking pace.
> Would that work for everyone?



Cue Boston's Big Dig which did exactly that through Downtown Boston. Only cost them $14.6Bn for 3.5 miles and took 25 years. I can see that being popular


----------



## MartinC (16 Aug 2011)

1507911 said:


> Surely you are responsible for the ones on your drive. Can't you get rid of them?




Too many assumptions. I don't have a drive. My garage opens directly onto the shared road at the back of our street. Each house has a garage and a parking space. It's traversed by many cars that I'm not responsible for, the bin lorry, etc..........................................

Interestingly within 50 metres of my front door I could cycle through the park and the Honeybourne Line Cycle Path a mile or too across Cheltenham without going on the road. I normally cycle across the A46 and on roads to the start of cycle path. It's far too dangerous cycling through the park. The cycle path has many hazards but is a convenient short cut right across town.


----------



## Red Light (16 Aug 2011)

MartinC said:


> This is one of the contradictions. There's a perception that cycling is dangerous and this needs to be overcome to increase the take up of cycling. When you've reached critical mass with take up then this perception disappears. Cycling infrastucture one way but not the only one to overcome this. Other things may be more achievable and beneficial in the long term.



I read a report from the GLC Traffic Committee from the end of last year which suggested the Boris Bikes had been 20 times more effective at getting new people cycling in London than the Boris Blueways. The former cost about a quarter of the latter. And for 1 mile of Blueway you could put 100,000 people through Bikeability training.


----------



## MartinC (16 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I read a report from the GLC Traffic Committee from the end of last year which suggested the Boris Bikes had been 20 times more effective at getting new people cycling in London than the Boris Blueways. The former cost about a quarter of the latter. And for 1 mile of Blueway you could put 100,000 people through Bikeability training.




Interesting. So Boris bikes were 80 times as cost effective as the cycle paths. Are cycle hire schemes cycle infrastucture? They're certainly not segregation.


----------



## Red Light (16 Aug 2011)

MartinC said:


> Interesting. So Boris bikes were 80 times as cost effective as the cycle paths. Are cycle hire schemes cycle infrastucture? They're certainly not segregation.



In Dublin effectiveness is even better. Their big strategic cycle facilities network build was accompanied by a drop in cycling of 15% in commuters and 40% in school students compared wtih over 5,000 journeys a day on their new BB equivalent, DublinBikes. Dublin plans to increase its bike numbers from 450 to 5,000. 40% of the users of DublinBikes had seldom or never cycled in Dublin before. It seems that if you can make cycling appear accessible to ordinary people, then people will start cycling.


----------



## snorri (16 Aug 2011)

1507904 said:


> The speed may vary but it is all leisure.


Point taken Adrian, I tend to think of leisure cylists as being be non-perspiring.


----------



## Richard Mann (16 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I read a report from the GLC Traffic Committee from the end of last year which suggested the Boris Bikes had been 20 times more effective at getting new people cycling in London than the Boris Blueways. The former cost about a quarter of the latter. And for 1 mile of Blueway you could put 100,000 people through Bikeability training.



Boris Bikes can't really work on a mass scale in most cities - there isn't enough space to park the bikes. Private bike parking is more space-efficient. 

And it's the distance / how often those new people cycle that matters, as much as the numbers. How many newbies try Boris Bikes to do a bit of one-off pottering and never take it any further?


----------



## Dan B (16 Aug 2011)

1507920 said:


> Popularity is an overrated concept



Most people would disagree, I think. Statistically anyway


----------



## Red Light (16 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Boris Bikes can't really work on a mass scale in most cities - there isn't enough space to park the bikes. Private bike parking is more space-efficient.



Seems lot of cities are managing.



> And it's the distance / how often those new people cycle that matters, as much as the numbers. How many newbies try Boris Bikes to do a bit of one-off pottering and never take it any further?



Eight in ten use it regularly once or more a week and two in ten 5 days or more a week. Six out of ten had taken up cycling in the last three months and seven out of ten London residents. Doesn't seem much like one-off potters to me
TfL Travel in London Report No 3


----------



## Richard Mann (16 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Eight in ten use [Boris Bikes] regularly once or more a week and two in ten 5 days or more a week. Six out of ten had taken up cycling in the last three months and seven out of ten London residents. Doesn't seem much like one-off potters to me
> TfL Travel in London Report No 3



"one-off potters" was perhaps an exaggeration too far. 

But I'd still like to see some stats on how many miles boris bikers do compared to newbies induced by the blueways. Cycling within the congestion charge zone isn't the same as the rest of London.

And we're getting a bit away from the OP - the question isn't really whether Boris Bikes or Bikeability or Blueways give a better payback - that rather depends on the sponsorship deal - the question is why some people are so adamantly against cycle lanes/tracks, and what (practically) it would take to persuade them to support the (apparent) consensus view that they're a good thing. As I said, the compromise we ended up with in Oxford was to regard "tracks" as a slow facility, and "lanes" as a fast facility, with both required for different purposes.


----------



## Richard Mann (16 Aug 2011)

The one that Tommi described. You can argue about whether cycle lanes/tracks are 10% more or less safe til the cows come home, but there's pretty much a consensus that lanes/tracks - of some kind - are a good thing. 

So that's the challenge - 90% want some kind of cycle facility and 10% want no cycle facilities. Is there any compromise or does the 90% just give up and ignore the 10%?


----------



## Red Light (16 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> And we're getting a bit away from the OP - the question isn't really whether Boris Bikes or Bikeability or Blueways give a better payback - that rather depends on the sponsorship deal - the question is why some people are so adamantly against cycle lanes/tracks, and what (practically) it would take to persuade them to support the (apparent) consensus view that they're a good thing. As I said, the compromise we ended up with in Oxford was to regard "tracks" as a slow facility, and "lanes" as a fast facility, with both required for different purposes.



No, the question is why some people are so adamantly wedded to cycle tracks that they want them against everything else. You are trying to reverse the burden of proof. Its incumbent on those proposing facilities to demonstrate that they will deliver, not on everyone else to prove they won't. They've been around long enough that you can hardly say you don't know and will have to build some to find out. Value for money is important because it cost £1m a mile to put in a segregated facility or Blueway that's an awful lot of money you are asking for for even a basic network. 

So show me the evidence that if you are given £1m a mile to spend that a) cycling is dangerous enough compared other daily activities to need an intervention, b) that the cycle facilities will produce a significant increase in safety and c) they will produce a significant increase in numbers cycling.

And sponsorship is irrelevant. You are paying for the Barclays sponsorship directly or indirectly through the fees Barclays charge their customer which will include an element to cover the sponsorship costs. So one way or another we are all paying for it whether its obvious or not.

And there is no concensus, just a vocal minority intent on imposing cycle facilities on everyone else.


----------



## Red Light (16 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> The one that Tommi described. You can argue about whether cycle lanes/tracks are 10% more or less safe til the cows come home, but there's pretty much a consensus that lanes/tracks - of some kind - are a good thing.



Define "a good thing"

I forget the study which surveyed cyclists views of tracks and lanes and the vast majority said they preferred them to the road. But when it came to their actual riding the vast majority didn't use them.


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

User said:


> Where does the space for 'private' bike parking magically appear from?



The same place as they found it in London where they aim to have them no more than 300m apart in the centre. e.g. in many places they took out a couple of parking bays, widened the pavement into them and stuck the docking station on it. Apparently the biggest problem was resident objections in some areas but since its been found out that house prices are higher near docking stations. Where there's a will there's a way.


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

User said:


> Love to know where you get your statistics from.



Didn't you know, 65.2% of statistics are made up?


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

There isn't a consensus on this discussion thread, no, but this is hardly representative, is it?

I think you get to a "consensus" when most people are saying the same thing, or looking bored/incredulous and there's only a handful of people making a noise and nobody much listening. Usually I let that go on for a bit, to see if the noisy ones really have any genuine points (because I like to be generous and take on board their concerns if I can). But then I move to a vote and discover there's an overwhelming majority.

We've had this debate over a few decades in Oxford, and the consensus is a dual network. If I was advocating cycle tracks alongside main roads, cost would be a relevant factor, but cycle lanes are pretty cheap, so cost is pretty much irrelevant.

Seriously, what problem do you have with cycle lanes + traffic speed reduction (confinement to 30mph; aiming for lower)?


----------



## marinyork (17 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> The same place as they found it in London where they aim to have them no more than 300m apart in the centre. e.g. in many places they took out a couple of parking bays, widened the pavement into them and stuck the docking station on it. Apparently the biggest problem was resident objections in some areas but since its been found out that house prices are higher near docking stations. Where there's a will there's a way.



You could theoretically find the place for Boris bikes in some cities outside London, but there just wouldn't be the political will for it. It would be a very alien concept doing that sort of thing (been a few examples). Nevertheless bits of London do have a lot more space to play with than quite a few UK cities. If you do a detailed analysis of where you can put private parking as I have done for my city, the comparison is very clear. Usually when I and other people ask and survey for cycle parking, the main issue is money. It's also worth pointing out that obviously cycle parking tends to be put in as 2x sheffield stands -5x sheffield stands in cities with less of a cycle culture. The more popular the former is very much smaller than a row of Boris Bikes (although it is unclear how large the need would be in a UK city other than London).


----------



## Dan B (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Seriously, what problem do you have with cycle lanes + traffic speed reduction (confinement to 30mph; aiming for lower)?


Well, apart from the obvious ones that per the usual UK standards of implementation the lane will be too narrow and will encourage car drivers to pass without pulling out to give sufficient room, and then on the approach to any kind of junction it will (a) veer off in some completely stupid direction (e.g. round the outside of a roundabout or onto the pavement) and/or (b) disappear completely, and it will probably be full of parked vehicles.

Good quality cycle lanes would look a lot like bus lanes. I would have no objection to those, if anyone would like to build some. I like bus lanes.

(This post relates to urban cycling and does not address rural issues)


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

1507939 said:


> The objection is in the form of a question. Can you deliver a *complete separate network* which covers the whole country and every journey in its entirety, without me needing to stop at junctions to let turning cars go past etc? If you cannot then everything that you do do will only reduce my legitimacy on the road in the eyes both of the greater public and the law.
> 
> Is that clear enough?



Who's talking about a "complete separate network"? I'm talking about painted cycle lanes on (speed-controlled) roads. What's your objection to those?


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> Well, apart from the obvious ones that per the usual UK standards of implementation the lane will be too narrow and will encourage car drivers to pass without pulling out to give sufficient room, and then on the approach to any kind of junction it will (a) veer off in some completely stupid direction (e.g. round the outside of a roundabout or onto the pavement) and/or (b) disappear completely, and it will probably be full of parked vehicles.
> 
> Good quality cycle lanes would look a lot like bus lanes. I would have no objection to those, if anyone would like to build some. I like bus lanes.
> 
> (This post relates to urban cycling and does not address rural issues)



If you reduce traffic speeds, most of those problems can be dealt with satisfactorily.


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

1507942 said:


> As above, if it is not complete the bits where it is have a negative impact on the bits where it isn't. I am of the opinion that the negative outweighs the positive.



Evidence? It's as least as likely that bullying motorists into submission in one place has a positive impact elsewhere.

What isn't a good idea is providing pavement cycle tracks and doing nothing on the road: that does make things worse.


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> We've had this debate over a few decades in Oxford, and the consensus is a dual network. If I was advocating cycle tracks alongside main roads, cost would be a relevant factor, but cycle lanes are pretty cheap, so cost is pretty much irrelevant.



Is [url="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=oxford&hl=en&ll=51.731863,-1.24988&spn=0.000922,0.003862&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=14.30596,46.538086&vpsrc=6&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.731966,-1.248896&panoid=wFtuJ9OtuGX6MMzmLNaorA&cbp=12,347.07,,0,-0.01"]this[/url] one you're proud of?




> Seriously, what problem do you have with cycle lanes + traffic speed reduction (confinement to 30mph; aiming for lower)?



You mean enforced gutter riding rather than the recommended secondary or primary positions. Cars pass much closer, they're more dangerous at junctions and no safer in between, they're where the drain covers and all the crap off the roads accumulates, they are built in the wrong places and there is no evidence they encourage cycling.	Yes they are cheaper - £20-40k/km - but there's not much evidence that you get anything for your money other than some white paint.

But it seems the pinnacle of your aspiration is 30mph roads (already have those in most urban areas) with a narrow cycle lane painted on it. So the current national crap practice dressed up with the fancy name "Dual Cycle Network"

That last link is fascinating by the way - a post rationalisation of narrow cycle lanes and its all the fault of the cyclist at side roads "apparently because the cyclist was taking less care". And door zone lanes where there "isn’t enough room for a car door to open, but it appears to be enough room for the cyclist to dodge round if a door opens in front of them."

If that is your idea of cycling utopia you can keep it.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Seriously, what problem do you have with cycle lanes + traffic speed reduction (confinement to 30mph; aiming for lower)?



Answers:

http://www.cyclechat...ost__p__1798593

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=036yhZJ_ZbA

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYipfgAlFKM

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=jbDwoZ5EcBc
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zB0qyswujpo
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=byzVugPajoY
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=tLf-loGA-WM
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=_oKC9PBjnuM
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=g3N6mJsLUDE
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=FYVYUPni9RE
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=lGMdWMIO6lc
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zFoXCjK9C-8
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=FI875Q0tfhY
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Vwgb83XLieo

All of these were on 30mph roads that will never in a million years be changed to lower speed limits.


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

1507944 said:


> Deliver the reduced traffic speeds and let's re-evaluate the need for anything else when that is done.



That's not an argument


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> If you reduce traffic speeds, most of those problems can be dealt with satisfactorily.



If you reduce traffic speeds you don't need any facilities. The Dutch mix traffic on roads with speed limits of 20mph. There is quite a lot of movement to have 20mph limits. Cambridge has gone 20mph in several parts of the city centre now. London is looking seriously at it across London and Portsmouth has gone 20mph in large areas


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Is this one you're proud of?
> 
> You mean enforced gutter riding rather than the recommended secondary or primary positions. Cars pass much closer, they're more dangerous at junctions and no safer in between, they're where the drain covers and all the crap off the roads accumulates, they are built in the wrong places and there is no evidence they encourage cycling. Yes they are cheaper - £20-40k/km - but there's not much evidence that you get anything for your money other than some white paint.
> 
> ...



Try turning the Google Streetview round. The cycle lane only goes as far as the ASL for people turning right into Old Abingdon Road (then it disappears). Meanwhile, straight-ahead moves have switched to the not-bad-really cycle track in the verge. It's the edge of the city.

There's a difference between what I would aspire to, and what I think is politically, financially and spatially achievable. I think low speeds (nearer 20mph than 30mph) in towns and clear passage for cyclists is achievable, and reasonably popular among users. Since it's reasonably popular among users, and reasonably safe, I'll go on advocating it, unless you come up with a decent reason not to.


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> If you reduce traffic speeds you don't need any facilities. The Dutch mix traffic on roads with speed limits of 20mph. There is quite a lot of movement to have 20mph limits. Cambridge has gone 20mph in several parts of the city centre now. London is looking seriously at it across London and Portsmouth has gone 20mph in large areas



You might also have mentioned that Oxford is almost entirely 20mph, even shopping areas on main roads. You do still need facilities if traffic volumes are high.


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> All of these were on 30mph roads that will never in a million years be changed to lower speed limits.



You misunderstand - those are exactly what Richard wants. Narrow cycle lanes on 30mph roads. He said it here and its on the Cyclox website. In cycle lane addicts any cycle lane, no matter how crap, is better than no cycle lane. Even if you do have to dodge round car doors and pay attention at side roads when using them.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> There's a difference between what I would aspire to, and what I think is politically, financially and spatially achievable.



And "any crap facility is better than nothing". I don't think so.


----------



## MartinC (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Who's talking about a "complete separate network"? I'm talking about painted cycle lanes on (speed-controlled) roads. What's your objection to those?




We already have cycle lanes and tracks. If you're not talking about a complete separate network then you've already got what you want - so what's bothering you?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (17 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> You misunderstand - those are exactly what Richard wants. Narrow cycle lanes on 30mph roads. He said it here and its on the Cyclox website. In cycle lane addicts any cycle lane, no matter how crap, is better than no cycle lane. Even if you do have to dodge round car doors and pay attention at side roads when using them.


I understand very well and was illustrating, with real life examples, what the consequences are of having narrow cycle lanes on 30mph roads.


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Try turning the Google Streetview round. The cycle lane only goes as far as the ASL for people turning right into Old Abingdon Road (then it disappears). Meanwhile, straight-ahead moves have switched to the not-bad-really cycle track in the verge. It's the edge of the city.



That width of cycle lane goes most of the way into the city on Abingdon Rd. Here it is much further in, complete with drain cover taking up half its width.



> There's a difference between what I would aspire to, and what I think is politically, financially and spatially achievable.



So I was right, any cycle lane is better than no cycle lane.


----------



## MartinC (17 Aug 2011)

1507960 said:


> Evidence?




User was asked why he disliked cycle lanes. Are you asking for evidence that this is indeed User's opinion?


----------



## Mad at urage (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Only if you stay in primary position when you're slower than the traffic, and you're not obviously preparing for a turn. There's not much shouting at cyclists here.


Is that really your experience? It differs from mine then. I've been told to "Get on the cycle lane" when in secondary and even when I'm overtaking the cars!


Richard Mann said:


> Traffic is noticeably slower on Oxford's main roads (come and have a look if you don't believe me). It's been achieved by carving out cycle and bus lanes, and reducing space for motorists. The cycle lanes etc are "still needed" but mostly because they're what slows the traffic.


Provided they are of sufficient width to cycle in safely, have the same priority as the motor vehicle lane at junctions, go where I want to go, have nothing parked in them, are kept clear of obstructions/ snow / ice / the cr@p that accumulates around roads, then I have few objections enough. I rarely see such cycle facilities though (and the links posted of Oxford's provision don't inspire hope that these are achieved there).


----------



## Mad at urage (17 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> ...
> The roundabout design specifically? Sounds good to me. We are after more and safer cycling are we not? ...


At the price of giving way to motor vehicles at every junction? No we are not. Cycling is in any case a safe activity compared to other everyday activities such as walking, so why on earth should we be?
If you like that roundabout suggestion, you'll like the IAM (car) member who believes that cyclists should give way to motor vehicles approaching from behind before passing a nearside obstruction (such as a parked car). Perhaps we should doff our caps/helmets as they pass us too?


blockend said:


> In urban areas with high cycling levels and low traffic speeds like Oxford, central London, Cambridge, it's reasonable to expect driver awareness to be great enough to avoid conflict and impact speeds modest enough to avoid serious injury.


Agreed, so cycle 'lanes' painted in urban areas are unnecessary. The ones that exist are usually more dangerous than cycling on the roads (door zones, lack of priority at junctions, swinging on and off pavements, establishing an expectation that cyclists should not be on the road).


blockend said:


> Likewise country lanes, at least those that haven't become commuter rat runs, are generally safe because of low vehicle volumes and the opportunity to avoid/evade cars.


Fair enough, subject to certain definitions of what constitutes a "country lane". Generally, with low traffic volumes cars can be heard approaching and with high volumes their speed can be kept down.


blockend said:


> The problem for cyclists is A roads and busier B roads where there is no likelihood of lowering speed limits due to the necessity to keep traffic moving. If we accept most riders avoid dual carriageway drag strips wherever possible (which has been my experience) that leaves the majority out of town roads as at least potentially dangerous.


These are of course usually the straightest available route between settlements and therefore the preferred route for anyone making a utility journey.


blockend said:


> Some of that danger is ameliorated by good road craft but the onus is entirely on drivers to behave well and without a change in culpability laws and increased penalties for transgressors, there's no general impetus to do so. Basically, mixing it with cars travelling at impact speeds well above the 20 mph mortality line and few penalties for getting it wrong, will yield a regular supply of serious 'accidents' because driving standards, motor vehicle numbers and relatively low numbers of cyclists make it inevitable.
> Even if one believes the absolute number of deaths and serious injuries are few enough statistically to make regular main road cycling viable, traffic volumes and driver behaviour still make such roads unpleasant enough to be a barrier to cycling take up.


So surely the conclusion is that the only place dedicated cycle lanes are needed and where they would provide added safety is on the "A roads and busier B roads where there is no likelihood of lowering speed limits due to the necessity to keep traffic moving". The justification is to allow motor vehicles to continue to move faster whilst maintaining the safety of those more vulnerable road users who simply want to get from A to B by the most direct route. This could be paid for with a specific motor vehicle tax to provide the safe separation of fast-moving motor vehicles from the rest of the legitimate traffic. Perhaps we could call the separation barriers "motorway edges" ?


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> You might also have mentioned that Oxford is almost entirely 20mph, even shopping areas on main roads. You do still need facilities if traffic volumes are high.



In the London Cycling Design Standards, facilities are only call out for traffic speeds greater than 30mph and traffic volumes over 800 vehicles per hour. That one vehicle every 4.5s so pretty high volume.

Roads are designed though for 30mph use. Cycle track are designed for 10mph if shared with pedestrians, 15mph otherwise. Which means they are designed for speeds below and sometimes substantially below those at which I typically cycle.


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

1507967 said:


> Thank you. That is all now clear enough for me.



Evidence?


----------



## MartinC (17 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Evidence?




 Thanks, I'm getting the hang of this now. But I'm not sure if I have any evidence.......................................


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Aug 2011)

here's the thing........................it's not going to happen. 






And, yes, Reg iand Mad@Urage are right. The entire cycling facility thing is based on a failure to appreciate what public space is about.


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> You misunderstand - those are exactly what Richard wants. Narrow cycle lanes on 30mph roads. He said it here and its on the Cyclox website. In cycle lane addicts any cycle lane, no matter how crap, is better than no cycle lane. Even if you do have to dodge round car doors and pay attention at side roads when using them.



1) I'd recommend cycle lanes (or preferably bus lanes if you have the space) on 30mph single-lane-each-way urban main (ie busy) roads, with the traffic space constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph). 

2) I don't think the width of the cycle lane is crucial, as long as "traffic space is constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph)". 

3) I'd also recommend 0.5m clearance to parking bays, which is sufficient as long as "traffic space is constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph)".

And finally, I'd recommend you pay attention at all times when using the highway, not just at side roads.

If that isn't clear somewhere, and you feel I'm recommending "cycle lanes, no matter how crap", please point it out and I'll correct it.


I'm sorry, the punters round here want cycle lanes and slower traffic, and your arguments against cycle lanes don't stack up to a hill of beans. So I guess we'll just carry on as we are. I wish you luck with alternative approaches.


----------



## theclaud (17 Aug 2011)

1507975 said:


> Is that a flounce?



I wouldn't like to say. Call in Smeggers- he is Arbiteur des Enfloncements...


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> I'm sorry, the punters round here want cycle lanes and slower traffic, and your arguments against cycle lanes don't stack up to a hill of beans. So I guess we'll just carry on as we are. I wish you luck with alternative approaches.



Really?

"I rarely cycle inside marked cycle lanes because so many are downright dangerous."

A candid verdict on your work.


----------



## Mad at urage (17 Aug 2011)

1507975 said:


> Is that a flounce?


I think it is probably a characterisation of those who oppose his views as "only a handful of people making a noise and nobody much listening", which he has kindly "let that go on for a bit" because he is "generous" like that. Of course he will "take on board their concerns if" he finds that they don't oppose the "consensus" (i.e. his) view.

It appears to me that he has convinced those in charge of the purse-strings where he is consulted, that his views are the consensus (and they may well be, of people who have little or no experience of trying to ride in substandard cycle lanes) and he doesn't really care about those who find them appallingly dangerous.


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Really?
> 
> "I rarely cycle inside marked cycle lanes because so many are downright dangerous."
> 
> A candid verdict on your work.



He goes on to say:

"Although most experienced cyclists see them for what they are, I think it is important that we keep cycle lanes. Not only do they send an important signal to novices; they also remind drivers that cyclists are there and that they need to be given room."

James is a very experienced and assertive cyclist - he cycles along the centre line in heavy traffic (he lives off Cowley Road - which doesn't have cycle lanes and is often at a standstill), and is misrepresenting the overall situation, probably for rhetorical effect. About 90% stick to cycle lanes, where they exist, though some pop out of them at the drop of a hat. The racers, particularly in light traffic, tend to cycle just outside the cycle lane, but will use the cycle lane if they get to a traffic queue.


----------



## Dan B (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> 2) I don't think the width of the cycle lane is crucial, as long as "traffic space is constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph)".




I do. Not all traffic will slow down when lanes narrow, especially on a road which doesn't provide the visual cues of being "hemmed in" (multilane roads or roads where the narrowing has been implemented by hatching the road surface), and all this is doing in that case is putting 30mph traffic even closer to novice cyclists at 10-12mph.


----------



## Mad at urage (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> 1) I'd recommend cycle lanes (or preferably bus lanes if you have the space) on 30mph single-lane-each-way urban main (ie busy) roads, with the traffic space constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph).


Using cyclists as mobile traffic calming in other words. I don't mind being a traffic bollard (nor do all those who turn up to Critical Mass demos presumably) but I prefer to do so at times of my own choosing.


Richard Mann said:


> 2) I don't think the width of the cycle lane is crucial, as long as "traffic space is constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph)".


This sounds distinctly like the utterance of someone who has no intention of using the cycle lane. Of course the width is crucial, it determines where most drivers think the cyclists should be and it limits the cyclists' ability to manoevre around hazards. Saying that it is "not crucial" shows an arrogant disregard for the safety of cyclists.


Richard Mann said:


> 3) I'd also recommend 0.5m clearance to parking bays, which is sufficient as long as "traffic space is constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph)".


0.5m clearance is FA use when someone throws the 1.2m+ door open in front of a cyclist moving at 12+mph. Further disregard for safety here.


Richard Mann said:


> And finally, I'd recommend you pay attention at all times when using the highway, not just at side roads.
> 
> If that isn't clear somewhere, and you feel I'm recommending "cycle lanes, no matter how crap", please point it out and I'll correct it.


OK, I feel that you are recommending "cycle lanes, no matter how crap" in this very post: See above, a total disregard for the safety of cyclists, as long as you can use us as an excuse to restrict road widths.


Richard Mann said:


> I'm sorry, the punters round here want cycle lanes and slower traffic, and your arguments against cycle lanes don't stack up to a hill of beans. So I guess we'll just carry on as we are. I wish you luck with alternative approaches.


I'm sure they do if you tell them the lanes will make the roads safer. If of course you were honest about your (lack of) interest in the safety of their children when riding to school, their opinion may well change.


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> It appears to me that he has convinced those in charge of the purse-strings where he is consulted, that his views are the consensus (and they may well be, of people who have little or no experience of trying to ride in substandard cycle lanes) and he doesn't really care about those who find them appallingly dangerous.



Nah - it's a posthoc rationalisation. They were putting in cycle lanes long before I got here.


----------



## MartinC (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> 2) I don't think the width of the cycle lane is crucial,




Wow. Maybe you don't cycle in them?


----------



## Mad at urage (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Nah - it's a posthoc rationalisation. .


Always good for establishing a consensus, that!


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (17 Aug 2011)

This is what a cycle lane should look like.









The road is one-way for cars, incidentally. 

Utrecht.


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> [/size]
> 
> I do. Not all traffic will slow down when lanes narrow, especially on a road which doesn't provide the visual cues of being "hemmed in" (multilane roads or roads where the narrowing has been implemented by hatching the road surface), and all this is doing in that case is putting 30mph traffic even closer to novice cyclists at 10-12mph.



I'd agree - I thought that's what I said. If traffic space isn't effectively constrained then width is an issue. If it is constrained then width isn't crucial.

I guess this comes down to whether you believe traffic can be constrained. If you haven't seen it, then I can understand your doubts, but it does seem to work here.


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

User said:


> You still haven't addressed why you advocate cyclists being treated as second class citizens...



Hmm. I get a congestion-free clearway into town, and the cars get stuck in queues. Doesn't feel very second class to me.

Maybe it's because average cycle trip length is shorter here, so cycle lanes look like congestion-busters to us. If you're cycling more than a couple of miles, I guess they feel more like cycle lanes are keeping you out of the way of the cars, and making you second class?


----------



## theclaud (17 Aug 2011)

1507978 said:


> Presumably the flouncer can confirm it themselves?



Flonceurs almost always deny enflouncement as such.


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

1507990 said:


> Or how to roll out the program to include every road.



Every road? No, just urban main roads.

The current stage in the program is clarifying the description, so someone from elsewhere can understand what's possible.


----------



## Mad at urage (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Hmm. I get a congestion-free clearway into town, and the cars get stuck in queues. Doesn't feel very second class to me.
> 
> Maybe it's because average cycle trip length is shorter here, so cycle lanes look like congestion-busters to us. If you're cycling more than a couple of miles, I guess they feel more like cycle lanes are keeping you out of the way of the cars, and making you second class?


I can squeeze through past congestion without a cycle lane thanks. All a cycle lane of the kind you describe (width unimportant, 0.5m clearance past parked cars) does is put me in danger because car drivers assume I must use it.

Second class citizens because we are used as mobile bollards, rather than treated as vehicle operators with a right to use the whole of the road.


----------



## MartinC (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Every road? No, just urban main roads.
> 
> The current stage in the program is clarifying the description, so someone from elsewhere can understand what's possible.




Ah, do you have a detailed plan of how this (a cycle path on every urban main road) will be done in Oxford yet? When you have we'll be able to see what you really mean.


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

1507994 said:


> And what of the concern that every bit of cycle lane reduces the drivers' experience of encountering cyclists, making the roads outside your program more dangerous?



Other roads get different treatments - C roads get cushions (or point closures); residentials get parking-alternation. Or whatever else it takes to make them <20mph. Main roads outside towns get tracks alongside, insofar as there aren't alternative quiet routes (at about the rate of one per decade). None of that is particularly novel.

The hard one is really-heavy traffic main roads in towns (more than 20,000 mvpd) that still serve cyclist desire lines. Bus lanes is usually the place to start.


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

MartinC said:


> Ah, do you have a detailed plan of how this (a cycle path on every urban main road) will be done in Oxford yet? When you have we'll be able to see what you really mean.



Who said anything about cycle paths? The plan is to have cycle lanes (or bus lanes). It'll be mostly done during the course of LTP3 if funding comes available.


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Nah - it's a posthoc rationalisation. They were putting in cycle lanes long before I got here.



I agree. Cycling round Oxford I see the same sort of narrow inadequate un-thought out cycle lanes painted in as I see in many other towns and cities without an active cycling campaign group. i.e you've got the default option. I see no evidence that you and your good colleagues at Cyclox have done anything other than let them get on with it.


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Always good for establishing a consensus, that!



Yes, I'm sure Richard is seeing a clear consensus here for what he is doing apart from a few noisy individuals


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> 0.5m clearance is FA use when someone throws the 1.2m+ door open in front of a cyclist moving at 12+mph. Further disregard for safety here.



Come on, be fair, "This isn’t enough room for a car door to open, but it appears to be enough room for the cyclist to dodge round if a door opens in front of them."


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Why not? How about we use the Dutch Cycle Balance audit methodology to assess provision. Quick ruffle through for cycle facilities.....ah here they are......cycle parking. No mention of anything else. Probably because the person that oversees it says "How many cycle paths or lanes a town has in not important."



I found an English language description of the Bicycle Balance. Seems to be measuring all sorts of stuff that are properties of cycle facilities (smoothness, lack of obstruction etc), and the proportion of short trips (try achieving that with vehicular cycling), and the proportion dissatisfied with road safety (ditto). So it doesn't measure the km of paths directly, but I'd doubt a road-based approach would score very highly at all.


http://media.fietsersbond.nl/Engels/Information about the Cycle Balance.pdf


----------



## henshaw11 (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Hmm. I get a congestion-free clearway into town, and the cars get stuck in queues. Doesn't feel very second class to me.



Well, that's *if* they're made a vaguely useful width - if the 'congestion-free clearway' constitutes the foot or two in the gutter where all the crap, holes and drains tend to be then they're nto a fat lot of use...hence the width *is* crucial even in that case.



Richard Mann said:


> I guess they feel more like cycle lanes are keeping you out of the way of the cars, and making you second class?



Not sure I've understood that argument - but I've yet to find on on-road cycle lane that makes me feel out of the way of cars...

AFAICS you're just making work for youself by adding painted lanes. As I see it:
a) they're a non-crucial width - in which case you need publicity/driver education so they understand that you don't have to be *in* the lane all the time
or
b) they're a decent width (reminding drivers what a proper overtake distance is) - which on many roads won't actually leave enough room for a separate 'drivers lane'. In which case you still need publicity/education to say 'actually, you can drive over on the cycle lane part of the road if it's clear to do so - ISTR a council somewhere putting in a *proper* width lane up a hill which just got the usual muppets in the local press's website (or was that the dailyfail ? - I forget) that it was a completely impractical width so that cars couldn't pass

Or you just save the money and do the publicity/education bit on it's own !

Oh, and another nail in the coffin as far as cycle lanes being useful AFAIC...councils are making more use of surface dressing to save money. As a result, the only half decent, consolidated bit of road is where you'd be riding in secondary - ie the left hand wheel tracks off traffic...which is generally *outside* where the cycle lane gets put in. One section of road on my commute might have been half decent if they'd left painting the lane for another month or two - being a relatively wide, kerbless road drivers were covering (and so consolidating) more of the road width than would normally happen - so the 6 inches or less to the left of the cycle lane line is marginally ok, further left is bloody awful. 'Course, if I ride further out of the path them I'll attract grief from the 'use the cyclepath' numpties..which comes round to education, yet again.



Richard Mann said:


> roads get cushions (or point closures);



Oh great, cue some drivers doing daft overtakes to get past before the next speed cushion, pinch point, etc 

(To be fair, on the commute I do these are by far in the minority, possibly helped by riding summat with my backside less than 2 ft from the floor..)

"The consensus appears to be that a “critical reaction strip” of at least 50cm is required alongside the parking. This isn’t enough room for a car door to open, but it appears to be enough room for the cyclist to dodge round if a door opens in front of them."



Well...mebbe if you're doing something nearer walking pace...


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Cycling round Oxford I see the same sort of narrow inadequate un-thought out cycle lanes painted in as I see in many other towns and cities without an active cycling campaign group. i.e you've got the default option. I see no evidence that you and your good colleagues at Cyclox have done anything other than let them get on with it.



It's not very clear what you're trying to achieve. The topic is why the hostility to cycle facilities when lots of people support them. "Because they're stupid and the people that support them are stupid" isn't really a killer argument, is it?


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

henshaw11 said:


> a) they're a non-crucial width - in which case you need publicity/driver education so they understand that you don't have to be *in* the lane all the time



You don't need the education bit. They work it out for themselves. If the traffic space is constrained and the speeds are low, they've got time to watch and learn.


----------



## henshaw11 (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> You don't need the education bit. They work it out for themselves. If the traffic space is constrained and the speeds are low, they've got time to watch and learn.



Well, judging from the 'get in the cycle lane' comments that I and other people are on the receiving end of, clearly some education *is* needed !


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

henshaw11 said:


> Well, that's *if* they're made a vaguely useful width - if the 'congestion-free clearway' constitutes the foot or two in the gutter where all the crap, holes and drains tend to be then they're nto a fat lot of use...hence the width *is* crucial even in that case.



The rule of thumb seems to be that if the road is wide enough to have a proper cycle lane its wide enough not to need one and if narrow enough to need one there's not room to fit one in. Otherwise you end up with things like this gem from Ambleside (which are now even wider still)


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> I found an English language description of the Bicycle Balance. Seems to be measuring all sorts of stuff that are properties of cycle facilities (smoothness, lack of obstruction etc), and the proportion of short trips (try achieving that with vehicular cycling), and the proportion dissatisfied with road safety (ditto). So it doesn't measure the km of paths directly, but I'd doubt a road-based approach would score very highly at all.
> 
> http://media.fietser...e%20Balance.pdf



I've spoken to Frank and asked him why it doesn't include cycle lanes and tracks in the audit. His answer was they are irrelevant. 

Smoothness and lack of obstruction are properties cycle lanes don't tend to have at the edge of the carriageway where all the crap ends up and people park.


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

1508008 said:


> As an example, and picked because it is local to you, take Marsh Gibbon road running between Marsh Gibbon and Grendon Underwood. What would you do with that?



Not exactly local.

Nothing any time soon. It's a country lane. Unless there's any complaints, you probably wouldn't even look at it.


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Nothing any time soon. It's a country lane. Unless there's any complaints, you probably wouldn't even look at it.



No doubt too busy delivering gems like this one on Woodstock Road to the highly appreciative locals.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (17 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I've spoken to Frank and asked him why it doesn't include cycle lanes and tracks in the audit. His answer was they are irrelevant



That's rather odd, because the Bicycle Balance audit is an evaluation of all Dutch cycle facilities - the network of paths, tracks, lanes, and so on, as well as bicycle parking.

Are you sure you spoke to him?


----------



## jonesy (17 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> No doubt too busy delivering gems like this one on Woodstock Road to the highly appreciative locals.
> 
> [attachment=4777:Screen Shot 2011-08-17 at 21.21.02.png]



That is indeed crap- has it made the website yet? But that's not what is being discussed is it, Richard has made it pretty clear he isn't advocating cycle paths on pavements. Surely the crucial elements of making roads more attractive for mass cycling are traffic speed reduction and re-allocation of roadspace from motor vehicles, and cycle lanes can be one tool, amongst many, for achieving this.


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> No doubt too busy delivering gems like this one on Woodstock Road to the highly appreciative locals.
> 
> [attachment=4777:Screen Shot 2011-08-17 at 21.21.02.png]



B***** Sustrans. We'd have held out against that if they hadn't insisted on connecting up NCN5.

The plan is to shift NCN5 (aka local route 9) onto the canal towpath, if we can ever persuade someone to tarmac it, and then look again at putting the cycle lane on the road. The bus lane has been there since 1973, so it's not the easiest task. At it's narrowest Woodstock Road is only 8.1m, so there's not a lot of room!


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

As Easy As Riding A Bike said:


> That's rather odd, because the Bicycle Balance audit is an evaluation of all Dutch cycle facilities - the network of paths, tracks, lanes, and so on, as well as bicycle parking.



No, its an audit of Dutch cycling provision which is not the same as facilities. The only facilities in there are cycle parking. For the rest how many km of cycle tracks and cycle lanes there are is irrelevant to whether its a good or a bad cycling town. Unlike the UK town will get no brownie points for building miles of tracks and lanes, it will get points if cycling is direct and quick on smooth roads.



> Are you sure you spoke to him?



Definitely.


----------



## jonesy (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> B***** Sustrans. We'd have held out against that if they hadn't insisted on connecting up NCN5.
> 
> The plan is to shift NCN5 (aka local route 9) onto the canal towpath, if we can ever persuade someone to tarmac it, and then look again at putting the cycle lane on the road. The bus lane has been there since 1973, so it's not the easiest task. At it's narrowest Woodstock Road is only 8.1m, so there's not a lot of room!



Well indeed, one of the more depressing outcomes of the NCN has been the way in which compromise and substandard infrastructure is still there 10 years on, and when branded as being part of a national flagship project it sets a particularly poor benchmark. As regards NCN5 in particular, I'd be interested to know if there are any recent usage stats for the section north of Oxford, as the route is terribly indirect, the off-road sections still pretty poorly surfaced, and not much population served within typical cycling distances....?


----------



## jonesy (17 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> No, its an audit of Dutch cycling provision which is not the same as facilities. The only facilities in there are cycle parking. * For the rest how many km of cycle tracks and cycle lanes there are is irrelevant to whether its a good or a bad cycling town. *Unlike the UK town will get no brownie points for building miles of tracks and lanes, it will get points if cycling is direct and quick on smooth roads.
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely.



And that is absolutely right and how it should be. The audit should be measuring the outcome, for cyclists. But that doesn't mean cycle lanes (or even, in some circumstances, segregated provision) have no role in helping create the conditions that lead to the desired outcome.


----------



## Dan B (17 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> No doubt too busy delivering gems like this one on Woodstock Road to the highly appreciative locals.


Have you seen what happens at the top of Banbury Road?
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/August2008.htm

(may have changed since I took the picture, but I won't be at all surprised if it hasn't)


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

1508014 said:


> You are happy to engage in, or at least promote the idea of, a program of making motorists less used to interacting with cyclists whilst ignoring the risks in a narrow road carrying fast moving traffic. Can you really not see why I would much rather you, and people like you, just stopped trying to make my life more dangerous?



How does marking a cycle lane on say Iffley Road (to quote an example currently in play) have any bearing on a lane in the next county? When I had a look in streetview, the only traffic seemed to be a cyclist (at the western end).

Even if they put cycle lanes in Bicester (which is the nearest town of any size), the most likely effect would be a few more cyclists in Bicester, and more cars aware of sharing roads with bikes. The new perimeter road is probably rather more detrimental, because of the way it gets traffic used to bike-free driving. And as for the M40, that gives people the completely wrong idea. The effect of cycle lanes is trivial by comparison.


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> B***** Sustrans. We'd have held out against that if they hadn't insisted on connecting up NCN5.



They are an organisation with a lot of popular support behind them. How dare you question their provision!


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> [Sustrans] are an organisation with a lot of popular support behind them. How dare you question their provision!



They were a remote agency needing to do a lot in a hurry. They've got better at working locally since (and better at listening rather than just doing what JG commanded). But that's another topic.


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> Have you seen what happens at the top of Banbury Road?
> http://homepage.ntlw.../August2008.htm
> 
> (may have changed since I took the picture, but I won't be at all surprised if it hasn't)



They fixed it sharpish

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=51.78814,-1.27168&spn=0.000478,0.001164&t=h&z=20&vpsrc=6


----------



## jonesy (17 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> They fixed it sharpish
> 
> http://maps.google.c...=h&z=20&vpsrc=6



I'm not clear what you are referring to Richard- Streetview shows the same very short and discontinuous lanes on the pavement (and a Cyclists Dismount!) looks like cyclists must give way to every drive...?


----------



## mangaman (17 Aug 2011)

1508014 said:


> You are happy to engage in, or at least promote the idea of, a program of making motorists less used to interacting with cyclists whilst ignoring the risks in a narrow road carrying fast moving traffic. Can you really not see why I would much rather you, and people like you, just stopped trying to make my life more dangerous?




This is the nubbins for me.

Most of us aren't London commuters.

Cycling on rural, twisty, country roads is a nightmare as motorists treat them as racetracks, yet can't see around the corners. Unfortunately that is where I tend to cycle.

Cycle paths are clearly impractical - these are narrow roads already, with farmland on either side.

When driving around a blind corner on a country road, I slow down - my rational is there may be a cyclist 50 metres away, a horse rider, a car crash - but I very rarely see people slowing at corners - there's almost a rural view amongst a lot of drivers that country roads are a bit of a challenge - like a track day - where cornering at speed is a bit of a laugh.

Cycle paths to me are a complete irrelevance (we have some shared paths for dog walkers and families with kids on bikes, but for getting around, however they don't go anywhere useful and the roads aren't too congested and safe in the City in my experience) - driver education on country roads is the only thing I can think of that would change my cycling experience.


----------



## Red Light (17 Aug 2011)

jonesy said:


> That is indeed crap- has it made the website yet? But that's not what is being discussed is it, Richard has made it pretty clear he isn't advocating cycle paths on pavements. Surely the crucial elements of making roads more attractive for mass cycling are traffic speed reduction and re-allocation of roadspace from motor vehicles, and cycle lanes can be one tool, amongst many, for achieving this.



But Richard is Vice Chair of the local cycling campaign, Cyclox, and a Transport Consultant in Oxford for nigh on 20 years, and this is one of the main routes into Oxford. As Richard says on his website "The main roads form the basis for the main cycle routes" and this is one of them so there is no excuse.

Its been the excuse of facility fanatics for decades every time an example of crap facilities is point out that it was somebody else's fault, this time Sustrans, and that they didn't do it properly. Thanks to their efforts we've been getting this sort of crap for decades and I see no reason why that should suddenly change for the coming decades to give us these spangley cycling facilities we keep being promised. Sorry but if we can't get it "right" after eighty years or more of trying its time we started looking at other solutions. "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

jonesy said:


> I'm not clear what you are referring to Richard- Streetview shows the same very short and discontinuous lanes on the pavement (and a Cyclists Dismount!) looks like cyclists must give way to every drive...?



Streetview shows the before situation; the satellite view is more recent - the paint is now continuous and the sequence of give ways have gone (it's on the south side of Sunderland Avenue). It's still a crap detour to avoid delaying traffic at the roundabout, though. The roundabouts are slowly being signalled, generally with adjacent toucans, so hopefully the detour will be removed in due course.


----------



## jonesy (17 Aug 2011)

1508026 said:


> Over a period of months, by virtue of enforced separation, your habitual commuting motorist on the Iffley Road becomes de-sensitised to the needs of cyclists. One weekend he drives out a short distance, albeit over the obstacle that is the county line, into the country. When he then encounters a group of cyclists in their natural free environment he is less sure how best to interact with them. How do you feel about the consequences?



Adrian, I can understand where you are coming from, and that is one of the things I dislike about those horrid shared-use pavements we've been looking at (a similar sort of thing near Bracknell is the bane of my commute) but in general the level of segregation in Oxford simply isn't sufficient to de-sensitise drivers. You can't drive very far at all in Oxford without encountering them in an unsegregated space, and I don't think cycle lanes present anything like the same risk as fully segregated, off carriageway paths.


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> But Richard is Vice Chair of the local cycling campaign, Cyclox, and a Transport Consultant in Oxford for nigh on 20 years, and this is one of the main routes into Oxford. As Richard says on his website "The main roads form the basis for the main cycle routes" and this is one of them so there is no excuse.
> 
> Its been the excuse of facility fanatics for decades every time an example of crap facilities is point out that it was somebody else's fault, this time Sustrans, and that they didn't do it properly. Thanks to their efforts we've been getting this sort of crap for decades and I see no reason why that should suddenly change for the coming decades to give us these spangley cycling facilities we keep being promised. Sorry but if we can't get it "right" after eighty years or more of trying its time we started looking at other solutions. "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"



Well actually it was only in the mid-nineties that we started understanding why pavement cycle tracks were so crap (they don't serve either fast or nervous cyclists well), and developed the dual network concept. The County have put in very few pavement cycle tracks since (most were done before then). The consequence is that making space for bikes on the roads (regardless of whether a cycle lane is marked) means that either bus lanes have to be taken out, or the road widened, or space for motor vehicles further reduced. Ten years ago, the County wouldn't have conceived of shaving yet more space off cars, so everything was at a standoff for a while. Now they are quite keen on speed reduction on main roads. They have also run out of ideas for promoting buses and are looking at promoting cycling and walking instead (typical; just when the money runs out).

On the way various mistakes have been made. I'm trying to describe the mistake-free version so you can copy it. I don't think the vehicular model has exactly been a great success, but you're welcome to keep trying if you want to. Stop dissing people who are supposed to be on the same side.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Well actually it was only in the mid-nineties that we started understanding why pavement cycle tracks were so crap (they don't serve either fast or nervous cyclists well), and developed the dual network concept.



Careful now, you'll be upsetting Tommi who is convinced they are the bees knees.



> The County have put in very few pavement cycle tracks since (most were done before then). The consequence is that making space for bikes on the roads (regardless of whether a cycle lane is marked) means that either bus lanes have to be taken out, or the road widened, or space for motor vehicles further reduced. Ten years ago, the County wouldn't have conceived of shaving yet more space off cars, so everything was at a standoff for a while. Now they are quite keen on speed reduction on main roads. They have also run out of ideas for promoting buses and are looking at promoting cycling and walking instead (typical; just when the money runs out).



I have no need to shave space off cars, even less to squeeze cyclists into the gutter because there's not enough width to do anything else with a cycle lane. I am traffic, I cycle on the road with traffic. The only cycle facilities I want are ones that give routes not available on the roads.



> On the way various mistakes have been made. I'm trying to describe the mistake-free version so you can copy it. I don't think the vehicular model has exactly been a great success, but you're welcome to keep trying if you want to. Stop dissing people who are supposed to be on the same side.



Its the last thing I want to copy - its just the default option provided by councils all over the country not something special uniquely designed in Oxford. But I suppose if you've got a City Council with a growth target for cycling of 0% during a cycling boom, you've got to do something to put people off cycling.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

Oxford style cycle lanes in a small town which has never heard of Oxfords Dual Network concept and has no cycling campaign.




All Oxford seems to have done is taken this standard provision, give it a fancy name and pretended its a strategy.


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I have no need to shave space off cars, even less to squeeze cyclists into the gutter because there's not enough width to do anything else with a cycle lane. I am traffic, I cycle on the road with traffic. The only cycle facilities I want are ones that give routes not available on the roads.



As my younger daughter says: "I want" doesn't get.


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Oxford style cycle lanes in a small town which has never heard of Oxfords Dual Network concept and has no cycling campaign.
> 
> [attachment=4780:Screen Shot 2011-08-18 at 00.05.58.png]
> 
> All Oxford seems to have done is taken this standard provision, give it a fancy name and pretended its a strategy.



Hmm. Since I suggested looking the other way in a Streetview image, you seem to have switched to screen shots. And you're still hiding behind a pseudonym and dissing other people.

Ah well. It's not the same as an Oxford cycle lane: not painted across the side road and traffic lanes wider than 3m between refuges. Sight lines definitely problematical. Quite possibly not enough traffic to warrant cycle lanes, but hard to tell. No sign of any light-controlled ped crossings. Fig leaf of "SLOW" and the keep left arrows indicate an acknowledged but unaddressed speed problem.


----------



## jonesy (18 Aug 2011)

I don't think that's a fair interpretation of Richard's position He advocates taking space from cars and reducing their speed, not putting cyclists out of their way on the pavement.


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

User said:


> So - are you going to answer the question? Why are you advocating that cyclists (and other vulnerable road users) are treated as second class citizens? Why are you advocating that cars are given priority and cyclists corraled out of their way?
> 
> Do you actually ride a bike at all?



I'm not: I'm advocating that bikes get priority and cars get slowed down.

Yes I ride a bike. 

I'd suggest you'd be better off supporting intelligent use of cycle lanes coupled with speed control: they may not be what you'd prefer but they're ok and they're better than UK-style pavement cycle tracks.


----------



## blockend (18 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> So surely the conclusion is that the only place dedicated cycle lanes are needed and where they would provide added safety is on the "A roads and busier B roads where there is no likelihood of lowering speed limits due to the necessity to keep traffic moving". The justification is to allow motor vehicles to continue to move faster whilst maintaining the safety of those more vulnerable road users who simply want to get from A to B by the most direct route. This could be paid for with a specific motor vehicle tax to provide the safe separation of fast-moving motor vehicles from the rest of the legitimate traffic. Perhaps we could call the separation barriers "motorway edges" ?



That's a neat summary of my position unless your last comment is intend to restrict cyclists to motorway edges (ironically or otherwise). Although I've spent the majority of my life travelling through cities by bicycle, these days I avoid them wherever possible as the homogenised, noisy, aggressive places most have become. 

Ride outside cities on a regular basis and you'll encounter country lanes - which we've already discussed - pleasant for the most part but not particularly direct, and everything else. That everything else consists of drivers travelling up to 50mph faster than I'm riding, a bike's width from my elbow, sometimes less. That some drivers are good guessers of space at high velocity does not seem an especially strong basis for risk assessment and I agree with my city brethren that lower speeds are the answer.
Unfortunately I see few organised attempts to lower main road speeds, either because an 'everyone lives in cities' argument prevails among campaigners, or cycle tracks anywhere represent the threat of cycle tracks everywhere, or slowing the commercial lifelines of the country are too difficult to contemplate, never mind address. So basically cyclists like myself who travel out of town are disenfranchised from the popular safety debates.

Of those options (everyone should live in a city or not ride a bike, build cycle tracks along main roads, slow every road in the country to the 30mph campaigners view as safe) the middle option begins to seem the most practical.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> I'd suggest you'd be better off supporting intelligent use of cycle lanes coupled with speed control: they may not be what you'd prefer but they're ok and they're better than UK-style pavement cycle tracks.


I really don't think they are. If I follow the link in your signature bar, for example, I see two entries from 20th and 22nd July that show classic examples of cycle lanes that I wouldn't want to use, and that are likely to cause me to get problems from motorists when I don't use them:






That one would require me to cycle in the door-opening zone of the parked cars. There is no way I would cycle in it unless the parking bays were all empty. If I went to the left of the little island, I would have to swerve suddenly out into the carriageway to get out of the door zone, when I should really be moving out well in advance, so I would probably go on the outside of that island.





In that one, with the traffic as shown, I would want to be in the centre of the lane with the oncoming truck there and the side road to the left. The cycle lane goes across the mouth of the side road, and I would be outside of it when passing that side road in any circumstances. The door opening zone of the parked cars extends to the solid white line of the cycle lane, so I would be outside of the cycle lane there, and I would be taking the centre of the lane in the approach to the pedestrian refuge, given the pavement extension that immediately precedes it.

I would expect to get drivers regularly blasting their horns behind me and pointing to the bad cycle lane in both these cases, which really does make the journey rather unpleasant.

Something is not better than nothing when it causes these problems.


----------



## blockend (18 Aug 2011)

1508046 said:


> Not to my satisfaction we haven't.



Once again, I have no idea what you're referring to.


----------



## Dan B (18 Aug 2011)

I assume he is referring to the discussion of country lanes


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I really don't think they are. If I follow the link in your signature bar, for example, I see two entries from 20th and 22nd July that show classic examples of cycle lanes that I wouldn't want to use, and that are likely to cause me to get problems from motorists when I don't use them:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## blockend (18 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> I assume he is referring to the discussion of country lanes


I appreciate that but fail to see anything in his post that addresses my point about safety issues on main roads with respect to the OPs question. 'Not to my satisfaction' is a non sequitur unless the poster wants to expand his views on cycling on country lanes.


----------



## benb (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I have no need to shave space off cars, even less to squeeze cyclists into the gutter because there's not enough width to do anything else with a cycle lane. I am traffic, I cycle on the road with traffic. The only cycle facilities I want are ones that give routes not available on the roads.



I agree, but is it not the case that some people (either new cyclists or ones that haven't done it for years) are simply not confident enough to cycle in traffic. What do we do about them? I don't know the answer.


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I really don't think they are. If I follow the link in your signature bar, for example, I see two entries from 20th and 22nd July that show classic examples of cycle lanes that I wouldn't want to use, and that are likely to cause me to get problems from motorists when I don't use them:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The first one (Barns Road) is indeed a bit crap, but has resulted in surprisingly few accidents. There should be a critical reaction strip, slightly less room for traffic, no centre line, and more parking restraint. But based on the accident record, I can't honestly say there's any urgency. Traffic isn't that heavy (about 10,000mvpd), and speeds are reasonable. If you rode on the line, or consistently just outside it, cars would most likely just go round you at a sensible speed: there are a lot of cyclists, and if drivers shouted at every one that got in their way, they'd have no voice left.

The second one (Botley Road) is fine. Typical traffic speeds are around 20mph, unless the road is clear. If you're going at a reasonable pace, and indicate to take the lane in this area, no-one will shout at you. What's really interesting is watching cars overtake cyclists. They move to the right of their lane, and pass at about 20-25mph. They don't generally go faster unless the opposite lane is clear. Large vehicles often end up matching faster cyclists for speed, and wait for a gap in the opposite lane to overtake. They overtake slow cyclists in lane (if there's oncoming traffic), but very slowly.


----------



## benb (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> The first one (Barns Road) is indeed a bit crap, but has resulted in surprisingly few accidents. There should be a critical reaction strip, slightly less room for traffic, no centre line, and more parking restraint. But based on the accident record, I can't honestly say there's any urgency. Traffic isn't that heavy (about 10,000mvpd), and speeds are reasonable. If you rode on the line, or consistently just outside it, cars would most likely just go round you at a sensible speed: there are a lot of cyclists, and if drivers shouted at every one that got in their way, they'd have no voice left.
> 
> The second one (Botley Road) is fine. Typical traffic speeds are around 20mph, unless the road is clear. If you're going at a reasonable pace, and indicate to take the lane in this area, no-one will shout at you. What's really interesting is watching cars overtake cyclists. They move to the right of their lane, and pass at about 20-25mph. They don't generally go faster unless the opposite lane is clear. Large vehicles often end up matching faster cyclists for speed, and wait for a gap in the opposite lane to overtake. They overtake slow cyclists in lane (if there's oncoming traffic), but very slowly.



So in both cases, having no cycle lane at all would be better, as most of the time cyclists will not use the lane anyway.

Can you please explain "critical reaction strip" to me?


----------



## Dan B (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> The first one (Barns Road) is indeed a bit crap, but has resulted in surprisingly few accidents.


If it were not there, it would have resulted in _no accidents at all_


----------



## the snail (18 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> So in both cases, having no cycle lane at all would be better, as most of the time cyclists will not use the lane anyway.
> 
> Can you please explain "critical reaction strip" to me?



+1 I fail to see any advantage to the cyclist in either case. As is so often the case they both seem to put you in the 'door zone', forcing you to pull out of the lane, which to my mind is a dangerous manoeuvre. An inexperienced cyclist might feel they have to remain within the lane. If the best thing you can say is 'it hasn't caused many accidents' then something is very wrong. If it was up to me I would get rid of all these 'facilities'. It seems to me that if you took all the money that is spent dreaming up these schemes and implementing them, you could probably fund a police officer to go round enforcing good driving/cycling, to much better effect. Where you have on-street parking, would it not make more sense to put a white line at the edge of the door-zone, making it clear to drivers/cyclists that you shouldn't be cycling there?


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> So in both cases, having no cycle lane at all would be better, as most of the time cyclists will not use the lane anyway.
> 
> Can you please explain "critical reaction strip" to me?



That's not correct. On Botley Road, most cyclists use the lane most of the time. On Barns Road it's a bit more mixed; when I went to look some were cycling in the lane, some roughly on the line. But it wasn't a comprehensive sample.

Critical Reaction Strip: comes from Dutch Guidance (CROW record 25, Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic, p159). Function: buffer space for the safety of cyclists near parked motor vehicles. Implementation: width of critical reaction strip 0.50 to 0.75m.

Of course the Dutch are generally combining it with wider cycle lanes (which they aren't supposed to pull out of), so faster cyclists are probably further away from the parked cars: in the usual implementation in the UK, the slow cyclists stay in the lane, and the fast cyclists pull out at their discretion. Which is practical if speed is controlled.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

the snail said:


> As is so often the case they both seem to put you in the 'door zone', forcing you to pull out of the lane, which to my mind is a dangerous manoeuvre. An inexperienced cyclist might feel they have to remain within the lane.



Worse than that, if you are new to cycling you get to think cycling that close to cars in normal and expected and do it everywhere else. If you want a cycle lane there there should be a big no-cycling area marked out for the door zone on the road and a cycle lane that clearly goes outside of it to educate new cyclists (and motorists following them) of the need to beware of parked car doors.

But Richard makes a very good case as to why you don't need them at all in either of those places. Why bother with them if your expectation is that cyclists will pull out of them into the road?


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> If it were not there, it would have resulted in _no accidents at all_



Well maybe. The cyclist would probably have been too close to the car regardless of the presence of the cycle lane.

However, if the cycle lane was moved further away from the cars, the accident probably wouldn't have happened.

There are far more severe problems with dooring at locations where there's no bay. Addressing those is a higher priority.


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

the snail said:


> Where you have on-street parking, would it not make more sense to put a white line at the edge of the door-zone, making it clear to drivers/cyclists that you shouldn't be cycling there?



Ironically, that's what seems to have happened here, and a plausible explanation of why the safety record is OK. If it weren't for the little islands (which half the time get blocked), you'd probably treat that line as the edge of the carriageway.

I think it shows that it doesn't really matter what you do, as long as you make it consistently narrow so that vehicle speeds are reduced, and road users follow reasonably straight lines, thus making their behaviour predictable, and "negotiation" automatic.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> I agree, but is it not the case that some people (either new cyclists or ones that haven't done it for years) are simply not confident enough to cycle in traffic. What do we do about them? I don't know the answer.



Several answers to that. Its very difficult to have a cycle journey that is entirely within a cycle lane - usually because the lanes tend to end just at the point where you might think they are most needed. If they don't have the confidence to cycle without a cycle lane then they are not going to start without one all the way. Second is there is no evidence that cycle lanes attract new people to cycling in any significant numbers. Third "Because I can't think of anything else" isn't an adequate reason for building them.

I wouldn't claim an answer either but some of the things that interest me from a personal perspective are 

awareness campaigns for drivers and cyclists about vehicular riding. I think a lot of the problems out there are ignorance and misunderstandings on both sides.
Adult Bikeability training and community rides especially built around training in the schools and getting parents involved with group cycling outings in the evenings or at weekends where kids and parents can ride together in a group practising Bikeability skills on the roads.
A bikebuddy scheme to cycle with you when you are first getting started and building up the confidence. London ran several very successful Bike Trains into London during the tube strikes where they gathered at a meeting point and then cycled into the centre together.


----------



## benb (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Critical Reaction Strip: comes from Dutch Guidance (CROW record 25, Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic, p159). Function: buffer space for the safety of cyclists near parked motor vehicles. Implementation: width of critical reaction strip 0.50 to 0.75m.



So are you saying a strip smaller than the width of a car door is adequate for protecting cyclists from a dooring?
Seems to me that it may reduce the risk a little, but you will still get situations where a car door is opened suddenly, with not enough time to avoid, giving the cyclist the option of riding into the door, or suddenly swerving into the main carriageway without being able to check it is safe.

Surely the only safe way, if you must have a cycle lane going alongside parked cars, is to have the left edge of the cycle lane further away than the width of a car door. Put yellow cross hatching in the space (with words "Door Zone" and a bicycle crossed out maybe?) to remove ambiguity. In fact, you could do that bit without the presence of a cycle lane.


----------



## TheJollyJimLad (18 Aug 2011)

Richard is giving a simplifed definition of a critical reaction strip. Earlier on in the CROW Design Manual, it states '...If parking is really necessary, a critical reaction strip is recommended (equal to or more than 0.5m). In that case however, designers should check whether a cycle track is a better solution, with or without a pavement or footpath at the same level'

In Dutch terms, the street should not have been designed in isolation but as part of a continuous network. _If_ there is room for a Dutch cycle lane (1.5m lane, 0.10m markings + 0.50 Critical Reaction Strip), then there may be room for a cycle track (1.80m lane + 0.30m partition verge which would be at the same level of the cycle track so that no 'space' is lost by the critical reaction distance as the result of the kerb) A cycle track would mean moving the parking bays out to make the cycle route straighter and protected from moving traffic. 

In both photos above (and this is pure speculation as I haven't seen either site) a cycle track _could_ have been more benefical. In the top photo, the pavement has enough width to absorb a street realignment and bicycle riders in the bottom photo would be shop side of the parked cars giving it more benefit, particularly to short local trips.

Again, one has to bear in mind that the Dutch would have been thinking in terms of a municipality wide network as opposed to the ad hoc dangerous rubbish we see here in the UK fought street to street. Neither design solution in the UK photos would be used in the Netherlands as it just a weak attempt to shoehorn cyclists into a car-centric environment. Dutch motorists also would have been expecting cyclists more because more often than not they would also be cyclists themselves.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Surely the only safe way, if you must have a cycle lane going alongside parked cars, is to have the left edge of the cycle lane further away than the width of a car door. Put yellow cross hatching in the space (with words "Door Zone" and a bicycle crossed out maybe?) to remove ambiguity. In fact, you could do that bit without the presence of a cycle lane.



Perversely that is more likely to encourage drivers to think its OK swing their doors open without looking. What you need to do is move the cyclists out of the dooring zone - a 0.5-0.75m buffer zone with, if there is to be a cycle lane, enough width in the cycle lane to swerve round the door without leaving the lane - but keep the thought with the driver that its unsafe to open the door without looking and doing it slowly. The Dutch cycle lanes do that. The British ones don't and then you get accidents like last weeks in London where the cyclist was doored under a following bus.


----------



## benb (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Several answers to that. Its very difficult to have a cycle journey that is entirely within a cycle lane - usually because the lanes tend to end just at the point where you might think they are most needed. If they don't have the confidence to cycle without a cycle lane then they are not going to start without one all the way. Second is there is no evidence that cycle lanes attract new people to cycling in any significant numbers. Third "Because I can't think of anything else" isn't an adequate reason for building them.
> 
> I wouldn't claim an answer either but some of the things that interest me from a personal perspective are
> 
> ...



I think also we need to get away from roads (and town generally) being primarily designed for motor vehicles, with other road users an afterthought. We have the priority entirely wrong. I do think people are beginning to realise that.

My wife has recently started to cycle to work with me a couple of days a week. Part of the route is a bridle path, then through a park. Not fast, but very pleasant. Then we have a fast (40mph limit) dual carriageway that even I don't like cycling on. So we use the shared use pavement. As they go, it's not the worst, but I hate having to give way at each side road. I have to face the fact though that she will probably never have the confidence to use the road there. 

I like the Bikebuddy idea. A national website where people could register, like the car share website, would be good.


----------



## benb (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Perversely that is more likely to encourage drivers to think its OK swing their doors open without looking. What you need to do is move the cyclists out of the dooring zone - a 0.5-0.75m buffer zone with, if there is to be a cycle lane, enough width in the cycle lane to swerve round the door without leaving the lane - but keep the thought with the driver that its unsafe to open the door without looking and doing it slowly. The Dutch cycle lanes do that. The British ones don't and then you get accidents like last weeks in London where the cyclist was doored under a following bus.



Blimey, this planning lark is all pretty complicated. Unintended consequences and all that.


----------



## Mad at urage (18 Aug 2011)

Well, it has been confirmed that Richard's "critical reaction strip" is there to give the cyclist enough time to swerve in front of the bus that was passing "very slowly"  - that's all right then.

Richard, earlier you said 


Richard Mann said:


> And finally, I'd recommend you pay attention at all times when using the highway, not just at side roads.
> 
> If that isn't clear somewhere, and you feel I'm recommending "cycle lanes, no matter how crap", please point it out and I'll correct it.


In the same post, you recommended *using cyclists as mobile traffic calming* (_"cycle lanes (or preferably bus lanes if you have the space) on 30mph single-lane-each-way urban main (ie busy) roads, with the traffic space constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph)"_); *disregarded the safety of cyclists *by saying "_I don't think the width of the cycle lane is crucial"_which limits the cyclists' ability to manoevre around hazards; and *recommended cycling in the 'door zone'* ("_I'd also recommend 0.5m clearance to parking bays, which is sufficient as long as "traffic space is constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph)""_). This you attempt to justify by the following:


Richard Mann said:


> I'm sorry, the punters round here want cycle lanes and slower traffic, and your arguments against cycle lanes don't stack up to a hill of beans. So I guess we'll just carry on as we are. I wish you luck with alternative approaches.


As I said before, I'm sure "the punters" do support them if you tell them the lanes will make the roads safer. If of course *if you were honest about your (lack of) interest in the safety of their children when riding to school*, *their opinion may well change.*

For a second time I'm calling you on recommending "cycle lanes, no matter how crap". I've pointed out why they are crap, others have posted links to show these crap lanes. What are you going to do to "correct it"?


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> I think also we need to get away from roads (and town generally) being primarily designed for motor vehicles, with other road users an afterthought. We have the priority entirely wrong. I do think people are beginning to realise that.
> 
> My wife has recently started to cycle to work with me a couple of days a week. Part of the route is a bridle path, then through a park. Not fast, but very pleasant. Then we have a fast (40mph limit) dual carriageway that even I don't like cycling on. So we use the shared use pavement. As they go, it's not the worst, but I hate having to give way at each side road. I have to face the fact though that she will probably never have the confidence to use the road there.
> 
> I like the Bikebuddy idea. A national website where people could register, like the car share website, would be good.



When I've been faced with similar I have stuck to the road but ridden behind and further out so as to control the traffic and prevent close passes which helps them build confidence. Particularly with a commute I found that many drivers are commuting the same route at the same time so get to see you reasonably often and expect and are prepared for you to be on the road.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Blimey, this planning lark is all pretty complicated. Unintended consequences and all that.



Not really that complicated. Just think risk compensation (reduce the risk and people will change their behaviours to restore it to its original level) and think system wide (to many people focus on the local problem without thinking about the knock on effects e.g. pushing people off the trains onto the roads in the post Hatfield rail network shut down killed far more people on the roads than if they had stayed on the trains and risked a second Hatfield while they fixed the problem).


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> ...



I don't respond to long posts that have several straw men in them. It's a breach of netiquette.

To answer it more generally: you have to slow the traffic using a number of techniques, of which the presence of a cyclist (as "mobile traffic calming") is a relatively small one. Yes I expect drivers to be influenced by the presence of cyclists, but only after I've softened them up by restricting their width and forward visibility. That way the cyclist barely notices.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Yes I expect drivers to be influenced by the presence of cyclists, but only after I've softened them up by restricting their width and forward visibility. That way the cyclist barely notices.



If that is the case why is the cycle lane in the Botley Rd photos ^ so narrow and the other lane so wide? Just looking at the red car and the one further down the road by the central island they have loads of width whereas bikes have a narrow lane squashed up into the door zone.


----------



## Mad at urage (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> I don't respond to long posts that have several straw men in them. It's a breach of netiquette.
> 
> To answer it more generally: you have to slow the traffic using a number of techniques, of which the presence of a cyclist (as "mobile traffic calming") is a relatively small one. Yes I expect drivers to be influenced by the presence of cyclists, but only after I've softened them up by restricting their width and forward visibility. That way the cyclist barely notices.


No straw men Richard, simply quotes from your own post. Your on-road lanes which restrict where the cars can drive are being justified by the expectation that they will be occupied by cyclists: That is not influencing drivers "by the presence of cyclists", it is herding the cyclists out of the way of the drivers. Then of course the (more sensible of the) cyclists don't use the cycle lanes provided (by your own admission), adding further fuel to resentment of cyclists, thus compromising our safety, both at the time we are riding outside the lanes and later at the driver's next encounter with cyclists.

It seems that in your view, this is OK because it is all part of some grander scheme to slow the traffic. You've been caught out: You do want "cycle lanes, no matter how crap", but they aren't for cyclists to use.


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

TheJollyJimLad said:


> Richard is giving a simplifed definition of a critical reaction strip. Earlier on in the CROW Design Manual, it states '...If parking is really necessary, a critical reaction strip is recommended (equal to or more than 0.5m). In that case however, designers should check whether a cycle track is a better solution, with or without a pavement or footpath at the same level'
> 
> In Dutch terms, the street should not have been designed in isolation but as part of a continuous network. _If_ there is room for a Dutch cycle lane (1.5m lane, 0.10m markings + 0.50 Critical Reaction Strip), then there may be room for a cycle track (1.80m lane + 0.30m partition verge which would be at the same level of the cycle track so that no 'space' is lost by the critical reaction distance as the result of the kerb) A cycle track would mean moving the parking bays out to make the cycle route straighter and protected from moving traffic.
> 
> ...



Most of these roads are 50ft between property lines (the Barns Road photo happens to be at a place where it's wider for a short way). If you have two 10ft pavements (typical for a main road), there's 30ft (just over 9m) left. In places it's less than that. If you can fit in two traffic lanes, good width cycle tracks and parking into that, then you're a miracle worker. What would the Dutch do - probably narrow the pavements. We have a higher ratio of pedestrians to cyclists, so that isn't politically practical here. It's also pretty expensive, if drainage has to be rebuilt.

Actually, it's more about urban form. UK cities expanded by building byelaw houses (terraces) and byelaw streets (40-50ft). They did so fairly early. They expanded again in the 20s/30s with semis. Most development after that was infill (away from the main roads). Most UK cities therefore have long stretches of district access roads that are too narrow for good quality cycle tracks. Urban form in the Netherlands is different.


----------



## TheJollyJimLad (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Most of these roads are 50ft between property lines (the Barns Road photo happens to be at a place where it's wider for a short way). If you have two 10ft pavements (typical for a main road), there's 30ft (just over 9m) left. In places it's less than that. If you can fit in two traffic lanes, good width cycle tracks and parking into that, then you're a miracle worker. What would the Dutch do - probably narrow the pavements. We have a higher ratio of pedestrians to cyclists, so that isn't politically practical here. It's also pretty expensive, if drainage has to be rebuilt.
> 
> Actually, it's more about urban form. UK cities expanded by building byelaw houses (terraces) and byelaw streets (40-50ft). They did so fairly early. They expanded again in the 20s/30s with semis. Most development after that was infill (away from the main roads). Most UK cities therefore have long stretches of district access roads that are too narrow for good quality cycle tracks. Urban form in the Netherlands is different.



http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html


----------



## jonesy (18 Aug 2011)

http://hembrow.blogs...n-one-post.htmlHmmm. I notice his comparator for Oxford Street has a distinct lack of buses. No doubt removing them is a trivial task...


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> It seems that in your view, this is OK because it is all part of some grander scheme to slow the traffic. You do want "cycle lanes, no matter how crap", but they aren't for cyclists to use.



Yes it's part of a grander scheme to slow the traffic. That's what makes it work. It also has some side benefits, like being pretty popular.

Given that reduction in traffic speed, I'm also concerned to make the cycle lanes feel comfortable, and minimise the safety issues that remain (having reduced the speed). That seems to be roughly what the bulk of existing and potential cyclists want. So it's cycle lanes, as long as they're as comfortable and as safe as reasonably practical. I wouldn't describe that as "no matter how crap"; I certainly think there's some constraint. "Crap" is such a vague term.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Most of these roads are 50ft between property lines (the Barns Road photo happens to be at a place where it's wider for a short way). If you have two 10ft pavements (typical for a main road), there's 30ft (just over 9m) left. In places it's less than that. If you can fit in two traffic lanes, good width cycle tracks and parking into that, then you're a miracle worker. What would the Dutch do - probably narrow the pavements.



What would the Dutch have done? Probably put a 30kph limit on it, narrowed the road down and mixed the bikes in with the cars if the road wasn't wide enough. Instead here the cars get to go at 45kph and the bikes get squeezed out of their way into the gutter and door zone.


----------



## TheJollyJimLad (18 Aug 2011)

jonesy said:


> http://hembrow.blogs...-post.htmlHmmm. I notice his comparator for Oxford Street has a distinct lack of buses. No doubt removing them is a trivial task...



I shall let David Hembrow know you said that so he can add that to this list of excuses!

Isn't the potential to have more cycling along there, or the new Crossrail thundering along below enough? Geez, there's no pleasing some people!


----------



## henshaw11 (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> The rule of thumb seems to be that if the road is wide enough to have a proper cycle lane its wide enough not to need one and if narrow enough to need one there's not room to fit one in. Otherwise you end up with things like this gem from Ambleside (which are now even wider still)
> 
> [attachment=4769:Screen Shot 2011-08-17 at 19.35.59.png]




I don't disagree - I'm simply pointing out that stating that the width is non-crucial is nonsensical IMO. Some people will ride in the cycle lane thinking they're safer there, so *if* lanes are provided at least make them useable. The example you gave is very similar to the one I mentioned in the same post, BTW. TBH I don't see a problem with it - it's simply making the point about allowing enough room, and is discretionary anyway (hence my point re education).

Anyhow, just noticed the thread's moved on quite a bit since then !


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (18 Aug 2011)

jonesy said:


> http://hembrow.blogs...-post.htmlHmmm. I notice his comparator for Oxford Street has a distinct lack of buses. No doubt removing them is a trivial task...



There were trams running along that street, Grote Markstraat. They now run underneath it.

http://maninblue1947.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/1708-seven-den-haag-the-hague-pictures/

Obviously that was an ambitious solution - but surely the pedestrianization of Oxford Street is going to happen at some point, once Crossrail arrives?


----------



## jonesy (18 Aug 2011)

TheJollyJimLad said:


> I shall let David Hembrow know you said that so he can add that to this list of excuses!
> 
> Isn't the potential to have more cycling along there, or the new Crossrail thundering along below enough? Geez, there's no pleasing some people!




Please do.

Perhaps you, or Hembrow, would like to show how the journeys currently made by bus along Oxford St could be transfered to Crossrail and cycling, with suitable reference to travel distances, origins and destintations etc. This is fantasy transport planning I'm afraid.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> I think it shows that it doesn't really matter what you do, as long as you make it consistently narrow so that vehicle speeds are reduced, and road users follow reasonably straight lines, thus making their behaviour predictable, and "negotiation" automatic.


And "negotiation" is a lot easier if the motorist doesn't believe you are going out of your designated lane and moving into their territory.

Edit: Incidentally, "designated lane" is a term I've heard from motorists I've encountered on more than one occasion.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (18 Aug 2011)

jonesy said:


> Please do.
> 
> Perhaps you, or Hembrow, would like to show how the journeys currently made by bus along Oxford St could be transfered to Crossrail and cycling, with suitable reference to travel distances, origins and destintations etc. This is fantasy transport planning I'm afraid.



The London Assembly want it to happen - pedestrianisation of at least some sections of Oxford Street.

http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-l.../transport/streets-ahead-relieving-congestion


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Several answers to that. Its very difficult to have a cycle journey that is entirely within a cycle lane - usually because the lanes tend to end just at the point where you might think they are most needed. If they don't have the confidence to cycle without a cycle lane then they are not going to start without one all the way. Second is there is no evidence that cycle lanes attract new people to cycling in any significant numbers. Third "Because I can't think of anything else" isn't an adequate reason for building them.
> 
> I wouldn't claim an answer either but some of the things that interest me from a personal perspective are
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> What would the Dutch have done? Probably put a 30kph limit on it, narrowed the road down and mixed the bikes in with the cars if the road wasn't wide enough.



Nonsense, not with 14,000mvpd. If they didn't narrow the pavements, they'd put in slightly wider cycle lanes and slightly narrower traffic lanes. Quite possibly they'd use suggestion lanes, which are the equivalent to a UK advisory cycle lane. It's not all cycle tracks in the Netherlands.


----------



## TheJollyJimLad (18 Aug 2011)

jonesy said:


> Please do.
> 
> Perhaps you, or Hembrow, would like to show how the journeys currently made by bus along Oxford St could be transfered to Crossrail and cycling, with suitable reference to travel distances, origins and destintations etc. This is fantasy transport planning I'm afraid.




Once again, it turns into a localised debate and off the OP. Instead of looking at the OP's evidence it either boils down to something taken in isolation and London-centric ('what about Oxford Street' etc) or something taken in isolation and in the provinces ('what about the Badger Road, Badgerford') which is ludicrous as there is no way of determining car numbers, purpose of road etc. What Hembrow was doing was pointing out out how the Netherlands changed street design to a less car-centric model. 

You can write it off as fantasy and make as many sniffy, 'glass is half empty' comments as much as you like but they did it.


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

As Easy As Riding A Bike said:


> The London Assembly want it to happen - pedestrianisation of at least some sections of Oxford Street.
> 
> http://www.london.go...ving-congestion



It'll happen if the buses get diverted onto adjacent streets, and the rest of the traffic gets pushed out. Crossrail is irrelevant. And I'd be surprised if they allowed cycling along it.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> It'll happen if the buses get diverted onto adjacent streets, and the rest of the traffic gets pushed out. Crossrail is irrelevant. And I'd be surprised if they allowed cycling along it.



I'm not sure that Crossrail is that irrelevant, given that it will at least provide some extra capacity, and have stations at Bond Street and Tottenham Court Road.

And on the cycling thing - well, they probably won't allow it if we all sit back and be defeatist about it.


----------



## Dan B (18 Aug 2011)

Nobody sane would take a bus journey on a route which went down the length of oxford street. I'm not even sure that any such bus route exists. Oxford Street is chock-full of buses because every route in the neighbourhood (and probably about half of all routes from anywhere into the West End) is planned to start or stop nearby and pass through it on the way. It would be a good idea (I have no idea if it's actually _possible_ mind you) to move many of them onto adjacent or parallel streets


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

TheJollyJimLad said:


> What Hembrow was doing was pointing out out how the Netherlands changed street design to a less car-centric model.



That's a bit ahistorical. They upgraded pre-existing cycle tracks to make room for cars. Subsequently they've moved to a less car-centric model, but starting from a rather different road-form and urban-form.

As I've said several pages of posts before: as far as I'm concerned (dell must on holiday) other ideas are more than welcome. Show us how it's politically, financially and spatially viable.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> That's not correct. On Botley Road, most cyclists use the lane most of the time.



Agree wholeheartedly; I used to use that regularly when I lived out that way. It's actually wide enough. Not sure what the alleged problem with it is. Most certainly suited my riding style and I'd go so far as to say it's necessary for those who are less stable; of which there are many in Oxford. I don't think I ever noticed cyclists _not_ using that lane. Later, when it jumps onto the pavement, perhaps.

I haven't yet read through the whole tome of this thread, but can say that the cycle lanes provided along Botley Road are most certainly the most pleasant place to be. Indeed, in traffic they are the best place to be as the traffic is usually stationary where the cycle lane is moving. I'm far less fond of the on-pavement bit a bit further on; but it still does the job.


----------



## jonesy (18 Aug 2011)

As Easy As Riding A Bike said:


> I'm not sure that Crossrail is that irrelevant, given that it will at least provide some extra capacity, and have stations at Bond Street and Tottenham Court Road.
> 
> And on the cycling thing - well, they probably won't allow it if we all sit back and be defeatist about it.



Only a small minority of the trips served by Crossrail will be within the distances typical of mass cycling, so it is largely irrelevant to this discussion. Moving the buses out of parts of Oxford St simply means more buses elsewhere, the problem of how you provide for buses while trying introduce widespread Dutch or Danish style segregation for cyclists doesn't go away. London has a very high modal share for bus travel, and it is naive to think that this can be shifted onto either rail or cycling. The rail network is already congested, and still doesn't serve all the places served by buses. While cycling can overlap to some extent in travel distances with bus, they still extend to distances beyond where cycling gains a large modal share even in Denmark, and cycling isn't for everybody. So buses have to remain a large part of the modal mix, and that has signficant implications for the practicability of segregated cycling infrastructure.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

TheJollyJimLad said:


> You can write it off as fantasy and make as many sniffy, 'glass is half empty' comments as much as you like but they did it.



To a degree. But as Hembrow says, it all happened over 15 years* and if you look at Dutch cycling in the past 15 years it hasn't increased. And minority groups that traditionally haven't cycled are not cycling any more as a result. In fact it hasn't changed for the past 30 years and if anything its dropped if you take into account population growth. Whatever the reasons are for the Dutch cycling so much they were there before any of this happened.





*Actually more like 25 years since the start of the Bicycle Master Plan.


----------



## TheJollyJimLad (18 Aug 2011)

jonesy said:


> Only a small minority of the trips served by Crossrail will be within the distances typical of mass cycling, so it is largely irrelevant to this discussion. Moving the buses out of parts of Oxford St simply means more buses elsewhere, the problem of how you provide for buses while trying introduce widespread Dutch or Danish style segregation for cyclists doesn't go away. London has a very high modal share for bus travel, and it is naive to think that this can be shifted onto either rail or cycling. The rail network is already congested, and still doesn't serve all the places served by buses. While cycling can overlap to some extent in travel distances with bus, they still extend to distances beyond where cycling gains a large modal share even in Denmark, and cycling isn't for everybody. So buses have to remain a large part of the modal mix, and that has signficant implications for the practicability of segregated cycling infrastructure.




And now the conversation mooches on to bus movements. And who said 'Dutch' always has to mean 'segregation'? Even the Dutch would say that's a stupid idea.


----------



## jonesy (18 Aug 2011)

TheJollyJimLad said:


> And now the conversation mooches on to bus movements. *And who said 'Dutch' always has to mean 'segregation'? Even the Dutch would say that's a stupid idea.
> *




Not me. I didn't say Dutch = segregation, I said "Dutch style segregation". So we don't have to have that argument.

But sorry, you can't ignore the buses in any discussion about what changes you might make to a London street.


----------



## TheJollyJimLad (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> To a degree. But as Hembrow says, it all happened over 15 years* and if you look at Dutch cycling in the past 15 years it hasn't increased. And minority groups that traditionally haven't cycled are not cycling any more as a result. In fact it hasn't changed for the past 30 years and if anything its dropped if you take into account population growth. Whatever the reasons are for the Dutch cycling so much they were there before any of this happened.
> 
> [attachment=4783:Screen Shot 2011-08-18 at 14.36.42.png]
> 
> *Actually more like 25 years since the start of the Bicycle Master Plan.




That graph shows kilometers of cycling per person per day. The amount of people actually cycling has still risen over 30 years. The whole lot puts the UK very much to shame.


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> If that is the case why is the cycle lane in the Botley Rd photos ^ so narrow and the other lane so wide? Just looking at the red car and the one further down the road by the central island they have loads of width whereas bikes have a narrow lane squashed up into the door zone.



The traffic lane is generally 3m (buses are about 2.5m, so it starts getting difficult to get a lot lower than that, if you want them to stay in their lane). There's a few places where the traffic lane gets a bit wider than that, but not for very long.

Yes it would probably be better if the cycle lane was slightly wider and the traffic lane was slightly narrower. Traffic lanes under 3m are distinctly new territory in the UK, and the County were very hostile to the idea back in the late nineties when this scheme went in. 

Keeping the traffic lane wider than a bus means they stay in their lane, which could well be better than having them overlap into the cycle lane. Since it's the large vehicles that are the biggest problem for cyclists, I'd be worried about letting them off the leash.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

TheJollyJimLad said:


> That graph shows kilometers of cycling per person per day. The amount of people actually cycling has still risen over 30 years. The whole lot puts the UK very much to shame.



Sorry wrong graph but same conclusion. If the amount of people cycling has increased then it means individuals are cycling less. Whichever way you look at it there has been no significant change in the amount of cycling and the current cycling levels today are basically determined by what the cycling levels were in 1975




From Cycling in the Netherlands 2009


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Sorry wrong graph but same conclusion. If the amount of people cycling has increased then it means individuals are cycling less. Whichever way you look at it there has been no significant change in the amount of cycling and the current cycling levels today are basically determined by what the cycling levels were in 1975
> 
> [attachment=4784:Screen Shot 2011-08-18 at 15.39.12.png]
> 
> From Cycling in the Netherlands 2009



Amsterdam only went up from 26% to 37% (or thereabouts).


----------



## SavageHoutkop (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> That width of cycle lane goes most of the way into the city on Abingdon Rd. Here it is much further in, complete with drain cover taking up half its width.
> So I was right, any cycle lane is better than no cycle lane.



Again, I used to live down that street. That cycle lane is plenty wide enough, and the road surface there is actually pretty good. 
That road is IIRC 30mph; and usually stuck to (aside from late night boy racers). 

I certainly prefer having that lane to what it would be like if the lane wasn't there. This is _probably_ not helped by the pedestrian islands in the middle of the road.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (18 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> In that one, with the traffic as shown, I would want to be in the centre of the lane with the oncoming truck there and the side road to the left. The cycle lane goes across the mouth of the side road, and I would be outside of it when passing that side road in any circumstances. The door opening zone of the parked cars extends to the solid white line of the cycle lane, so I would be outside of the cycle lane there, and I would be taking the centre of the lane in the approach to the pedestrian refuge, given the pavement extension that immediately precedes it.
> 
> I would expect to get drivers regularly blasting their horns behind me and pointing to the bad cycle lane in both these cases, which really does make the journey rather unpleasant.
> 
> Something is not better than nothing when it causes these problems.



Those parking spots aren't very frequent movers and the space there is usually more than sufficient to prevent a dooring. I've never had a cycle lane comment or a hoot on this stretch of road. Cars are not normally going very fast here.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (18 Aug 2011)

SavageHoutkop said:


> Those parking spots aren't very frequent movers and the space there is usually more than sufficient to prevent a dooring. I've never had a cycle lane comment or a hoot on this stretch of road. Cars are not normally going very fast here.


Well, 2 door cars have doors that extend as far as 1.3m. I generally try to stay 1.5 clear metres away, which I think would put me just outside the cycle lane.

What you seem to be saying is that this road is OK to cycle along because traffic is slow and drivers tend to be civil there, not because there is a cycle lane.


----------



## Mad at urage (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Yes it's part of a grander scheme to slow the traffic. That's what makes it work. It also has some side benefits, like being pretty popular.
> 
> Given that reduction in traffic speed, I'm also concerned to make the cycle lanes feel comfortable, and minimise the safety issues that remain (having reduced the speed). That seems to be roughly what the bulk of existing and potential cyclists want. So it's cycle lanes, as long as they're as comfortable and as safe as reasonably practical. I wouldn't describe that as "no matter how crap"; I certainly think there's some constraint. "Crap" is such a vague term.


"No matter how crap" was the phrase you challenged a response to, the vagueness of the phrase I countered by specifying why they are crap. _To reiterate_:
 They put the riders in the door zone (unless they ride out of the lane) - contrary to any modern safe-cycle training practice.
 They are (in many cases as shown by the links posted by others) far too narrow. Certainly they are narrower than accepted good practice, many appear to be barely handlebar width. This encourages close overtakes with the motor vehicle not deviating from their line in their 'designated lane'. 
 They put cyclists in the most dangerous place at road junctions. Some even divert slightly into the road mouth at the junction! Whilst continuous, this puts the cyclist out of the sightline of most motorists and encourages left-hooks, pull-outs and all the ways motorists can take us out (unless cyclists ride out of the lane). Again this is contrary to modern safe-cycle training practice.
 They encourage the idea that cyclists do not belong on the road.

You justify these crap lanes because it slows the traffic, so you appear to be happy to allow "any lane, no matter how crap": An overtaking lorry or bus doesn't have to be moving fast to crush a cyclist under its wheels. These lanes are not safer for cyclists. Other means can and should be used to narrow the roads and slow traffic, not using cyclists as the scapegoat. When traffic speed is reduced (even if that is simply caused by congestion), cycling becomes much safer outside of cycle lanes.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Amsterdam only went up from 26% to 37% (or thereabouts).



And cycling in Manchester doubled.


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> They put the riders in the door zone (unless they ride out of the lane) - contrary to any modern safe-cycle training practice.
> They are (in many cases as shown by the links posted by others) far too narrow. Certainly they are narrower than accepted good practice, many appear to be barely handlebar width. This encourages close overtakes with the motor vehicle not deviating from their line in their 'designated lane'.
> They put cyclists in the most dangerous place at road junctions. Some even divert slightly into the road mouth at the junction! Whilst continuous, this puts the cyclist out of the sightline of most motorists and encourages left-hooks, pull-outs and all the ways motorists can take us out (unless cyclists ride out of the lane). Again this is contrary to modern safe-cycle training practice.
> They encourage the idea that cyclists do not belong on the road.


1) Door Zone: the door zone is indeed a concept invented by cycle trainers; it's certainly a good idea to be aware of the issue and cycle down the middle of a parked-up street. However on main roads, the evidence is that a critical reaction strip is sufficient to avoid most problems.
2) Far too narrow: The evidence that the Dutch cite in support of width refers to moped accidents (CROW page 118, Jim). They also like width because the use of facilities is compulsory. Certainly more width is desirable if there's room (bus lanes are great if you don't end up playing leap-frog). But if they're about 1m minimum and the road surface is in reasonable nick, and traffic speed is under control, then they're OK.
3) Danger zone at side roads: Another invention of cycle trainers. It's not much of an issue if side roads are slow (these all have 20 limits), and radii are reasonably tight.
4) They encourage the idea that cyclists do not belong on the road: I think they assert the right of cyclists to be on the road. Cycle lanes make it reasonably comfortable for there to be large numbers of ordinary people on bikes on the main roads.

Basically I think you're just applying your world-view to my situation, and ignoring my explanations of how it works. I'm not sure the "lah-lah I'm not listening" approach is going to win any arguments.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> And cycling in Manchester doubled.



If "cycling levels today are basically determined by what the cycling levels were in 1975", then why in 2001 were only 1.7% of journeys to work (to _work_, note, when you would expect a higher cycling modal share than for all trips) in Greater Manchester made by bike? 

Meanwhile Dutch cities are touching on 40% modal share, and aiming for over 50% by 2030. 

Can this really be 'basically' explained by similar adjustments to a 1975 baseline?


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> And cycling in Manchester doubled.



Manchester went from 6% in 1970, down to 3% and back up to 6%. Manchester did nothing, and not much changed.

Amsterdam went up 10 points, while doing quite a bit.

You stated that Dutch cycling levels didn't go up, despite their efforts. That's not supported by the graph you presented. On the face of it it's directly contradicted by the graph you presented.

Do you want another attempt?


----------



## SavageHoutkop (18 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Well, 2 door cars have doors that extend as far as 1.3m. I generally try to stay 1.5 clear metres away, which I think would put me just outside the cycle lane.
> 
> What you seem to be saying is that this road is OK to cycle along because traffic is slow and drivers tend to be civil there, not because there is a cycle lane.



... no, I think the fact that the lane is there _helps _drivers to be civil. If the lane weren't there you'd probably have idiots driving too far left and not giving enough space to cyclists they're overtaking. Which, I grant, might not be cyclists like you or other cyclists who have a high average speed, but _certainly_ accounts for the majority of Oxford cyclists.

The probability of a dooring there is certainly vastly lower than my other rat-run which is down Wilmslow Road through Rusholme - that cycle lane is one I'm normally just on the outside of.


----------



## Dan B (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Basically I think you're just applying your world-view to my situation, and ignoring my explanations of how it works. I'm not sure the "lah-lah I'm not listening" approach is going to win any arguments.



Basically I think you're just ignoring the world-view(s) of cyclists who are telling you why they don't like your lanes, because your explanations of how it works mostly amount to "it's not _that_ much more dangerous and you can still ride outside the lane if you want". I'm not sure the "lah-lah I'm not listening" approach is going to win any arguments.


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> Basically I think you're just ignoring the world-view(s) of cyclists who are telling you why they don't like your lanes, because your explanations of how it works mostly amount to "it's not _that_ much more dangerous and you can still ride outside the lane if you want". I'm not sure the "lah-lah I'm not listening" approach is going to win any arguments.



No - I perfectly respect your world-view as applying to your situation. I'm just refusing to accept that your world-view applies to my situation. 

I'm not telling people that their proposed solution is "crap" - the things that people suggest are perfectly reasonable if they don't think that slowing traffic is feasible.

What do you want me to do? Pretend the accident stats are nonsense, that what we're doing is really dangerous, and start campaigning for it all to be removed? Don't be silly.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

As Easy As Riding A Bike said:


> If "cycling levels today are basically determined by what the cycling levels were in 1975", then why in 2001 were only 1.7% of journeys to work (to _work_, note, when you would expect a higher cycling modal share than for all trips) in Greater Manchester made by bike?
> 
> Meanwhile Dutch cities are touching on 40% modal share, and aiming for over 50% by 2030.
> 
> Can this really be 'basically' explained by similar adjustments to a 1975 baseline?



Cycling in Amsterdam was 9x Manchester in 1975 and by 1999 it was 6.5x. And that was with a massive Dutch investment in cycling of about £1Bn over that period in the Bicycle Master Plan and not much at all in Manchester. In Eindhoven it went from 12x to 6x compared to Manchester over the same period.

Why was Manchester low to start with? Well it says in the Cycling in the Netherlands 2009 (an official Dutch Government publication):

_"Apart from the general parallels in the trend lines, we immediately find very striking differences.
Differences in the level on which this general continuous movement takes place, and differences in
strength of the rise and fall of the bicycle use share:
• A high bicycle share (more than 30%) for Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Enschede and Copenhagen - cities
that never saw the arrival of a ‘bicycle use-devouring’ public transport system and where bicycle
traffic had always been a regular component of traffic policy. Accepting the cyclist as a ‘normal’
traffic participant with equal rights in the ’50s and ’60s has been a crucial factor in these cities.
• An average bicycle share (approx. 20%) for South-East Limburg and Hanover. Here, the rise of the
car coincided with a more manifest pro-car policy and a spatial structure which was more in line
with the car.
• A low bicycle share (approx. 10% or below) for Antwerp, Manchester and Basel. Here it is especially
the car-oriented traffic policy that explains matters, and the manifest influence of an early,
properly functioning public transport system (Manchester). The decline which was the result of the
arrival of the motor car continues uninterrupted and without ‘brakes’, because all relevant influencing
factors are pointing in the same direction: a negative collective picture on cycling, a strong
car-oriented policy, realisation of a large-scale car infrastructure, strong suburbanisation.

_​Not much mention there of cycle lanes or tracks in explaining the differences. Basically cycling levels at the end are primarily determined by similar growths from the cycling levels in 1975. The top group is still the top group, the middle group is still the middle group and Manchester was and still is at the bottom.


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> _• A high bicycle share (more than 30%) for Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Enschede and Copenhagen - cities
> that never saw the arrival of a ‘bicycle use-devouring’ public transport system and where bicycle
> traffic had always been a regular component of traffic policy. Accepting the cyclist as a ‘normal’
> traffic participant with equal rights in the ’50s and ’60s has been a crucial factor in these cities._​




"bicycle traffic had always been a regular component of traffic policy" means they provided lanes and tracks


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Manchester went from 6% in 1970, down to 3% and back up to 6%. Manchester did nothing, and not much changed.
> 
> Amsterdam went up 10 points, while doing quite a bit.
> 
> ...




I chose 1975 quite deliberately because it was the date when the precipitous falls everywhere had ended but any growth had not started. By moving back onto 1970 you climb back up the fall in Manchester but not in Amsterdam. If I move it back again to 1965 cycling in Amsterdam fell 10 points while Manchester was static. The tale you tell changes dramatically with start date pre 1975 because of the sharp downward trends in all countries which is why 1975 is the sensible baseline date on the plateau period for all cities.

I would have thought as a transport consultant of 20 years experience you would have been able to work that out yourself.


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I chose 1975 quite deliberately ...



All this data (and especially the British data) is probably riddled with errors, changes in methodology, other things going on that nobody's thought of etc. So the first question you always ask is the null hypothesis - can we reasonably say that anything much has happened? In the case of Manchester the answer is no. Maybe it went up from 3% to 6% if we choose our start point carefully, but probably it stayed much the same. It was at rock bottom and it stayed there. To quote this as a 100% increase is statistically illiterate.

Whereas what's happened in Amsterdam is clearly a growth trend.


----------



## Mad at urage (18 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> Basically I think you're just ignoring the world-view(s) of cyclists who are telling you why they don't like your lanes, because your explanations of how it works mostly amount to "it's not _that_ much more dangerous and you can still ride outside the lane if you want". I'm not sure the "lah-lah I'm not listening" approach is going to win any arguments.


Precisely


Richard Mann said:


> No - I perfectly respect your world-view as applying to your situation. I'm just refusing to accept that your world-view applies to my situation.
> 
> I'm not telling people that their proposed solution is "crap" - the things that people suggest are perfectly reasonable if they don't think that slowing traffic is feasible.
> 
> What do you want me to do? Pretend the accident stats are nonsense, that what we're doing is really dangerous, and start campaigning for it all to be removed? Don't be silly.


You are one of those creating cycle lanes which I have to cope with. Your world-view doesn't see riding along the edge of the road and in the door zone as a problem, in reality it is. I have seen cyclists taken out due to their wobbles which were caused by the slipstream or sheer presence of closely passing vehicles - and they don't have to pass very quickly to do that. I do believe you are calling for infrastructure that is dangerous to the cyclists using it and your example causes more to be built. Your world-view is thus negatively impacting my situation. You are the la-la-la-ing about that (but then I'm just a vocal minority in your world-view and can be safely ignored).


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Cycling in Amsterdam was 9x Manchester in 1975 and by 1999 it was 6.5x. And that was with a massive Dutch investment in cycling of about £1Bn over that period in the Bicycle Master Plan and not much at all in Manchester. In Eindhoven it went from 12x to 6x compared to Manchester over the same period.
> 
> Why was Manchester low to start with? Well it says in the Cycling in the Netherlands 2009 (an official Dutch Government publication):
> 
> ...



From the same report -



> A wide range of measures can be considered to encourage the use of bicycles successfully in commuter traffic. The chance of success appears to increase if municipalities and commerce work together. *Good bicycle routes and cycle paths - generally necessary to serve cyclists well - are and **remain the most important factor.*


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Precisely
> 
> You are one of those creating cycle lanes which I have to cope with. Your world-view doesn't see riding along the edge of the road and in the door zone as a problem, in reality it is. I have seen cyclists taken out due to their wobbles which were caused by the slipstream or sheer presence of closely passing vehicles - and they don't have to pass very quickly to do that. I do believe you are calling for infrastructure that is dangerous to the cyclists using it and your example causes more to be built. Your world-view is thus negatively impacting my situation. You are the la-la-la-ing about that (but then I'm just a vocal minority in your world-view and can be safely ignored).



Actually I'm trying to get people to understand what they need to do to convert the crap stuff into good stuff, so their good intentions produce some results. You're telling them to stuff their good intentions where the sun don't shine. That's not how politics works.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> "bicycle traffic had always been a regular component of traffic policy" means they provided lanes and tracks



That's your interpretation but without evidence. Mine is from the sentence that follows it: 

"_Accepting the cyclist as a ‘normal’ traffic participant with equal rights in the ’50s and ’60s has been a crucial factor in these cities."_​_
_Probably the closest to the experiment you are trying to hypothesise was Delft where a pilot project was set up to study the effects of building a complete cycle network. Between 1982 and 1987, 29 m Guilders was spent on putting in a three tier city wide network of a city network (grid spacing ~500m), a district network (2-300m) and a neighbourhood network (~100m). When SMOV evaluated it in 1994 they said the results were:

_"not very positive: bicycle use had not increased, neither had the road safety. A route network of bicycle facilities has, apparently, no added value for bicycle use or road safety"

_​In contrast Groningen concentrated on land use, planning and economic policies instead and saw a big rise in cycling - over 75% of journeys are by cycle or on foot.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> All this data (and especially the British data) is probably riddled with errors, changes in methodology, other things going on that nobody's thought of etc. So the first question you always ask is the null hypothesis - can we reasonably say that anything much has happened? In the case of Manchester the answer is no. Maybe it went up from 3% to 6% if we choose our start point carefully, but probably it stayed much the same. It was at rock bottom and it stayed there. To quote this as a 100% increase is statistically illiterate.
> 
> Whereas what's happened in Amsterdam is clearly a growth trend.



Ah so first dismiss the result of someone who has researched it in detail as riddled with errors even though you've no idea whether that's true or not and then dismiss a 100% increase as statistical illiteracy but call a 25% increase a clearly growing trend. Oh dear, oh dear. A transport consultant from the school of policy based evidence making.


----------



## Dan B (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Actually I'm trying to get people to understand what they need to do to convert the crap stuff into good stuff, so their good intentions produce some results. You're telling them to stuff their good intentions where the sun don't shine. That's not how politics works.



I _would_ describe that as a laudable aim, but I'm honestly now unsure just what you consider "crap", because the inference from your posts on this thread is that you'll put up with almost anything. Are you actually saying you'll put up with almost anything as step 1 if you get to replace it later with something sane in step 2 - and if so, I guess the followup question is "how much later?"


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Actually I'm trying to get people to understand what they need to do to convert the crap stuff into good stuff, so their good intentions produce some results. You're telling them to stuff their good intentions where the sun don't shine. That's not how politics works.



The trouble is we all get left with a pile of pigs ears with not a silk purse amongst them.


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> I _would_ describe that as a laudable aim, but I'm honestly now unsure just what you consider "crap", because the inference from your posts on this thread is that you'll put up with almost anything. Are you actually saying you'll put up with almost anything as step 1 if you get to replace it later with something sane in step 2 - and if so, I guess the followup question is "how much later?"



Crap is discontinuous and too close to fast traffic. You have to achieve a basic level of comfort, otherwise people just don't bother. Just about anything else is tolerable if you get that right (which is not to say that it shouldn't be improved if you can, or ideally, done right in the first place). Then once you've got a viable product, the key is actively discouraging car-use, particularly to city centres. In bigger cities it's probably impractical without major improvements to the bus mode as well.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Probably the closest to the experiment you are trying to hypothesise was Delft where a pilot project was set up to study the effects of building a complete cycle network. Between 1982 and 1987, 29 m Guilders was spent on putting in a three tier city wide network of a city network (grid spacing ~500m), a district network (2-300m) and a neighbourhood network (~100m). When SMOV evaluated it in 1994 they said the results were:
> 
> _"not very positive: bicycle use had not increased, neither had the road safety. A route network of bicycle facilities has, apparently, no added value for bicycle use or road safety"
> _​




Do you have a source for that quote? If I google it, I find it quoted many times, all referencing this SWOV factsheet, which does not contain that quote.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

As Easy As Riding A Bike said:


> From the same report -



That is from a section specifically about cycling to work in rush hour which makes up just 17% of journeys according to the report. To pretend its about cycling in general and why Netherlands cycling is so high is misleading.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> That is from a section specifically about cycling to work in rush hour which makes up just 17% of journeys according to the report. To pretend its about cycling in general and why Netherlands cycling is so high is misleading.



Yes, the Fietsbaraad think cycle paths are only important for people commuting to work, and not, say, for children going to school. 

Whatever mate.


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> That's your interpretation but without evidence. Mine is from the sentence that follows it:
> 
> "_Accepting the cyclist as a ‘normal’ traffic participant with equal rights in the ’50s and ’60s has been a crucial factor in these cities."_​_
> _Probably the closest to the experiment you are trying to hypothesise was Delft where a pilot project was set up to study the effects of building a complete cycle network. Between 1982 and 1987, 29 m Guilders was spent on putting in a three tier city wide network of a city network (grid spacing ~500m), a district network (2-300m) and a neighbourhood network (~100m). When SMOV evaluated it in 1994 they said the results were:
> ...



Delft already had a cycle network, just not a very good one. Improving it didn't make much of a difference (which I think rather supports my view that cycle networks don't need to be perfect, just tolerable to your average punter). Groningen already had a cycle network (quite a good one). Their success was from making the competitive position of the car worse (by dividing the centre into cells, and closing/diverting sections of their inner ring road, amongst many other measures) - much like Oxford, actually. 

Find me a Dutch city with no cycle network and a high level of cycling and I'll take it all back.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

As Easy As Riding A Bike said:


> Do you have a source for that quote? If I google it, I find it quoted many times, all referencing this SWOV factsheet, which does not contain that quote.



Source.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> 1) Door Zone: the door zone is indeed a concept invented by cycle trainers;


That isn't true. When I was learning to drive a car, 33 years ago, my instructor took a lot of trouble to emphasise that I should pass parked cars "one car door's width away". He wasn't a cycle trainer. Of course, it was unnecessary; as a motorcyclist for 3 years before that, I had already had enough experiences of swerving for car doors to learn about that.



Richard Mann said:


> 3) Danger zone at side roads: Another invention of cycle trainers. It's not much of an issue if side roads are slow (these all have 20 limits), and radii are reasonably tight.


There are still occasions where I forget to move out, or can't because of traffic, when approaching side roads, and I can't count the number of times I've had to brake suddenly because a car was approaching the junction too fast, and even in some cases overshot the junction. That is usually when I'm in a cycle lane. Incidentally, I find probably 25% or 30% of motorists block the cycle lane when waiting to turn out of a side road, so I have to negotiate my way out of the cycle lane.



SavageHoutkop said:


> ... no, I think the fact that the lane is there _helps _drivers to be civil. If the lane weren't there you'd probably have idiots driving too far left and not giving enough space to cyclists they're overtaking.


Your experience is very different to mine. I certainly have far more problems with motorists doing stupid things when I am in a cycle lane than when there isn't one there. See the links that I put in this post.



Richard Mann said:


> No - I perfectly respect your world-view as applying to your situation. I'm just refusing to accept that your world-view applies to my situation.





SavageHoutkop said:


> Which, I grant, might not be cyclists like you or other cyclists who have a high average speed, but _certainly_ accounts for the majority of Oxford cyclists.


Cyclists like me? 18 months ago, I was nearly 15 stones in weight, and I though that 8 miles was a big bike ride! To cycle the from Parsley Hay to Ashbourne and back on the Tissington trail was an enormous expedition for me. At 54, I have bad osteo-arthritis in my left hip. 12 months ago when I started commuting by bicycle again, I was always riding cautiously at the side of the road in the gutter as I thought I should be. I experienced so many left hooks that I couldn't count them. On one occasion, in a cycle lane on a left hand bend, I was nearly crushed against a pedestrian fence by an HGV that came up behind me in Farnworth (I actually climbed up the fence to escape).

It was after that last incident that I resolved to read up about how to cycle safely, starting with the Internet, then reading CycleCraft, and looking at Gaz's videos and other stuff. These are personal experiences I'm talking about here, not theories. I don't have quite so many brown trouser moments now, just aggravation from motorists who think I should be in the gutter, especially when there is a crappy cycle lane there. I still do often feel intimidated into using cycle lanes that perhaps I ought not too, particularly over junctions, and that's when I have the remaining scary moments now.

I used to complain that there weren't enough cycle lanes, and that the cycle lanes always seemed to end just where you needed them most, and so on. Now I hate the damn things most of the time. The only places I like them are when there are separate cycle paths adjacent to fast major trunk roads and dual carriageways - like the one by the A59 near Southport.


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

As Easy As Riding A Bike said:


> Do you have a source for that quote? If I google it, I find it quoted many times, all referencing this SWOV factsheet, which does not contain that quote.




Try http://www.eltis.org/docs/studies/DelftRVDF.pdf

Just above the map on page 6 it says "By the time the plans were drawn up around three-quarters of the proposed network was already in place"
The main conclusion was that the increase in cycling (for there was one) plateaued because the city didn't keep doing stuff. Only about 30% modal share. JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!!


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Source.



That paper is in Dutch. Where did you get your translation from? Or can you provide the original Dutch?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Try http://www.eltis.org...s/DelftRVDF.pdf
> 
> Just above the map on page 6 it says "By the time the plans were drawn up around three-quarters of the proposed network was already in place"
> The main conclusion was that the increase in cycling (for there was one) plateaued because the city didn't keep doing stuff. Only about 30% modal share. JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!!



Thanks for that. It is not the same source, but it appears to be written by the same authors, at around the same time. I'll give it a read.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Delft already had a cycle network, just not a very good one. Improving it didn't make much of a difference (which I think rather supports my view that cycle networks don't need to be perfect, just tolerable to your average punter).



You're making this all up aren't you? Why would a network be needed if you've already got one?\

From the Dutch Government's review and evaluation of the Bicycle Master Plan.

_Two high-quality routes outside of the built-up area were also constructed around 1982_
_with government support. The results of these pilot projects corresponded well with the_
_experience gained in The Hague and Tilburg, i.e. a single high-quality and separate bicycle_
_route is apparently insufficient for stimulating more bicycle use and less car use. The_
_conclusion was that a complete network of bicycle routes was needed, one which would_
_need to include a small grid-width within the city. The 1981 report indicated a maximum_
_distancc of 500 m between routes._

_Building on these experiences, a pilot project was set up in Delft (90,000 inhabitants) in_
_order to study the effects of an entire network of bicycle routes. Between 1982 and 1987, a_
_total of 29 million guilders was allocated for carrying out a large number of measures for_
_providing the city with a nearly complete network of bicycle routes consisting of three_
_hierarchically distinguishable subnetworks: the city network (with a grid-width of around_
_500 m), the district network (with a grid-width of 200-300 m) and the neighbourhood_
_network (with a grid-width of around 100 m)._​


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> You're making this all up aren't you? Why would a network be needed if you've already got one?\
> 
> From the Dutch Government's review and evaluation of the Bicycle Master Plan.
> 
> ...



Perhaps you'd like to read this (from a few posts ago):

http://www.eltis.org...s/DelftRVDF.pdf

Just above the map on page 6 it says "By the time the plans were drawn up around three-quarters of the proposed network was already in place"


----------



## Red Light (19 Aug 2011)

Oh look........somebody's shopped us to Copenhagenize. Did you know CC is *"the tiresome rants of members of cycling's secret sect who continue to oppose infrastructure for bicycles * *because it interferes with their testosterone thrill of 'running with the bulls" 

*_


_


----------



## jonesy (19 Aug 2011)

Oh deary indeed! 



> Who cares about the moronic "cyclists". We only need to make sure they get no say, and that everytime they try to publicly open they mouths to spit their nonesense, they are quickly and firmly shut up.



So whenver I point out that the single most frequent cause of conflict with motorists on my journey to work is my non-use of a crappy shared-use pavement, then I must be gagged, silenced, my concerns simply dismissed as tiresome rants? I despair.


----------



## Dan B (19 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Oh look........somebody's shopped us to Copenhagenize. Did you know CC is *"the tiresome rants of members of cycling's secret sect who continue to oppose infrastructure for bicycles * *because it interferes with their testosterone thrill of 'running with the bulls"
> *



Wondering if I should get my avatar subtitle changed to "secret sect member"


----------



## Mad at urage (19 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Actually I'm trying to get people to understand what they need to do to convert the crap stuff into good stuff, so their good intentions produce some results. You're telling them to stuff their good intentions where the sun don't shine. That's not how politics works.


So you admit you are playing at politics.
And inventing stuff to ignore where the hazards of cycling actually come from.


MrHappyCyclist said:


> That isn't true. When I was learning to drive a car, 33 years ago, my instructor took a lot of trouble to emphasise that I should pass parked cars "one car door's width away". He wasn't a cycle trainer. Of course, it was unnecessary; as a motorcyclist for 3 years before that, I had already had enough experiences of swerving for car doors to learn about that.
> 
> 
> There are still occasions where I forget to move out, or can't because of traffic, when approaching side roads, and I can't count the number of times I've had to brake suddenly because a car was approaching the junction too fast, and even in some cases overshot the junction. That is usually when I'm in a cycle lane. Incidentally, I find probably 25% or 30% of motorists block the cycle lane when waiting to turn out of a side road, so I have to negotiate my way out of the cycle lane.
> ...


Richard advocates cycle lanes that increase the risk to cyclists, but it's OK 'cos that _*is*_ how politics works .



1508134 said:


> Just slow motorised traffic. After that do nothing else for, oh let's say a decade, to give time to evaluate stuff before embarking on any course of action that may prove counter-productive.


That's not how politics works apparently.


----------



## Richard Mann (19 Aug 2011)

1508134 said:


> Just slow motorised traffic. After that do nothing else for, oh let's say a decade, to give time to evaluate stuff before embarking on any course of action that may prove counter-productive.



If I had a way of doing that I might try it (but your reason for advocating it isn't really very convincing). 

Your best hope is probably that people like me can change the game so that speed-limiters get imposed, but currently that's not very likely. You need to get a lot of people out of their cars before the culture will change. 

Maybe a campaign to limit anything larger than a private car (SUVs upwards) to 20mph in towns? Divide and conquer!


----------



## jonesy (19 Aug 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> If I had a way of doing that I might try it (but your reason for advocating it isn't really very convincing).
> 
> Your best hope is probably that people like me can change the game so that speed-limiters get imposed, but currently that's not very likely. You need to get a lot of people out of their cars before the culture will change.
> 
> Maybe a campaign to limit anything larger than a private car (SUVs upwards) to 20mph in towns? Divide and conquer!




The way in is probably voluntary Intelligent Speed Adaptation linked to in car data loggers, so those who take it up get better insurance rates than those who don't. The differential will grow rapidly with increased uptake, as those who don't want it will disproportionately be the higher risk takers. Then as people start to see the benefits of restricted speeds on their own roads, acceptance will grow further.


----------



## Richard Mann (19 Aug 2011)

jonesy said:


> So whenever I point out that the single most frequent cause of conflict with motorists on my journey to work is my non-use of a crappy shared-use pavement, then I must be gagged, silenced, my concerns simply dismissed as tiresome rants? I despair.



As Mikael says - keep it positive - work out what's good and talk about that. If what he's saying is bad, just point out that it doesn't work and move on.

BTW the CEoGB's page on the "But it doesn't fit" question is still blank


----------



## Richard Mann (19 Aug 2011)

jonesy said:


> The way in is probably voluntary Intelligent Speed Adaptation linked to in car data loggers, so those who take it up get better insurance rates than those who don't. The differential will grow rapidly with increased uptake, as those who don't want it will disproportionately be the higher risk takers. Then as people start to see the benefits of restricted speeds on their own roads, acceptance will grow further.



Yes (and that's very encouraging) but if it only restricts people to 30mph on urban main roads, then we still have a problem. Measuring acceleration should help, but I'm not sure it's enough.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (19 Aug 2011)

There are some posts that expressed the right idea on Copenhagenize. (Probably already posted here years ago; sorry if so.)


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (19 Aug 2011)

1508145 said:


> I am not reassured. I don't believe that you have fully thought through the consequences of the actions you propose. As matters stand I really do not want you speaking for me on these issues.


+1


----------



## SavageHoutkop (19 Aug 2011)

User said:


> Frankly, seeing what you're advocating so far, I'd much rather that 'people like you' would have enough humility to realise that you don't speak for the majority of cyclists.



er... do we know what the 'majority of cyclists' want? Seeing as the majority is likely, as in most things, to be silent?


----------



## Richard Mann (19 Aug 2011)

1508149 said:


> Well we do know that Richard dismisses any objections as irrelevant ...



That's a gross misrepresentation.


----------



## Red Light (19 Aug 2011)

SavageHoutkop said:


> er... do we know what the 'majority of cyclists' want? Seeing as the majority is likely, as in most things, to be silent?



The general rule is that it is for those that are proposing a change to demonstrate there's real support for it, not others to prove there isn't. So until you can show that the status quo of no facility should stand.

And by real support I don't mean doing a "Do you like motherhood and apple pie?" survey.


----------



## Richard Mann (19 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> The general rule is that it is for those that are proposing a change to demonstrate there's real support for it...



And if democratically-elected highway authorities put it in, and democratically-elected governments put advice out trying to show you how to do it, and fund it? And if all the parties broadly support that?


----------



## Richard Mann (19 Aug 2011)

1508152 said:


> Is it? I must have misunderstood your comment about the 90% disregarding the 10%.
> If that isn't regarding any objections made by those you categorize as being in the 10% group as irrelevant then I can only apologize.



That was after allowing the argument to progress on both sides. That's why it's not "dismissing objections". And I was envisaging some sort of vote, not a decision by one side or the other. We can't move to a vote - we don't have a quorum.


----------



## Richard Mann (19 Aug 2011)

1508155 said:


> The ignoring bit, does it come before or after the voting bit?



After. Unfortunately there's no recognised voting procedure, so the debate continues. 

Oh well, at least Tony knows a bit more about the Delft project now.


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Aug 2011)

jonesy said:


> http://hembrow.blogs...-post.htmlHmmm. I notice his comparator for Oxford Street has a distinct lack of buses. No doubt removing them is a trivial task...


hahahaha

indeed. One imagines Westminster taking on Baron Haussman as transport planner!


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Aug 2011)

I think the outstanding feature of this thread is the simple failure to realise that it's not happening. And when it happens it's an irrelevance*. All those of us who detest separate provision for cycles have to do is to avoid Holland - which is a dump, anyway. So we can relax, and go for a ride. 


*And I'd like to thank Aristotle for that.

And, as an aside, I led a ride of 16 CCers out through Surrey and Sussex yesterday, the route including the following roads....the A3, the A307, the A3(again), the A3100, the A286, the A272, the A29 and the A24. We had a great time.


----------



## benb (22 Aug 2011)

Fame.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpres...rdinary-claims-of-an-anti-infrastructuralist/


----------



## Red Light (22 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> All those of us who detest separate provision for cycles have to do is to avoid Holland - which is a dump, anyway. So we can relax, and go for a ride.



Holland, Bloomsbury and a few other places in London.


----------



## Red Light (22 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Fame.
> http://aseasyasridin...astructuralist/



Good grief. "Please sir, please sir, those horrible people at CycleChat are saying nasty things about me".

I wonder what Richard makes of the blogger's comment 

_"I certainly don’t think we should accept *any* infrastructure; I don’t believe that any infrastructure is better than none."_​


----------



## Shaun (24 Aug 2011)

A good thread - but please let's not spoil it by getting _too_ personal.  

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## HJ (24 Aug 2011)

Britain lacks an real cycling culture and yet the Netherlands has it is spades, now why is that? Here is an example of why road cyclists in the Netherlands have no problem with being 'segregated'. A part of the problem in Britain is the narrow mindedness of the so called cycle campaign groups who fail to look at best practice around the world. Please try and be a wee bit more open minded...


----------



## Mad at urage (24 Aug 2011)

HJ said:


> Britain lacks an real cycling culture and yet the Netherlands has it is spades, now why is that? Here is an example of why road cyclists in the Netherlands have no problem with being 'segregated'. A part of the problem in Britain is the narrow mindedness of the so called cycle campaign groups who fail to look at best practice around the world. Please try and be a wee bit more open minded...


I don't know of any "so called cycle campaign group" which is asking for cyclists to be integrated onto the motorways, do you?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (24 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> I don't know of any "so called cycle campaign group" which is asking for cyclists to be integrated onto the motorways, do you?



Indeed so. We might stop and ask ourselves why, of course.



Red Light said:


> The only cycle facilities I want are ones that give routes not available on the roads.



How dissimilar, in practical terms, are dual carriageways - routes generally available to cyclists - from motorways?


----------



## srw (24 Aug 2011)

HJ said:


> Britain lacks an real cycling culture



Come to London and say that. You might be somewhat out-numbered by cyclists who don't really think they need a culture to ride.



> and yet the Netherlands has it is spades, now why is that? Here is an example of why road cyclists in the Netherlands have no problem with being 'segregated'.



As dellzeqq would say, "show us the map"
(That was entirely a random selection, by the way).


----------



## Dan B (24 Aug 2011)

As Easy As Riding A Bike said:


> How dissimilar, in practical terms, are dual carriageways - routes generally available to cyclists - from motorways?



When they're the only route between A and B, those being the two places one wants to ride between? A circumstance which will almost never apply to motorways, as (correct me if I'm wrong) part of the process for building a motorway is ensuring adequate alternative provision for people who don't/won't/can't use them for whatever reason.

I'm sure you can think of dual carriageways which are motorways in all but name, but it is not axiomatic that all dual carriageways fit that description. Many don't


----------



## Red Light (24 Aug 2011)

HJ said:


> Britain lacks an real cycling culture and yet the Netherlands has it is spades, now why is that?



Because the cycling modal share has never dropped below 20% in the Netherlands over the past century whereas its a percent or two in the UK ?


----------



## srw (24 Aug 2011)

User said:


> To be fair, I think I have used that particular cyclepath (if it's the one I'm thinking of it goes across the Polders alongside a motorway). It's fantastic and typical of the facilities being built alongside some of the newer roads in the netherlands.



I'm a big fan of good-quality facilities where appropriate - but as you suggest they need to be designed in, or (as Sustrans has found) converted from other kinds of transport links.

A couple of weeks ago we were in Scotland. There are two very high quality ex-railway paths going west and north-west from Johnstone, near Glasgow. Near me the Phoenix trail between Princes Risborough and Thame is pretty damned good. All of those seem well used, by everyone from club riders to potterers.

But the panglossian posters who point to a single good example and say "that's what we need everywhere" are deluded.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Aug 2011)

HJ said:


> Britain lacks an real cycling culture and yet the Netherlands has it is spades, now why is that? Here is an example of why road cyclists in the Netherlands have no problem with being 'segregated'. A part of the problem in Britain is the narrow mindedness of the so called cycle campaign groups who fail to look at best practice around the world. Please try and be a wee bit more open minded...


that is just horrible. The case against made in spades


----------



## Tommi (28 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> The general rule is that it is for those that are proposing a change to demonstrate there's real support for it, not others to prove there isn't. So until you can show that the status quo of no facility should stand.


Excuse me? The world wide status quo is that cycle lanes/tracks improve cycling rates and/or safety - see the supporting research.

If you mean "UK style cycle lanes/tracks" or "UK style cycle lanes/track ignoring proper designs" please do say so.



Red Light said:


> So show me the evidence that if you are given £1m a mile to spend that a) cycling is dangerous enough compared other daily activities to need an intervention, b) that the cycle facilities will produce a significant increase in safety and c) they will produce a significant increase in numbers cycling.





Red Light said:


> Second is there is no evidence that cycle lanes attract new people to cycling in any significant numbers.


The research I originally posted supports b) and c) and contradicts your second item - enough to have world wide support. What do you know the rest of the world doesn't? Care to share the research? Would you also mind explaining why the rest of the world is wrong?



Red Light said:


> They spent a lot of money* putting in 320km of cycle network in Dublin but it resulted in a fall in cycling. On the other hand the investment in the DublinBikes share bike scheme led to a big increase in cycling


(You said elsewhere building the cycle network caused "drop in cycling of 15% in commuters and 40% in school students" but "Dublin Canal Cordon Counts" does not support that claim. For one it does not distinguish between commuters and school students. So let me ask again, source?)

Funny place that Dublin.

Before they started building the cycle network cycling count was already declining. Oddly, after they started building it in 1997 the decline slowed down noticeably (source: 1988-2003 1997-2010 (pdf)):







According to Wikipedia DublinBikes started in 13 September 2009 and yet the Cordon Counts show increase in cycling already from 2004 onwards, year after the cycle network (as originally laid out I presume) completed. Strangely enough the first drop in counts since then was between 2009-10 right after DublinBikes started which directly contradicts your claim. Did you mean to provide some other source? Since the counts are made in November it's unlikely DublinBikes related construction work can be blamed either.

Admittedly year 2004 is bit of a mystery, but I'm sure you can point me to solid _evidence_ how the cycle network had _no_ role here whatsoever and it's _all_ because of Bikeability or somesuch.

Couldn't find the "Dublin Transport Initiative 1995" document since all I get is the one for 2011-17 which shows continued development of the strategic cycle network. Strange that. You really should tell them how they'd get much more people cycling safely if they just stopped building all those cycle lanes and tracks.



Red Light said:


> Cyclists cycling against the traffic flow on a two way cycle lane have a 12.4x (Sweden), 10x (Finland) increased collision risk compared to on the road and 3.4x (Sweden) and 4x (Denmark) higher risk in the with traffic direction.


The Räsänen papers you cited make no mention of Sweden or Denmark or otherwise make such comparisons. Want to try again?


----------



## Tommi (28 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> At the price of giving way to motor vehicles at every junction? No we are not. Cycling is in any case a safe activity compared to other everyday activities such as walking, so why on earth should we be?


Keep in mind the original topic was to counter the tiresome "cycle lanes/tracks do not increase cycling and/or safety" argument. World wide research supports they do.

Cycling may be safe but it is perceived not to be. If infrastructure makes people feel safer and start cycling (again, supported by research) why on earth would you be against it? Compulsory use of cycle lanes/tracks is a separate discussion. Until it becomes relevant you should feel free to ride like a car.



Richard Mann said:


> Delft already had a cycle network, just not a very good one. Improving it didn't make much of a difference.


Evaluation of the Delft project plan I included in OP came to conclusion it did make a significant difference.


----------



## Tommi (28 Aug 2011)

1508179 said:


> It would be a shame if we were ever to loose sight of this part of your thinking about anyone who doesn't agree with you.


Sorry, but I can't help but feel "tiresome" when all the supposedly supporting evidence how cycle lanes/tracks _never_ increase cycling or safety turn out to be false. Also, I would very much like to see someone explain why the rest of the world is wrong.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (29 Aug 2011)

1508179 said:


> It would be a shame if we were ever to lose sight of this part of your thinking about anyone who doesn't agree with you.




Ah yes, Tommi finds anyone who doesn't agree with him "tiresome". 

But before you make that entry in your log book of "Naughty Tommi's Bad Thoughts", perhaps you should refer back to what he wrote, where you will notice that he was in fact referring to one particular argument - and not to "anyone" who disagreed with him - as tiresome.

This would, of course, have been apparent if you had quoted his entire sentence, rather than selectively taking one word from it.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Aug 2011)

the 'rest of the world' is neither wrong nor right. Cycle 'facilities' exist in some cities and not in others. They may or may not make a difference (my suspicion is that sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, and my direct experience in Milton Keynes suggests that they don't more often than they do). The problem, dear Tommi, is 

- it's not going to happen in the UK because nobody wants them
- it's not going to happen in the UK because nobody wants to pay for them

which is a good thing, because the slicing up of public space is an abomination, as any number of handy illustrations from ghastly places like Groningen testify. To be absolutely clear - I don't want them at any price, ever, anywhere near me, and I would fall down on Lambeth Council like a tonne of bricks if they ever suggested putting this crap in.


Next!


----------



## User169 (29 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> Evaluation of the Delft project plan I included in OP came to conclusion it did make a significant difference.



40 to 43 percent growth in modal-share in the test area against 38 to 39 percent growth in the control area. Is that really "significant", given the monumental costs?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (29 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> The problem, dear Tommi, is
> 
> - it's not going to happen in the UK because nobody wants them
> - it's not going to happen in the UK because nobody wants to pay for them
> ...



How does your antipathy to the "slicing up of public space" translate when we address busy roads like, for instance, Euston Road?

Would you propose removing the pavements along here? Would you suggest that all transport mode users mingle on it?


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Aug 2011)

As Easy As Riding A Bike said:


> How does your antipathy to the "slicing up of public space" translate when we address busy roads like, for instance, Euston Road?
> 
> Would you propose removing the pavements along here? Would you suggest that all transport mode users mingle on it?


now we're getting somewhere!


----------



## Red Light (29 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> Excuse me? The world wide status quo is that cycle lanes/tracks improve cycling rates and/or safety - see the supporting research.
> 
> If you mean "UK style cycle lanes/tracks" or "UK style cycle lanes/track ignoring proper designs" please do say so.
> 
> ...



I don't have the time or energy to go through your "research" pointing out why each paper is not what you think it is or is just a statement of opinion. I did the first two or three just to demonstrate the point but the majority of the rest are not what you are claiming them to be.






> (You said elsewhere building the cycle network caused "drop in cycling of 15% in commuters and 40% in school students" but "Dublin Canal Cordon Counts" does not support that claim. For one it does not distinguish between commuters and school students. So let me ask again, source?)
> 
> Funny place that Dublin.
> 
> Before they started building the cycle network cycling count was already declining. Oddly, after they started building it in 1997 the decline slowed down noticeably (source: 1988-2003 1997-2010 (pdf)):



Good link that first one. Here are a couple of extracts:


* 01/03/04 Cyclists reject Department of Transport's claims*
The Galway Cycle Campaign has a issued a 12 page letter of rebuttal to the Minister of Transport in the latest instalment in a six year old row over Government policy. The latest exchange was sparked by last year's vote to reject the use of roadside cycle-tracks by the Galway City Community Forum, which represents 90 community and voluntary organisations. It was the serious safety problems associated with cycle tracks that prompted their rejection by the Forum. In reply, the Minister's office has made various claims: Including claims regarding the intent of the government's much criticised "cycle facilities design guidelines" and also a claim that segregated cycle tracks are the most effective means to encourage more cycling. In response, the Galway Cycling Campaign have highlighted the ongoing failure of the minister's office to acknowledge or address the appalling safety record of roadside cycle tracks. The GCC have pointed out to the minister that Irish cyclists are having their lives and property endangered by cycle track/cycle lanes that demonstrably flout basic safety principles. The view is put that the activities of the officials who created this situation are a national disgrace and constitute a national scandal. 






*17/02/04 Cycle Campaigners renew call for "cycle track network" plans to be scrapped as Dublin figures show 16% drop in cyclists.*


The Galway Cycle Campaign have renewed their call for the scrapping of plans for "cycle track networks" in Irish towns. The call comes in the wake of the revelation of a 16% drop in the number cyclists crossing the "Dublin Inner Canal Cordon" since 1997. This decline coincided with the construction of 320km of "Strategic Cycle Network" in Dublin. It had been claimed this would "double" cycle use over a five-year period. The apparent failure of the Dublin Strategic Cycle network mimics the failure of similar efforts elsewhere. From the mid-1980's the Netherlands spent the equivalent of IRP 600 million (EU 760 million) on extending their cycle path network. In 1995, it was found that these works had not resulted in any significant increase in cycling levels. 







> According to Wikipedia DublinBikes started in 13 September 2009 and yet the Cordon Counts show increase in cycling already from 2004 onwards, year after the cycle network (as originally laid out I presume) completed. Strangely enough the first drop in counts since then was between 2009-10 right after DublinBikes started which directly contradicts your claim. Did you mean to provide some other source? Since the counts are made in November it's unlikely DublinBikes related construction work can be blamed either.



2004 on corresponded to the Irish Tiger Economy 2 which came to a halt in 2008 and started to collapse in 2009. The boom was associated with a population and traffic growth in Dublin and infamous traffic gridlock. Which is why cycle, pedestrian, motor traffic and particularly bike, bus and taxi traffic increased over that exact same period. I doubt you would claim the similar increases in bus and taxi traffic starting at exactly the same time were down to the completion of the cycle network. In any case half the network had been completed by the end of 2000 so why did the effect you are claiming not start until 2 years after it was finished?

DublinBikes has had 2.2 million journeys since it was started with over 6,000 journeys a day on 550 bikes last month.





> Couldn't find the "Dublin Transport Initiative 1995" document since all I get is the one for 2011-17 which shows continued development of the strategic cycle network. Strange that. You really should tell them how they'd get much more people cycling safely if they just stopped building all those cycle lanes and tracks.



Its not my job to tell the Irish what to do and there is no need because the Irish are telling their government that anyway (see the two above quotes on safety and success above and the infrastructure policy of the Dublin Cycling Campaign).


----------



## Tommi (29 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I don't have the time or energy to go through your "research" pointing out why each paper is not what you think it is or is just a statement of opinion.


Ah, ok. In that case everyone can skip reading any "research" _you_ pick because it'll obviously not be what you think it is or is just a statement of opinion. Very nice of you to admit you have no evidence to support your claims.



Red Light said:


> 2004 on corresponded to the Irish Tiger Economy 2 which came to a halt in 2008 and started to collapse in 2009. The boom was associated with a population and traffic growth in Dublin and infamous traffic gridlock. Which is why cycle, pedestrian, motor traffic and particularly bike, bus and taxi traffic increased over that exact same period.


Source? Evidence for causality?



Red Light said:


> In any case half the network had been completed by the end of 2000 so why did the effect you are claiming not start until 2 years after it was finished?


Are you intentionally ignoring the part showing the commencement of the cycle network in 1997 is followed by significant positive impact on cycling counts trend, or did you have problems viewing the image?



Red Light said:


> DublinBikes has had 2.2 million journeys since it was started with over 6,000 journeys a day on 550 bikes last month.


That's all very interesting and yet the Cordon Counts you brought up as source show significant drop. Where's the evidence DublinBikes caused any increase in cycling at all, rather than getting people already cycling switch their bikes to DublinBikes? Where's the evidence the now completed cycle network plays no role in any of this?



Red Light said:


> Its not my job to tell the Irish what to do and there is no need because the Irish are telling their government that anyway (see the two above quotes on safety and success above and the infrastructure policy of the Dublin Cycling Campaign).
> [..]
> *01/03/04 Cyclists reject Department of Transport's claims*
> 
> *17/02/04 Cycle Campaigners renew call for "cycle track network" plans to be scrapped as Dublin figures show 16% drop in cyclists.*


Ah, another opinion. Or did you mean to link to some evidence proving causality? Greater Dublin Area Draft Transport Strategy *2011-2030* (do note the years) has another opinion and that is to continue to develop the cycle lanes and tracks and the network. Just like the one for 2003-2010 or so when cycling counts were increasing (you did have evidence to prove the cycle network had nothing to do with it?) And just like in the rest of the world also seeing increase in cycling, how weird. Oh, and according to Dublin Cycling Campaign Infrastructure position document they're also supporting cycle lanes and the cycle network:



Dublin Cycling Campaign Infrastructure position document said:


> Cycle lanes (on-street) are a useful measure provided that they improve safety, priority, directness or comfort for cyclists without compromising any of these. Cycle lanes must be constructed to international best practice. DCC calls for an end to the construction of any more substandard cycle lanes
> [..]
> 
> Routes must be assessed as whole routes, not as bits. A short stretch of cycle lane is, as a rule, useless. We To be safe, cyclists need a coherent design applied to such facilities.


So far I have not yet seen any evidence to support the claim _not_ having cycle lanes or tracks causes bigger increase in cycling and safety than having them. Admittedly it's been a long thread so I may have missed some references, but given how you make it sound obvious there should be abundant research to support your claims. Am I right? Given the details you keep mentioning you've clearly researched all about it so you should have little trouble presenting your findings with supporting research.


----------



## Tommi (29 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> The problem, dear Tommi, is
> 
> - it's not going to happen in the UK because nobody wants them


LCC wants them. Please educate me, has LCC always been "nobody" or is that recent development?



dellzeqq said:


> - it's not going to happen in the UK because nobody wants to pay for them


Given the option I'd be thrilled have my taxes spent on cycling infrastructure rather than motor traffic, so "nobody" is patently false. And I'd hazard a guess people from CEoGB would agree. Care to rephrase?



dellzeqq said:


> which is a good thing, because the slicing up of public space is an abomination, as any number of handy illustrations from ghastly places like Groningen testify.


I recall elsewhere you called separated cycling infrastructure "barbaric". Would you happen to have any research or polls or anything to show people really do find separated cycling infrastructure as barbaric and that it's not only your opinion?

Anyway, as you said "sometimes they [cycle lanes/tracks] do [make a [positive] difference] and sometimes they don't" (please excuse my quotation) it seems we agree the argument "there is no evidence cycle lanes/tracks increase cycling and/or safety" I started this thread for is false, and the arguments you have are for separate discussion.


----------



## Tommi (29 Aug 2011)

1508191 said:


> Tommi you have missed this question. Do we have the space in our country to build an entire separate network?


I saw that, but as I started the thread to address the tiresome "there is no evidence cycle lanes/tracks increase cycling and/or safety" argument that's not exactly on topic.

IIRC A view from the cycle path has several posts about your question. If you want to discuss them I'd appreciate doing it in different thread. (I've grown rather effective in mentally separating off-topic posts so I have this (false?) impression this one is still on topic...)


----------



## Red Light (30 Aug 2011)

To stay within the quote block limits I have had to group your points. Can you please step away from the tsunami response mode in future and try and limit yourself to the most pertinent points?



Tommi said:


> 1. Ah, ok. In that case everyone can skip reading any "research" _you_ pick because it'll obviously not be what you think it is or is just a statement of opinion. Very nice of you to admit you have no evidence to support your claims.
> 
> 2. Source? Evidence for causality?
> 
> 3. Are you intentionally ignoring the part showing the commencement of the cycle network in 1997 is followed by significant positive impact on cycling counts trend, or did you have problems viewing the image?



1. Please stop selective quoting to twist what I say into something you can rubbish. I said I don't have time to go through all of them but picked the first two and a third as examples they were not what you claimed them to be. Perhaps you could come back on those ones specifically rather than distorting what I said. Or pick out your three best shots from the "research" you presented rather than trying to hid all the shortcomings in a tidal wave of information.

2. The source is the pdf you linked to showing identical upward trends in all modes of transport - cycling, walking, bus, taxi, motorbike, motor car - except HGVs which were banned from Dublin's centre from the beginning of 2007. Are you claiming that was coincidence or were they all caused by the completion of the cycle network two years earlier?

3. Ah the politicians ploy. When things are going south claim there was a decrease in the rate of decline and herald it as a victory. Is that what you are claiming, that building 320km of cycle tracks will slow the rate of decline of cycling by a percentage point or two. What happened to all those would be cyclists who are going to cycle if only they had a safe place to cycle away from the traffic?



> 4. That's all very interesting and yet the Cordon Counts you brought up as source show significant drop. Where's the evidence DublinBikes caused any increase in cycling at all, rather than getting people already cycling switch their bikes to DublinBikes? Where's the evidence the now completed cycle network plays no role in any of this?
> 
> 5. Ah, another opinion. Or did you mean to link to some evidence proving causality?
> 
> 6. Greater Dublin Area Draft Transport Strategy *2011-2030* (do note the years) has another opinion and that is to continue to develop the cycle lanes and tracks and the network.



4. In a user survey 56% had switched from other transport modes for a journey while 7% had switched from using their own bikes. The balance were making new or different journeys. So well over half the journeys were new cyclist journeys. How do I know the cycle network played no role? Well it was there before and after yet none of those people that started cycling because of the Dublinbikes had bothered to cycle on their own bikes previously.

5. No, they were extracts from the link you provided. Not sure what you were providing the link for but that's what it said.

6. Yes, the politicians who thought it was a good idea in the first place are not deterred by the evidence that it wasn't and press on regardless. Now why am I not surprised?



> 7. Oh, and according to Dublin Cycling Campaign Infrastructure position document they're also supporting cycle lanes and the cycle network:
> 
> 8. So far I have not yet seen any evidence to support the claim _not_ having cycle lanes or tracks causes bigger increase in cycling and safety than having them. Admittedly it's been a long thread so I may have missed some references, but given how you make it sound obvious there should be abundant research to support your claims. Am I right? Given the details you keep mentioning you've clearly researched all about it so you should have little trouble presenting your findings with supporting research.



7. You missed the bit ". DCC calls for an end to the construction of any more substandard cycle lanes: All substandard cycle lanes should be removed: such "facilities" are worse than nothing, and often put cyclists at increased risk of collision with a vehicle due to inadequate safe separation distances. Worse still none of these substandard facilities are 'flagged' by their designers as being unsafe so most cyclists are totally unaware of the risk of collision and injury and death in using them. Riders are lulled into a false sense of security. DCC calls on the DTO and local authorities to dismantle all existing unsafe and substandard cycle lanes."

8. Ah back to another trick of shifting the burden of proof. We are not talking about other measures, we are talking about your proposed methods. You are proposing we spend £1m/mile on cycle tracks of a quality that has not been so far achieved in practice anywhere in the UK and Ireland over some 70 years. It is up to you to demonstrate that it will lead to significant increases in cycling, not some minor slow down in the rate of fall, if such large sums of money are to be spent.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> LCC wants them. Please educate me, has LCC always been "nobody" or is that recent development?


wrong - setting aside their current spasm on Blackfirars Bridge they've moved on (except for the Camden lot, who are fruitcakes)



Tommi said:


> Anyway, as you said "sometimes they [cycle lanes/tracks] do [make a [positive] difference] and sometimes they don't" (please excuse my quotation) it seems we agree the argument "there is no evidence cycle lanes/tracks increase cycling and/or safety" I started this thread for is false, and the arguments you have are for separate discussion.


I'm not going to excuse your selective quotation. And I simply don't believe that separate lanes increase safety. And further I don't care. I just don't want them. And I'm happy to say we won't be getting them. So all is well.

And...........barbaric. Yes. I'll stick with that. Barbarism of a particularly delicate and suburban kind, but, nonetheless.......count the barriers between the front door on the left of the picture and the front door on the right of the picture. Are these people neighbours? Or are they simply receptacles in to which transport consultants pour their wisdom?


----------



## Red Light (30 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> (except for the Camden lot, who are fruitcakes)



"But please sir, it wasn't our fault sir, it was the others what did it sir."

(Note the very high cycle usage in the photos and the self congratulatory back slapping in the comments on a job well done)


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> "But please sir, it wasn't our fault sir, it was the others what did it sir."
> 
> (Note the very high cycle usage in the photos and the self congratulatory back slapping in the comments on a job well done)


 reading half of that stuff almost killed me.........YOU OWE ME A DRINK


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (30 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> wrong - setting aside their current spasm on Blackfirars Bridge they've moved on (except for the Camden lot, who are fruitcakes)



http://lcc.org.uk/pages/2012-mayoral-election


----------



## Red Light (30 Aug 2011)

As Easy As Riding A Bike said:


> http://lcc.org.uk/pa...ayoral-election



The most hilarious bit about that is if you go to the Go Dutch winner page the proposal to "clear space for cycling on main roads in every borough" is illustrated with a pavement cycle track with no cyclists but the obligatory pedestrian walking in it.

Go Dutch


----------



## stowie (30 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> wrong - setting aside their current spasm on Blackfirars Bridge they've moved on (except for the Camden lot, who are fruitcakes)
> 
> I'm not going to excuse your selective quotation. And I simply don't believe that separate lanes increase safety. And further I don't care. I just don't want them. And I'm happy to say we won't be getting them. So all is well.
> 
> And...........barbaric. Yes. I'll stick with that. Barbarism of a particularly delicate and suburban kind, but, nonetheless.......count the barriers between the front door on the left of the picture and the front door on the right of the picture. Are these people neighbours? Or are they simply receptacles in to which transport consultants pour their wisdom?



In your own words then Dell - show me the drawing. What would your version of this street look like? I know what this would look like in the UK with our planners - that cycle path would be converted to car use.

We can all argue over whether space should be dedicated to cycle use, or for something else. But at the moment, available space is almost solely dedicated to car use which fractures the public space more than any cycle provision could. And I cannot really see it changing in the near future. Sure, some "shared space" will be created as this appears to be the latest fashion (but does it _really _work outside some very specific scenarios?) , some gyratorys may be converted back to 2 way operation. But ultimately our public spaces are still dedicated to car usage.

Outside some specific needs (such as providing permeability) widescale cycle lane provision _shouldn't_ be required. Indeed, in my extensive travels around the Nordic region, I note that most town centres haven't got cycle provision, they have simply removed the car (or at least reduced the accessibility of the centre for them). Cycle provision falls out naturally from the space along with much improved pedestrian environment.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (30 Aug 2011)

stowie said:


> Outside some specific needs (such as providing permeability) widescale cycle lane provision _shouldn't_ be required. Indeed, in my extensive travels around the Nordic region, I note that most town centres haven't got cycle provision, they have simply removed the car (or at least reduced the accessibility of the centre for them). Cycle provision falls out naturally from the space along with much improved pedestrian environment.


I think you answered your own question in your last paragraph.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Aug 2011)

stowie said:


> In your own words then Dell - show me the drawing. What would your version of this street look like?


like the standard suburban street. I think the carriageway is 24 feet wide, but I might be out of date. Sufficient carriageway space for cars to park on both sides and for two cars to pass each other in opposite directions.

If there's a problem with rat-running, barrier at one end to make a home zone. Cheap and cheerful.

so - to take the examples provided by David Hembrow - 

English street - fine and dandy (not keen on the islands)





Dutch street (despite being wider) - nasty


----------



## stowie (30 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> like the standard suburban street. I think the carriageway is 24 feet wide, but I might be out of date. Sufficient carriageway space for cars to park on both sides and for two cars to pass each other in opposite directions.
> 
> If there's a problem with rat-running, barrier at one end to make a home zone. Cheap and cheerful.
> 
> ...



As a pedestrian or resident, I cannot see how either would be different from each other. Large road space dividing up either side of the street. I might even prefer the latter picture since the narrower car space may reduce car speeds. As a cyclist, the pinch point islands are just horrible - especially in suburban roads such as these where average car speeds tend to exceed 30 mph.

And I simply cannot see the aesthetic merit of a wide piece of tarmac with occasional pedestrian island and legions of hatchings any more that I see the aesthetic merit of a cycle-lane and no hatchings.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Aug 2011)

it's not about the looks of the thing - it's about the central message. The Dutch example is about function - the function of the road is to convey people from A to B. Like you I don't like the islands, but the English example is less functional. And, yes, come the day that people leave their cars at home I'll be as happy as Larry, but, in the interim, simply putting a gate across one end of the street, allowing pedestrians and bikes through would enhance neigbourliness rather than - as in the Dutch example - diminish it. For (I'm guessing) one hundredth of the cost.

I don't have a problem with the breadth of tarmac - I simply have a problem with cars going along that tarmac at speeds that make walking, or playing football or cricket on it hazardous. 

The funny thing about the Dutch cycling strategy is that it is also a strategy for the making car travel very convenient - hence the ghastly roundabout plan somebody showed us a little while ago


----------



## Red Light (30 Aug 2011)

stowie said:


> In your own words then Dell - show me the drawing. What would your version of this street look like? I know what this would look like in the UK with our planners - that cycle path would be converted to car use.



Since its clearly a residential street I would remove the cycle lanes and road markings, put all the parking at an angle on one side of the street and leave the rest as a shared space with a 20mph limit in which residents and children can mix and motor vehicles are guests.


----------



## TheJollyJimLad (30 Aug 2011)

The top photo is the A19 into York, so like many approach roads into towns and cities will carry a 40mph limit.

The bottom one is on the outskirts of s-Hertogenbosch, again serving the same function but with a 50kph limit.

Red Light - what you've described is pretty much exactly what the Dutch would use for Woonerfs (a catchphrase that the IAM seem to have latched on to but misrepresented). CROW has lots of drawings on that. 

Dell - You can't call them 'Islands' or 'Pinch Points' but latest CouncilSpeak is 'pedestrian build outs'. And I bet cycling into the centre of that Dutch town is less of a pain than driving.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Aug 2011)

TheJollyJimLad said:


> The top photo is the A19 into York, so like many approach roads into towns and cities will carry a 40mph limit.
> 
> The bottom one is on the outskirts of s-Hertogenbosch, again serving the same function but with a 50kph limit.
> 
> ...


sorry. We do have some pedestrian build-outs from the footpath round here, and they are a bit of a menace to cyclists (although they're doubtless a boon to pedestrians) - but that's the first I've heard of islands being called 'pedestrian build-outs'. 

I didn't recognise it as the A19 which I think of as part of my LJoG. As it happens it's a nice road to ride down. Islands (sorry, Pedestrian Pinch Points) notwithstanding.


----------



## TheJollyJimLad (30 Aug 2011)

I first encountered 'pedestrian build outs' when corrected by Councillors at a local Cycle Campaign meeting when I was talking about pinch points.

I referred to Steve Coogan in 'The Day Today' when stating that this new term was created by people that have an 'Armitage Shanks Defecation Interface Scenario', as opposed to taking a sh*t

They agreed.


----------



## theclaud (30 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> sorry. We do have some pedestrian build-outs from the footpath round here, and they are a bit of a menace to cyclists (although *they're doubtless a boon to pedestrians*) - but that's the first I've heard of islands being called 'pedestrian build-outs'.



That's a "yes and no" thing, isn't it? They make it easier to cross at times, but it's sort of inherently insulting to maroon pedestrians in the middle of the road. I think I've heard them described as "refuges" before, which speaks volumes...


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Aug 2011)

I take your point entirely. I suppose, in the absence of a sensible regime, they're a help.


----------



## Mad at urage (30 Aug 2011)

Hang on - aren't 'refuges' the 'traffic islands' and 'pedestrian build-outs' should thus be 'traffic peninsulas'?


Edit - and does that mean the British equivalent of 'jaywalkers' are 'refugees' ?


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Hang on - aren't 'refuges' the 'traffic islands' and 'pedestrian build-outs' should thus be 'traffic peninsulas'?
> 
> 
> Edit - and does that mean the British equivalent of 'jaywalkers' are 'refugees' ?


(runs screaming from room thinking, for some reason, of roundabouts and Logan's Run http://www.youtube.c...h?v=xSnLU9nyFSA )

(actually there's something very Dutch and Cavinist about the Carousel of Death)


----------

