# Make Cyclelanes Work Petition



## downfader (7 Aug 2011)

As a counter to some of the stupid e-petitions I'll be setting up a couple of my own in counter. The aim is to keep them simple, if we add in too many idealogies there is a chance someone might not sign due to disagreeing with one or two points.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/3531

Effectively all this does is call for authorities to remove some of the hazards, debris, and stop-start nature of some routes. Twitter-it, facebook-it, put it on other forums you use, be my guest.


----------



## downfader (7 Aug 2011)

1498110 said:


> Sorry Downfader, make cycle-lanes history and assert your right to the road.




A debate thats been had ad infinitum, the point is they can work in places, you're right it should never have come down to it but with so many against us we may still be able to bend positive change that encourages new people into cycling. As it stands newbies wont last long, and dont last long when their tyres get shredded or they are unnecessarily inconvenienced.


----------



## Red Light (7 Aug 2011)

downfader said:


> ......but with so many against us we may still be able to bend positive change that encourages new people into cycling.



I have been able to find very little evidence that they do encourage people into cycling. Do you have any?


----------



## downfader (7 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I have been able to find very little evidence that they do encourage people into cycling. Do you have any?




Only the ocassional comment in the local paper's letters along the lines "I would cycle but..." Most of the time it doesn't make it on to the website. 

However good segregation is key to how things work abroad (Netherlands, Switzerland, parts of Germany and Belgium, etc)

Lets face facts: we've not increase cycling massively on a national level past the 2% of all traffic we still represent. To increase cycling something needs to happen that is comfortable and convenient.


----------



## JonnyBlade (7 Aug 2011)

downfader said:


> As a counter to some of the stupid e-petitions I'll be setting up a couple of my own in counter. The aim is to keep them simple, if we add in too many idealogies there is a chance someone might not sign due to disagreeing with one or two points.
> 
> http://epetitions.di.../petitions/3531
> 
> Effectively all this does is call for authorities to remove some of the hazards, debris, and stop-start nature of some routes. Twitter-it, facebook-it, put it on other forums you use, be my guest.



Tweeted and on Facebook


----------



## Red Light (7 Aug 2011)

downfader said:


> Only the ocassional comment in the local paper's letters along the lines "I would cycle but..." Most of the time it doesn't make it on to the website.
> 
> However good segregation is key to how things work abroad (Netherlands, Switzerland, parts of Germany and Belgium, etc)
> 
> Lets face facts: we've not increase cycling massively on a national level past the 2% of all traffic we still represent. To increase cycling something needs to happen that is comfortable and convenient.



That sounds like the "something must be done and this is something" fallacy. As I repeat, there is no evidence I could find that they actually increases cycling. For example Dublin build a 320km "strategic cycle network" to encourage people to start cycling. The result was cycle levels fell. The recent introduction of their Boris Bike equivalent, Dublinbikes, has had a far greater impact. Meanwhile London has built very few but cycling has doubled.

So unless you can find evidence that it will do what you hope, public money should not be wasted on them.

The Netherlands etc is far more complex that cycle facilities and their period of building cycle facilities saw no increase in cycling.


----------



## Tommi (7 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> That sounds like the "something must be done and this is something" fallacy. As I repeat, there is no evidence I could find that they actually increases cycling.


FWIW I saw a US study which concluded "Higher levels of bicycle infrastructure are positively and significantly correlated with higher rates of bicycle commuting." (pdf) and "The strongest and most significant correlation was with the number of Type 2 bike lanes per square mile"

*EDIT:* found even a newer one via citations: "[url="http://www.springerlink.com/content/n822p50241p66113/"]confirm that cities with a greater supply of bike paths and lanes have significantly higher bike commute rates[/url]" (haven't read myself yet)


----------



## gaz (8 Aug 2011)

If you look at the superhighways, then clear and continues routes do = an increase in cycling. However the quality of them is debatable.


----------



## Tommi (8 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> If you look at the superhighways, then clear and continues routes do = an increase in cycling. However the quality of them is debatable.


IIRC the question that gets raised and doesn't really get answered until years later is that do superhighways increase the number of people cycling, or does the number stay the same and they just migrate to the new route.


----------



## downfader (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> That sounds like the "something must be done and this is something" fallacy. As I repeat, there is no evidence I could find that they actually increases cycling. For example Dublin build a 320km "strategic cycle network" to encourage people to start cycling. The result was cycle levels fell. The recent introduction of their Boris Bike equivalent, Dublinbikes, has had a far greater impact. Meanwhile London has built very few but cycling has doubled.
> 
> So unless you can find evidence that it will do what you hope, public money should not be wasted on them.
> 
> The Netherlands etc is far more complex that cycle facilities and their period of building cycle facilities saw no increase in cycling.




Did Dublin's cycle infrastructure _go somewhere? _Did it put cyclists in the gutter, or separate them from motor traffic giving them priority to turning traffic? 

And its also debatable that London's numbers increased. It depends on which study you read. One suggests that the same cyclists are simply riding more often and there is no actual increase.

The numbers of cyclists in the Netherlands is probably a moot point. The point really is that the cycle infrastructure works and isnt littered with glass, etc.


----------



## gaz (8 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> IIRC the question that gets raised and doesn't really get answered until years later is that do superhighways increase the number of people cycling, or does the number stay the same and they just migrate to the new route.



I've questioned that my self in the past. It's such a hard thing to measure.

CS7 runs along the A24 and parallel to that is the A23. They meet by Oval but the numbers on the A23 are far from dropping.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> FWIW I saw a US study which concluded "Higher levels of bicycle infrastructure are positively and significantly correlated with higher rates of bicycle commuting." (pdf) and "The strongest and most significant correlation was with the number of Type 2 bike lanes per square mile"
> 
> *EDIT:* found even a newer one via citations: "confirm that cities with a greater supply of bike paths and lanes have significantly higher bike commute rates" (haven't read myself yet)



Two points to raise apart from the two papers you quote coming to different conclusions off similar data sets

They look at levels of commuter cycling in a city and compare it with the number of bike lanes and find a positive correlation. But as they say of their conclusions "People may be commuting by bicycle more because
there are more lanes and paths. Alternatively, because people are commuting by bicycle, the city is building more
bike lanes and paths."

The second is what correlation they find is for Type 2 (on-road bike lanes) not Type 1 (segregated lanes or share use sidewalks). 

The problem with these types of study is they cannot tell which caused what which is why the changes over time papers are the most useful. So they look at what happened to cycling levels when facilities were built and they show no significant change. So there was a fall in cycling when Dublin built its network, no change when the Netherlands built their network, no change when Germany built its network and no change when the Danes built their network. The flagship Delft cycle route project assessment found "A route network of bicycle facilities has, apparently, no added value for bicycle use or road safety"

In the UK too the experiment has been done with new towns built with a completely segregated cycle network designed in from the beginning. Stevenage, Milton Keynes and East Kilbride cycle networks are almost deserted with very low commuter cycling levels.

About the only such study showing an increase was a Danish one doing a very detailed before and after study of the construction of cycle facilities including "route shifting" i.e people switching from other routes to use a facility. They found a 5-7% increase in cycling (cycle lanes) and 18-20% (cycle tracks) but a 10-15% increase in injury rates. Other measures have a far greater effect than that if you want to increase cycling. For example while building the cycle commuting network in Dublin led to a fall in cycling, the Dublinbikes bike share scheme has been a runaway success in getting people to cycle. Boris Bikes are doing the same thing with many new cyclists going on to buy their own bike for commuting.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

downfader said:


> Did Dublin's cycle infrastructure _go somewhere? _



Yes, it was built specifically to provide commuting cycling corridors from outer dormitory areas of the city to the inner commercial area of the city.


----------



## Riverman (8 Aug 2011)

The majority of cyclelanes I've cycled on are dangerous to be honest. They're an invitation for cyclists to go faster on what are often pavements (shared use etc). I was beeped once by a lorry for not using the bloody things. We should all ask the bastards who park their vehicles in them whether they would park in the middle of a road?

The biggest problem with them though IMO are that's very difficult to make them continuous, so you may as well be on the road and that lack of continuity again makes them dangerous.

Dan do you live in Southampton? You'll know what I mean. Take that cycle path near Ikea, a complete lack of continuity on it, I'm left wondering if it's legal to even cycle on parts of it, this bit looks a bit dangerous for pedestrians too.

Also take the avenue. If they just narrowed the road a bit you could put a cycle-lane all the way up it.


----------



## StuartG (8 Aug 2011)

You may be both right. Improved cycling infrastructure alone will not cause modal shift from cars. The evidence points towards only reduced motoring infrastructure/pricing will cause people to leave their cars.

That done - then a good cycling infrastructure gives the 'dispossessed' a real choice between cycling and public transport.

It has to be a two pronged strategy for success. In pragmatic terms one may need to support each prong individually. In political terms 'pro-cycling, anti-car' combination is not going to win us too many much needed friends.


----------



## StuartG (8 Aug 2011)

Just gone to the ePetition and shocked (perhaps not expectantly) that cut fuel duty has come from nowhere to No 1 - pushing aside the even more unexpected victory to the anti-capital punishment petition.

This is the sort of petition IMHO we should be supporting to change the balance of power on road/pavements:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/5127 (only 17 so far. Could we do a viral on it?)


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

StuartG said:


> You may be both right. Improved cycling infrastructure alone will not cause modal shift from cars. The evidence points towards only reduced motoring infrastructure/pricing will cause people to leave their cars.
> 
> That done - then a good cycling infrastructure gives the 'dispossessed' a real choice between cycling and public transport.
> 
> It has to be a two pronged strategy for success. In pragmatic terms one may need to support each prong individually. In political terms 'pro-cycling, anti-car' combination is not going to win us too many much needed friends.



But building cycle facilities, especially segregated ones, is extremely expensive*. If you are going to spend that sort of money out of the cycling budget you need to be really really sure its going to have an effect and there are not far better ways to spend that money getting people cycling such as training. Plus if you are not cycling because of a lack of cycling facilities, you presumably will not cycle until there is a continuous cycle facility from start to finish of your journey. Otherwise you are going to have to face cycling on the road anyway.

I do wish we could get away from this intense focus on "cycling with traffic is extremely dangerous". Cycling on the roads is very very safe, despite perceptions, and we need to concentrate on getting the message across about the positive benefits of cycling not harping on continually about needing more protection from the dangers. Six million Boris Bike journeys in London mainly by inexperienced city cyclists with few cycle facilities has led to zero serious injuries and just a handful of minor ones.

* The cycle lanes in Brighton and Hove that were in the news recently cost £800k to build. A single Boris Blueway costs £8-11m and that's not even segregated. Even the recent simple No Cycling signing on a short length of London's Southbank cost £5k. Think of what could have been done if that sort of money had been put into cycle training in schools and for parents for example.


----------



## StuartG (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> But building cycle facilities, especially segregated ones, is extremely expensive*.


Or does your evidence suggest the opposite?

A single double decker bus (as destroyed in Tottenham Saturday) is approx £150,000. This is probably the cheapest and quickest way to provide mass public transport. It works - well in London anyway.

What governments like about motoring is that public expenditure is limited to roads. The motorist pays the rest. Whereas with that bus (plus bus lanes) the costs just keep on coming. Driver, insurance, maintenence, operating company, operating company profits ... for ever and a day.

In that cycling infrastructure is cheap compared to public or private vehicular transport. Compare the costs you quoted with, say, the repair costs of the M25 'incident' Friday. And after that it is the cyclist who pays the rest.

We can argue about the allocation of spend. But it is in a different and much lower league to the wheeled alternatives.


----------



## Riverman (8 Aug 2011)

Thing is roads are expensive. Isnt the root of the problem that the cycling budget is too small?

Ah edit.. Didnt see your post as im mobile


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Aug 2011)

8 signatures so far. Another 99,992 required for parliamentary time.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

Riverman said:


> Thing is roads are expensive. Isnt the root of the problem that the cycling budget is too small?



But lets say you had an extra £1m in the budget. What would give you the most bangs for your buck in getting people cycling. Spending it on a mile of cycle lane or 100,000 Bikeability training places?


----------



## StuartG (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> But lets say you had an extra £1m in the budget. What would give you the most bangs for your buck in getting people cycling. Spending it on a mile of cycle lane or 100,000 Bikeability training places?


Or allocate it to the parking revenue budget, remove £1 million worth of parking meters, cycles could use the available space (I leave it to others to decided whether to paint/kerb it or not) and force motorists to look for another route/mode.

Nearly all my generation did Bikeability courses (then called National Proficiency) and nearly all went on to drive not ride. So no i don't think that is going to do anything beyond making cyclists safer (but then you say they are safe anyway). You seem very confused.

Next?


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

StuartG said:


> Improved cycling infrastructure alone will not cause modal shift from cars.



All the evidence including from London and Amsterdam is that the modal competition is between public transport and bikes, not cars and bikes.

From the Travel in London Report No 3

_• Respondents were asked how they would have travelled for their selected trip before the introduction of Barclays Cycle Hire. Six in ten trips made by Barclays Cycle Hire bicycles have replaced a public transport trip, primarily Underground (35 per cent) and bus (23 per cent), and 4 per cent have replaced a trip by car or taxi.
• The most popular reasons for using the scheme were that it was quicker,
healthier and more convenient than the previous mode._

Nothing there about someone built a cycle lane.

On the Boris Blueways, those that had switched from another mode of transport said 

_"The aspects of the route that had encouraged them to switch were the directness to their destination, the visibility of the blue road markings, the quality of the road surface and the number of other cyclists on the route."_


----------



## StuartG (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> All the evidence including from London and Amsterdam is that the modal competition is between public transport and bikes, not cars and bikes.



Aha - you are beginning to understand what I'm saying. 

To replay: the key is getting a switch away from the motoring mode. This is probably best achieved by removing motoring infrastructure (directly or by pricing). Then by providing or reallocating towards cycling infrastructure it becomes an alternative choice to public transport. OK for shorter trips for fitter folk but those are badly handled by public transport anyway.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

StuartG said:


> Or allocate it to the parking revenue budget, remove £1 million worth of parking meters, cycles could use the available space (I leave it to others to decided whether to paint/kerb it or not) and force motorists to look for another route/mode.



Danish studies show that makes it more dangerous for cyclists with car turning into side roads to look for parking spaces.



> Nearly all my generation did Bikeability courses (then called National Proficiency) and nearly all went on to drive not ride. So no i don't think that is going to do anything beyond making cyclists safer (but then you say they are safe anyway). You seem very confused.



Yes, I did the Nationals Cycling Proficiency test and still have my Knights of the Road certificate from the News of the World for passing. But it was all done in the school playground not on the roads and in an era where I played in the street. My parents had no worries about me cycling the the two miles to primary school on my own. So very different road conditions. Bikeability training is done on the roads as well and the good ones in schools involve parents in the training and on weekend school rides with their children. See here for example with not a single mention of painting a white line.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

StuartG said:


> Aha - you are beginning to understand what I'm saying.
> 
> To replay: the key is getting a switch away from the motoring mode. This is probably best achieved by removing motoring infrastructure (directly or by pricing). Then by providing or reallocating towards cycling infrastructure it becomes an alternative choice to public transport. OK for shorter trips for fitter folk but those are badly handled by public transport anyway.



If you remove motor traffic from town and city centres then you have no need to build facilities - cyclists and pedestrians will colonise the streets without the need for any white lines as seen in the Netherlands and as is happening in London post Congestion Charging. Interestingly though a Dutch study of ten cities and their cycling levels found that one of the reason cycling was low in e.g. Manchester was that the public transport provision was so good.:

_• A high bicycle share (more than 30%) for Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Enschede and Copenhagen;
cities that never saw the arrival of a ‘bicycle use-consuming’ 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: the realisation of a motor car infrastructure is not at
the expense of the cyclist; the collective bicycle picture is fairly positive and especially
“rational”.’
• An average bicycle share (ca. 20%) for South-East Limburg and Hannover. Here, the rise
of the motor car coincided with a more manifest pro-car policy and a spatial structure
which was more in line with the motor car.
• A low bicycle share (ca. 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)._


----------



## StuartG (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Danish studies show that makes it more dangerous for cyclists with car turning into side roads to look for parking spaces.


Yes, yes I want London to be as dangerous as Copenhagen for bikes!

Get a grip. Or rather take a ride through Copenhagen. Are you more or less likely to be right/left hooked here or there? Ditto for being 'doored'.

Removing the destination (parking place) is an effective way of reducing both real and perceived risk. It also magically creates new free space for public transport and/or bikes. Space that is better utilised by both making for a better urban environment and ironically reducing journey times.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Aug 2011)

1498110 said:


> Sorry Downfader, make cycle-lanes history and assert your right to the road.



+1


----------



## StuartG (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> If you remove motor traffic from town and city centres then you have no need to build facilities - cyclists and pedestrians will colonise the streets without the need for any white lines as seen in the Netherlands and as is happening in London post Congestion Charging.


It is not as simple as that.

If you reduce the number of cars but not their road space then they will travel faster and the speed differential kills. You need to manage that. Secondly because city streets are unbalanced this will speed traffic towards the bottlenecks. Pall Mall in London is an example. Four solid clogged lanes all day. If you want people to bike Pall Mall then you need to provide biking space. There is currently none but the pavements (covered in City of Westminster penalty notice signs). Reallocating and reserving space is probably the only solution there.

Cyclists need space. If they do not have it then they feel very unsafe. Its about vulnerability and scared people don't stay with cycling. How you create and preserve that space is tricky. Sometimes its dedicated cycle lanes, sometimes it is legislation or another way. Being dogmatic one way or another rather than responsive to the situation in hand is what we cyclists have suffered for too long.

So to return to kids. Remove car parking/stopping around schools. Provide secure cycle parking. Give a kid a prize if he cycles to school. Get the head to cycle to school. I bet that would change modal shift more than pushing Bikeability courses. Ironically (sorry its my favourite word) it may subsequently increase the demand for Bikeability. 

Bikeability is more for people who have chosen to ride. We need to address those that haven't.


----------



## Mad at urage (8 Aug 2011)

1498110 said:


> Sorry Downfader, make cycle-lanes history and assert your right to the road.


On major NSL roads that go directly to my destination? 

I do, but most (including many on here) won't.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (8 Aug 2011)

I can understand the rationale for keeping it simple. However, I would prefer to see one that simply asked for a _ban on sub-standard cycle lanes_, by which I mean cycle lanes that that do not meet the specifications set out in Section 7 of the DfT guidelines on Cycle Infrastructure Design.

The reason I prefer this is that, whilst I think cycle lanes that meet the guidelines have little or no effect on my cycling experience or safety, the substandard ones that are currently in place are actively detrimental to my cycling experience and safety, even when they are not full of parked cars and detritus. By all means paint the roads in the hope that it will encourage more people to cycle, but do not do it to the detriment of all cyclists.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

StuartG said:


> Yes, yes I want London to be as dangerous as Copenhagen for bikes!
> 
> Get a grip. Or rather take a ride through Copenhagen. Are you more or less likely to be right/left hooked here or there? Ditto for being 'doored'.
> 
> Removing the destination (parking place) is an effective way of reducing both real and perceived risk. It also magically creates new free space for public transport and/or bikes. Space that is better utilised by both making for a better urban environment and ironically reducing journey times.



You need to differentiate between cycle lane safety and the safety effect of cycling numbers. The latter is more than sufficient to explain the safety difference between Denmark and the Netherlands and the UK.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

StuartG said:


> It is not as simple as that.
> 
> If you reduce the number of cars but not their road space then they will travel faster and the speed differential kills. You need to manage that. Secondly because city streets are unbalanced this will speed traffic towards the bottlenecks. Pall Mall in London is an example. Four solid clogged lanes all day. If you want people to bike Pall Mall then you need to provide biking space. There is currently none but the pavements (covered in City of Westminster penalty notice signs). Reallocating and reserving space is probably the only solution there.



I cycle Pall Mall all the time both in its original one way version and its new improved two way version. I don't have any problems doing it. Perhaps you should try it some time.



> Cyclists need space. If they do not have it then they feel very unsafe. Its about vulnerability and scared people don't stay with cycling. How you create and preserve that space is tricky. Sometimes its dedicated cycle lanes, sometimes it is legislation or another way. Being dogmatic one way or another rather than responsive to the situation in hand is what we cyclists have suffered for too long.



So where is your evidence that spending £1m a mile for cycle facilities will achieve that? The Build It and They Will Come approach has a very poor track record. Velib, Boris Bikes, DublinCycles, Bicing etc have all shown that all you need to do to get people cycling is to make it appear normal and accessible, not the preserve of the road warrior class.



> So to return to kids. Remove car parking/stopping around schools. Provide secure cycle parking. Give a kid a prize if he cycles to school. Get the head to cycle to school. I bet that would change modal shift more than pushing Bikeability courses. Ironically (sorry its my favourite word) it may subsequently increase the demand for Bikeability.
> 
> Bikeability is more for people who have chosen to ride. We need to address those that haven't.



Not true. Bikeability has led to significant increases in the numbers of pupils cycling to school and in good schemes with the numbers of parents who cycle. http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com is a good example of a community programme built around Bikeability training that has had enormous success and resulted in significant extra cycle parking having to be installed. More than 10% of pupils now cycle to a London junior school.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I can understand the rationale for keeping it simple. However, I would prefer to see one that simply asked for a _ban on sub-standard cycle lanes_, by which I mean cycle lanes that that do not meet the specifications set out in Section 7 of the DfT guidelines on Cycle Infrastructure Design.



Only if the recommended width becomes the default width. At present they are virtually all built to the minimum width or less. Even on Blackfriars Bridge, where cyclists exceed cars at peak times, they have still only installed a minimum width cycle lane in the recent designs.


----------



## Tommi (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Not true. Bikeability has led to significant increases in the numbers of pupils cycling to school and in good schemes with the numbers of parents who cycle. http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com is a good example of a community programme built around Bikeability training that has had enormous success and resulted in significant extra cycle parking having to be installed. More than 10% of pupils now cycle to a London junior school.


As I understand Bikeability (or equivalent) has been taugh in UK since forever. Where's the evidence the amount of money spent on training / training given has resulted in comparable increase in number of people cycling? Given how training is seen as very cheap option, surely it must've consistently increased the number of people cycling by now, which in turn would've proven success and got increased budget, etc.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Only if the recommended width becomes the default width. At present they are virtually all built to the minimum width or less. Even on Blackfriars Bridge, where cyclists exceed cars at peak times, they have still only installed a minimum width cycle lane in the recent designs.


In my experience, the cycle lanes are almost exclusively narrower (and usually significantly narrower) than the 1.5m minimum that applies to 30mph roads, and that is the case even on faster, busy roads where the minimum is supposed to be 2m.

How does your proposal differ from these minimum widths that are already specified in the document? Do you mean that 2m should be the minimum width, even on 30mph roads?


----------



## StuartG (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I cycle Pall Mall all the time both in its original one way version and its new improved two way version. I don't have any problems doing it. Perhaps you should try it some time.


Forgive me for a senior moment. I meant The Strand. Tried it for 20 years. Any better now?



Red Light said:


> So where is your evidence that spending £1m a mile for cycle facilities will achieve that?


Where is your evidence that I said that and not the opposite?



Red Light said:


> Bikeability has led to significant increases in the numbers of pupils cycling to school and in good schemes with the numbers of parents who cycle. http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com is a good example of a community programme built around Bikeability training that has had enormous success and resulted in significant extra cycle parking having to be installed. More than 10% of pupils now cycle to a London junior school.


Good to hear but one London school? I think that suggests that Bikeability is not working for the other 1,999. As a retired school governor in three different boroughs I think I know why unless things have changed. Money is not really the problem about Bikeability or cycling infrastructure. If society felt it was really needed it would be found. In that respect cycling has to win minds first. It hasn't.

I am always overjoyed when we see some green cycling shoots. But we have yet to see something that is sure to grow into a truly significant transport mode in London. Boris bikes are good but, on central London roads, (as opposed to docking stations), still a rare sight. When they compete with taxis I shall be pleased to recant.

Will that be 5 years, 15 years .... ???


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Do you mean that 2m should be the minimum width, even on 30mph roads?



The recommended 2m should be the default width such that most cycle lanes should be at that width with narrower ones as rare exceptions. Rather than the current situation where the minimum width is the default and ones of the recommended width are so rare they get ridiculed in the press if they are built.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

StuartG said:


> Forgive me for a senior moment. I meant The Strand. Tried it for 20 years. Any better now?



The Strand eastbound is fine. Westbound it gets clogged on the approach to the lights at Charing Cross but you can usually filter through to the front.



> Good to hear but one London school? I think that suggests that Bikeability is not working for the other 1,999. As a retired school governor in three different boroughs I think I know why unless things have changed. Money is not really the problem about Bikeability or cycling infrastructure. If society felt it was really needed it would be found. In that respect cycling has to win minds first. It hasn't.
> 
> I am always overjoyed when we see some green cycling shoots. But we have yet to see something that is sure to grow into a truly significant transport mode in London. Boris bikes are good but, on central London roads, (as opposed to docking stations), still a rare sight. When they compete with taxis I shall be pleased to recant.
> 
> Will that be 5 years, 15 years .... ???



Its working there because of a dedicated teacher has gone out and found the money to make it happen. That's why not putting £1m into a mile of cycle lane but using it to support the sorts of programmes being run in Lewisham spreading to other schools.

As for Boris Bikes, the problem is there are not enough of them With 6 million journeys in the past year they can hardly be said to be a rare sight by anyone using Central London roads. And the majority of users are new to cycling in London. So that millions of journeys by new cyclists.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> The recommended 2m should be the default width such that most cycle lanes should be at that width with narrower ones as rare exceptions. Rather than the current situation where the minimum width is the default and ones of the recommended width are so rare they get ridiculed in the press if they are built.


(If we just leave aside the 1.2m minimum that is mentioned specifically in respect of ASL feeder lanes.) What I am proposing is that there should be: an absolute ban on cycle lanes of less than 2m on busy roads and roads with speed limits greater than 30mph, and also an absolute ban on cycle lanes of less than 1.5m on 30mph roads that are not busy. Narrower lanes than these should not be rare, they should be completely banned.

To be honest, I think we are largely saying the same thing. It's just that I think the document says all that we need without having to add any kind of qualification. Any implication that the document needs to be augmented in some way would complicate matters too much.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> (If we just leave aside the 1.2m minimum that is mentioned specifically in respect of ASL feeder lanes.) What I am proposing is that there should be: an absolute ban on cycle lanes of less than 2m on busy roads and roads with speed limits greater than 30mph, and also an absolute ban on cycle lanes of less than 1.5m on 30mph roads that are not busy. Narrower lanes than these should not be rare, they should be completely banned.
> 
> To be honest, I think we are largely saying the same thing. It's just that I think the document says all that we need without having to add any kind of qualification. Any implication that the document needs to be augmented in some way would complicate matters too much.



I think we do agree except on whether the DfT guidance is sufficient on its own. The problem is it allows narrower lanes than the recommended width and that allowance is then used all the time to justify narrower lanes

I'd be interested to know the widths of the cycle lanes in Figs 7.2, 7.3 and 7.5


----------



## StuartG (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> That's why not putting £1m into a mile of cycle lane but using it to support the sorts of programmes being run in Lewisham spreading to other schools.


Now I know you are not serious.

Lewisham probably spent rather a lot making Southend Lane impossible to ride by bike safely. Not my observation but that of my Bikeability teacher (paid for by the council!). Which more or less makes Sedgefield School inaccessible by bike from the east & west.

If instead of making the inner lane and footpath into a car park surrounded by dodgem posts - they had relabelled the lane for cycles we would have had something much better for cyclists and bikeability for the same cost. Or if they had done nothing and pocketed the cash it would still be safer. And all unnecessary if you think that providing free on-street parking to residents where there is unused off street space available makes sense.

Lewisham, possibly the most car centric borough in London, having fired its part time cycling officer as a further example of not wasting money on cycling ...

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Sou...d=E_fNv8kQaDFK93KNg2vnVQ&cbp=12,90.69,,0,8.65


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I think we do agree except on whether the DfT guidance is sufficient on its own. The problem is it allows narrower lanes than the recommended width and that allowance is then used all the time to justify narrower lanes
> 
> I'd be interested to know the widths of the cycle lanes in Figs 7.2, 7.3 and 7.5


I agree that the pictures may be misleading, and I worked out that, assuming the aspect ratio has been maintained correctly and the bicycle shown has 700 wheels, then the cycle lane in the picture on the front cover is only 1.4m.

But as far as the text is concerned (which is what really matters), I can't see anything suggesting that lower widths than those indicated are acceptable or allowed. Unless you mean that "should be" allows for that in the case of the 2m one, though I'm not convinced. Do you have section references for such? (I will be most disappointed if you are right.)


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

StuartG said:


> Now I know you are not serious.



Who said Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists was run by Lewisham Council? Its not and if it was it would probably be spending its time as discussed in another thread, banning children from training for the wrong head or hairdo or painting white lines with the money instead.


----------



## StuartG (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> The Strand eastbound is fine. Westbound it gets clogged on the approach to the lights at Charing Cross but you can usually filter through to the front.



Like this: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=the...=uklhZ5-qa2xqKwOX35O5Lw&cbp=12,71.93,,0,10.29

Sorry, but I'm not prepared to filter the entire length of The Strand which is the norm by day. Its just too nasty (and feels dangerous). I may not be as brave as you but I'm a lot more confident and experienced than most. If its not for me its most certainly not for most of those yet to ride.


----------



## StuartG (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Who said Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists was run by Lewisham Council?


Not me!

Or have I misunderstood and it was indeed Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists who didn't spend a million on cycling infrastructure in Lewisham but instead invested it in Bikeability? Where did YL&GC get the dosh?


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Unless you mean that "should be" allows for that in the case of the 2m one, though I'm not convinced. Do you have section references for such? (I will be most disappointed if you are right.)



Can you think of many examples of 2m cycle lanes on busy roads because I'm having difficulty? But my main problem is the wording:

_7.4.2 Cycle lanes should be 2 metres wide on busy roads, or where traffic is travelling in excess of 40 mph. A minimum width of 1.5 metres may be generally acceptable on roads with a 30 mph limit. For cycle feeder lanes to advanced stop line arrangements, a minimum width of 1.2m may be acceptable. Cycle lanes less than 1.2 metres wide cannot easily accommodate tricycles or childcarrying cycle trailers wholly within the lane._

is too vague and open to wilful misinterpretation. It needs to be much more crisp with no wiggle room for interpretation.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

StuartG said:


> Not me!
> 
> Or have I misunderstood and it was indeed Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists who didn't spend a million on cycling infrastructure in Lewisham but instead invested it in Bikeability? Where did YL&GC get the dosh?



IIRC the dosh came from TfL and Cycling England.


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Aug 2011)

12. 99,988 to go. If only DF had proposed putting gibbets in every cycle lane..........


----------



## StuartG (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> IIRC the dosh came from TfL and Cycling England.


You mean part of the same TfL money that goes to more of Lewisham's plans for cycling unfriendly projects such as the upcoming Sydenham Road redevelopment with its carefully thought out pinch points and promotion of onstreet parking (and where that is difficult commandeering a part of a LCN)? 

Mind you the loss of that LCN is probably a small mercy although it really screws up the proposed SuperHighway. 

I put it to you that Bikeability schemes and pictures of councillors on bicycles are a sop and not a serious part of TfL & Lewisham Council's transport strategy. Have you read the LIP? TfL Streets are mean streets. There is to be no Cycling England.

Or Cycling Officer! My case rests.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (8 Aug 2011)

Sorry for seeming a bit argumentative on this, but regarding:


Red Light said:


> Can you think of many examples of 2m cycle lanes on busy roads because I'm having difficulty? But my main problem is the wording:



I did already say:


MrHappyCyclist said:


> In my experience, the cycle lanes are almost exclusively narrower (and usually significantly narrower) than the 1.5m minimum that applies to 30mph roads, and that is the case even on faster, busy roads where the minimum is supposed to be 2m.


which means that I consider most cycle lanes currently in place to be sub-standard.

Regarding the actual wording:


Red Light said:


> _7.4.2 Cycle lanes should be 2 metres wide on busy roads, or where traffic is travelling in excess of 40 mph. A minimum width of 1.5 metres may be generally acceptable on roads with a 30 mph limit. For cycle feeder lanes to advanced stop line arrangements, a minimum width of 1.2m may be acceptable. Cycle lanes less than 1.2 metres wide cannot easily accommodate tricycles or childcarrying cycle trailers wholly within the lane._
> 
> is too vague and open to wilful misinterpretation. It needs to be much more crisp with no wiggle room for interpretation.


I just don't see where the wiggle room is in this. It seems to discuss three scenarios and gives clear guidance for each:

Busy roads, or roads where traffic is travelling in excess of 40 mph: 2m wide

Any other roads with a 30 mph limit (busy roads are already covered above): 1.5m wide

Cycle feeder lanes to ASLs: 1.2m wide (and goes on to explain why these can't be narrower)

It seems pretty unequivocal to me. The only things open to interpretation are: "how busy is busy?", "for non-busy roads with limits between 31mph and 39mph, is it 1.5m or 2.0m?" and "for what distance in advance of the ASL is a cycle lane to be considered to be a feeder lane?". Other than those, there seems to be no doubt, and I certainly see no opening for cycle lanes of less than 1.5m except in the very specific case of ASL feeder lanes.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Sorry for seeming a bit argumentative on this, but regarding:
> 
> 
> I did already say:
> ...



That's not what it says though. It says 1.5m "may be generally acceptable" on 30mph roads. It doesn't say on non-busy roads with a 30mph limit, it says generally acceptable on 30mph roads. So its easy now to make all 30mph roads 1.5m max.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

StuartG said:


> You mean part of the same TfL money that goes to more of Lewisham's plans for cycling unfriendly projects such as the upcoming Sydenham Road redevelopment with its carefully thought out pinch points and promotion of onstreet parking (and where that is difficult commandeering a part of a LCN)?
> 
> Mind you the loss of that LCN is probably a small mercy although it really screws up the proposed SuperHighway.
> 
> ...



You seem determined to misinterpret everything to your world view. Who said it came through the Council? How do you account for the Cycling England money (unfortunately no more)? I put it to you that if you take off your blinkers and look at what good Bikeability and Go Ride schemes are achieving and consider what could be achieved if the money were available to support them and the trainers you would see something that has a positive effect on cycling and cycling safety. Or you can continue using the money painting white lines in the belief they are the magical answer to getting more people cycling and anything else is impossible


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> That's not what it says though. It says 1.5m "may be generally acceptable" on 30mph roads. It doesn't say on non-busy roads with a 30mph limit, it says generally acceptable on 30mph roads. So its easy now to make all 30mph roads 1.5m max.


Well, we seem to be narrowing down on where the issue is. However, what it says is: "_A *minimum* width of 1.5 metres may be generally acceptable on roads with a 30 mph limit"_ (so not 1.5m max). This still does not allow for cycle lanes of less than 1.5m under any circumstances (with the exception of ASL feeder lanes).

I can see an argument that there is some scope for wilful misinterpretation leading to a conclusion that busy 30mph roads might be OK with 1.5m width minimum, despite what it says in the first case, but that is all. Even that would be a vast improvement on what we currently have.


----------



## StuartG (8 Aug 2011)

My dear RL. The problem is you continue to ascribe me a worldview I do not have. No matter how many times I try and correct you - you still criticise me for views I do not have. I don't think there is any point continuing. But just for the record: 

*White lines/Blue lanes.* They may have some use in some places but are not in themselves a panacea. In general the rider has the same rights to the road as the motorist. The cyclist (and pedestrian) have more rights to space to protect their vulnerability than the motorist. Whether you create that with paint, legislation or some other way is tactical. I don't do theology on it.

*Bikeabilty. *Excellent scheme from which I have benefited. However its about riding confidently and safely. It isn't about encouraging people to ride in the same way as the IAM is about encouraging people to drive. They are most likely to have made the implicit choice to ride before they receive training. However, the existence of a course may challenge them to a decision to ride (particulary for schoolkids).

*Schools are not the solution. *We nearly all learnt to ride at school. We nearly all gave it up when cars (at 17+) became an option. The only way to reverse it is to make cars less of an attractive option for some journeys. Inevitably that is negative discrimination in motoring infrastructure or pricing. This requires political will (in all parties) plus social change. We don't know how to do that in the UK.

*Bikes or Buses. *Doesn't really matter except in displacing flexible car usage means neither is a complete solution but a combination (different orders for different people) is a better alternative. Plus trains, tubes, trams and jet packs of course.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

StuartG said:


> Like this: http://maps.google.c...,71.93,,0,10.29
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not prepared to filter the entire length of The Strand which is the norm by day. Its just too nasty (and feels dangerous). I may not be as brave as you but I'm a lot more confident and experienced than most. If its not for me its most certainly not for most of those yet to ride.



No, like this

Perhaps you should try it some time instead of assuming that its a complete disaster. I cycle it frequently, see quite a few other cyclists on it including Boris Bikers and the worst you have to do is wait a bit like the cars and taxis do towards the Charing Cross end. Given the choice of Strand, Waterloo Bridge or Whitehall, Westminster Bridge from Trafalgar Square to Waterloo Station I nearly always take the Strand.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

StuartG said:


> My dear RL. The problem is you continue to ascribe me a worldview I do not have. No matter how many times I try and correct you - you still criticise me for views I do not have. I don't think there is any point continuing. But just for the record:



Well you certainly have some strange views of cycling in London that are at odds with reality viz:



> Boris bikes are good but, on central London roads, (as opposed to docking stations), still a rare sight.
> 
> Good to hear but one London school? I think that suggests that Bikeability is not working for the other 1,999.
> 
> The Strand in London is an example. Four solid clogged lanes all day.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Well you certainly have some strange views of cycling in London that are at odds with reality viz:


Have you ever considered that it is you who holds strange views. What do you consider the probability of that is?


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Have you ever considered that it is you who holds strange views. What do you consider the probability of that is?



So to be specific, which of the three views do you consider strange?

That Boris Bikes are common on the streets of Central London?
That one school doing a good job does not mean the other 1.999 are doing a bad job?
That the Strand is not clogged by motor vehicles along its whole length?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> So to be specific, which of the three views do you consider strange?
> 
> That Boris Bikes are common on the streets of Central London?
> That one school doing a good job does not mean the other 1.999 are doing a bad job?
> That the Strand is not clogged by motor vehicles along its whole length?


If you were presented with data showing data about one school but knew that there should be data about many schools available what would you read into it.
The time (6 years) I lived in London I recall the Strand being pretty much a carpark most of the time.
Thus I agree with the view of StuartG.


----------



## Tommi (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> So to be specific, which of the three views do you consider strange?
> 
> That Boris Bikes are common on the streets of Central London?
> That one school doing a good job does not mean the other 1.999 are doing a bad job?
> That the Strand is not clogged by motor vehicles along its whole length?


Regarding 2) you were using one school as an example how Bikeability is consistently worth much more than building infrastructure. Do you have the evidence to support your claim that Bikeability (or equivalent) training has consistently increased the number of people cycling in amounts that is relative to the amount of money spent / training provided?


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If you were presented with data showing data about one school but knew that there should be data about many schools available what would you read into it.



When I wrote "http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com is a good example" I naturally assumed people would understand it was a good example, not the only example.



> The time (6 years) I lived in London I recall the Strand being pretty much a carpark most of the time.



Seems my perception agrees with Streetview's image and others of the Strand taken, I would judge from the shadows at about 14:00






I note no comment about Boris Bikes on Central London streets? Is that because you can't bring yourself to agree with me on that one?



> Thus I agree with the view of StuartG.


Of course you do. Others can make their own minds up on the evidence. But I recognise that whatever the evidence what you believe will trump it every time.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> When I wrote "http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com is a good example" I naturally assumed people would understand it was a good example, not the only example.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have no experience of Boris Bikes so can't comment.
As for the street view one photograph is not evidence. I have seen many views of my area that do not tally with my personal experience of the roads.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I have no experience of Boris Bikes so can't comment.
> As for the street view one photograph is not evidence. I have seen many views of my area that do not tally with my personal experience of the roads.



So of my three views you considered strange we now find on one you have no idea whether its strange or not, the second you appear to have accepted is not strange after all and the third you think is still strange because you consider a randomly picked Google Streetview photo in the middle of the day is not representative of a situation you described as "pretty much a car park most of the time"

Here's another Google photo taken at a different time and date - probably around 09:00 judging by the shadows.




Still doesn't look much like a car park to me.

On that basis I am quite happy to have what you consider strange views because mine turn out to coincide rather better with reality than yours.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> So of my three views you considered strange we now find on one you have no idea whether its strange or not, the second you appear to have accepted is not strange after all and the third you think is still strange because you consider a randomly picked Google Streetview photo in the middle of the day is not representative of a situation you described as "pretty much a car park most of the time"
> 
> Here's another Google photo taken at a different time and date - probably around 09:00 judging by the shadows.
> 
> ...



My original question was


> Have you ever considered that it is you who holds strange views. What do you consider the probability of that is?{/quote] You didn't answer but immediately went on the defence. I answered your questions ignoring one (which you took to mean acceptance of - Is that how you would interpret statistical data?).
> 
> I ask my original question again and this time a straight answer would be appreciated. I did you that courtesy by answering you questions.


----------



## Red Light (9 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> My original question was
> 
> 
> > Have you ever considered that it is you who holds strange views. What do you consider the probability of that is?
> ...



There is a very high probability that some people will find my views strange - you for example. Others can make their own judgements. Am I bothered? Not really. 

But I'm still curious as to what you actually thought strange about the three views you were commenting on. It seems there is good evidence for my views against no more than your personal beliefs to the contrary. But, hey-ho, we've been there before.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> There is a very high probability that some people will find my views strange - you for example. Others can make their own judgements. Am I bothered? Not really.
> 
> But I'm still curious as to what you actually thought strange about the three views you were commenting on. It seems there is good evidence for my views against no more than your personal beliefs to the contrary. But, hey-ho, we've been there before.



I didn't say I found your views strange, neither did I say I agreed with them. I simply asked you what the probability was that it was your views that were strange. You read into that what you wanted to. I did find _*that*_ interesting.


----------



## Red Light (9 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I didn't say I found your views strange, neither did I say I agreed with them. I simply asked you what the probability was that it was your views that were strange.



You said more than that. In response to my saying Stuart G held some strange views at odds with reality viz:

Boris bikes are good but, on central London roads, (as opposed to docking stations), still a rare sight.

Good to hear but one London school? I think that suggests that Bikeability is not working for the other 1,999.

The Strand in London is an example. Four solid clogged lanes all day.

You replied:



> Have you ever considered that it is you who holds strange views. What do you consider the probability of that is?



Which is either a "when did you stop beating your wife" sort of question or is suggesting that its my, not Stuart's, views which are strange.

So come clean. Do you think Stuart G's three views are at odds with reality or mine and why? Or was it a wife beating question after all?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> You said more than that. In response to my saying Stuart G held some strange views at odds with reality viz:
> 
> Boris bikes are good but, on central London roads, (as opposed to docking stations), still a rare sight.
> 
> ...


I will ask one more time so you are very clear "Have you ever considered that it is you who holds strange views. What do you consider the probability of that is?"


----------



## Tommi (9 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I will ask one more time so you are very clear "Have you ever considered that it is you who holds strange views. What do you consider the probability of that is?"


Can you, Red Light, also answer my question? Getting tired of repeating myself.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> Can you, Red Light, also answer my question? Getting tired of repeating myself.



It seems he doesn't like to answer any questions he can not back up with a mountain of statistical data and reports.


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Well you certainly have some strange views of cycling in London that are at odds with reality viz:


I've got to put a word in here. You're being very rude about Stuart who is a practised and resolute cyclist, not at all unused to cycling in London. And London to Paris in two days on a (three speed then one speed) Brompton is not for softies.

Oh - and Bikeability. Waste of cash. In fact I wouldn't spend a single penny of taxpayers money on cycling. Tax car parking spaces to the max, raise fuel duty through the roof, shut down rat runs and double or treble the number of bus lanes and give permissions for the redevelopment of high streets and the job's done.


----------



## Mad at urage (9 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> You said more than that. In response to my saying Stuart G held some strange views at odds with reality viz:
> 
> Boris bikes are good but, on central London roads, (as opposed to docking stations), still a rare sight.
> 
> ...


RL, you hae to remember that many on here are not conversant with debating shorthand, thus "a "when did you stop beating your wife" sort of question" may well mean nothing at all to AFS or Tommi. They may simply not understand that the question asked is so leading as to be meaningless.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> RL, you hae to remember that many on here are not conversant with debating shorthand, thus "a "when did you stop beating your wife" sort of question" may well mean nothing at all to AFS or Tommi. They may simply not understand that the question asked is so leading as to be meaningless.


I fully understand what the wife beating question is about. A trick to get someone to imply they are / were a wife beater. That was not the aim of my question. It was not a loaded question either. It was what it was and will remain a straight forward question.


----------



## Tommi (9 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> RL, you hae to remember that many on here are not conversant with debating shorthand, thus "a "when did you stop beating your wife" sort of question" may well mean nothing at all to AFS or Tommi. They may simply not understand that the question asked is so leading as to be meaningless.


I'm quite aware of the wife beating question. I was asking if Red Light has evidence to back up his claim about Bikeability, something he's demanding of bike lanes, how is that leading?


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Aug 2011)

16 signatures. 99984 to go!

I wonder if some bright civil servant, looking at this, will simply suggest to his minister that any money spent on cycle lanes would be good money thrown after bad?


----------



## snorri (9 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> In fact I wouldn't spend a single penny of taxpayers money on cycling. Tax car parking spaces to the max, raise fuel duty through the roof, shut down rat runs and double or treble the number of bus lanes and give permissions for the redevelopment of high streets and the job's done.



I would like to see speed limits lowered too, otherwise there's nothing to argue with there. 

dellzeqq for PM, vote dellzeqq


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Aug 2011)

snorri said:


> I would like to see speed limits lowered too, otherwise there's nothing to argue with there.
> 
> dellzeqq for PM, vote dellzeqq


I'd forgotten speed limits. Which is silly, because it's something that can happily sit with Cameron's localism


----------



## downfader (9 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> 16 signatures. 99984 to go!
> 
> I wonder if some bright civil servant, looking at this, will simply suggest to his minister that any money spent on cycle lanes would be good money thrown after bad?




Yeah. Aint going well. I've been busy the past 2 days and come back to see 6 pages.

Sadly I feel that with motorists in the majority and having vociferous and sometimes illogical viewpoints we will never see cycling and healthy forms of travel taking a stand that can benefit people here in the UK. We have people like the AA bleating on at motorists, patting their poor little hand and telling them that they're a societal victim. Thats not in anyway an antimotoring view - to be pro-cycling you cannot be antimotoring, they are two sides of the same coin and each has benefits the other lacks.

I also feel that the majority of cyclists dont help themselves. Perhaps we argue far too much over small technicalities, perhaps we have been divided and conquered by the vociferous?  Brit cyclists have this defeated attitude, too. "It wont work!" How many times have we read or heard that..? 

I think Bikeability will have some positive change. First and foremost it teaches the young how the road users need to behave for the road networks to work. It teaches responsibility. It teaches assertiveness.


----------



## mickle (9 Aug 2011)

Selling cycling requires the same strategies as selling anything else - it's all about removing objections, or barriers. 

So when Bristol City Council asked 'Why don't you cycle' and got answers like 'road danger, weather, lack of cycle lanes' they decided that the way of removing the road danger objection required cycle facilities.

What didn't cross their mind was that they could have addressed the source of the danger by slowing motor vehicles down or removing cars from certain roads altogether. 

Or they could have provided everyone in the area with cycle training, which probably wouldn't have - in itself - put more bums on seats but _would have removed another barrier._ 

Remove real or perceived barriers and people will cycle. I really do think it's that simple.

Segregation is so not the answer.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Aug 2011)

mickle said:


> Selling cycling requires the same strategies as selling anything else - it's all about removing objections, or barriers.
> 
> So when Bristol City Council asked 'Why don't you cycle' and got answers like 'road danger, weather, lack of cycle lanes' they decided that the way of removing the road danger objection required cycle facilities.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Red Light (9 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I've got to put a word in here. You're being very rude about Stuart who is a practised and resolute cyclist, not at all unused to cycling in London. And London to Paris in two days on a (three speed then one speed) Brompton is not for softies.



You're a Londoner. Do you think that Boris Bikes are rare on the streets in Central London?	Is your experience of the Strand one of grid lock along the entire length in both directions or is it more like mine and the photos on Google? And would you think someone giving an example of something meant its the only example of something? I have no quarrel with Stuart in general but he did seem to make three rather odd statements. 



> Oh - and Bikeability. Waste of cash. In fact I wouldn't spend a single penny of taxpayers money on cycling. Tax car parking spaces to the max, raise fuel duty through the roof, shut down rat runs and double or treble the number of bus lanes and give permissions for the redevelopment of high streets and the job's done.



I can see that going down extremely well with the electorate for any politician that proposes that in their manifesto. So back from the land of make believe, what would you do to increase cycling that is going to be achievable? 

Bikeability is not the only solution but it does seem to have some remarkably good results in building confidence in cycling with traffic according to the Ipsos MORI survey with half of pupils and their parents reporteing cycling more and 17% cycling a lot more. Also 45% of parents were a lot more confident of their children riding on the road as were half the children. Now if you think that's a waste of money, its going to be very difficult to find something that you think isn't. And the cost of training one pupil will buy you just under 2mm of Boris Blueway


----------



## Tommi (9 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Bikeability is not the only solution but it does seem to have some remarkably good results in building confidence in cycling with traffic according to the Ipsos MORI survey with half of pupils and their parents reporteing cycling more and 17% cycling a lot more. Also 45% of parents were a lot more confident of their children riding on the road as were half the children. Now if you think that's a waste of money, its going to be very difficult to find something that you think isn't. And the cost of training one pupil will buy you just under 2mm of Boris Blueway


Without a source to the survey it's hard to comment, but just going with the numbers if Bikeability indeed delivers consistent results then in decade Bikeability alone should've achieved somewhere between 4 to 50 times more cycling. Also considering things like does Bikeability attract any significant number of people even to attend in the first place, and does the interest in cycling survive long after being able to drive I'm not sure that still counts as evidence for increase in number of people cycling has anything to do with amount of money spent on training.


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> You're a Londoner. Do you think that Boris Bikes are rare on the streets in Central London?	Is your experience of the Strand one of grid lock along the entire length in both directions or is it more like mine and the photos on Google? And would you think someone giving an example of something meant its the only example of something? I have no quarrel with Stuart in general but he did seem to make three rather odd statements.


I think you've got yourself in to a bit of a tizz about some imagined argument. And, in doing so, been disrespectful.




Red Light said:


> I can see that going down extremely well with the electorate for any politician that proposes that in their manifesto. So back from the land of make believe, what would you do to increase cycling that is going to be achievable?


see my manifesto above. Snorri liked it. Although he was right about speed limits. And, to reiterate, I wouldn't spend a penny on cycling.


----------



## Red Light (9 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> Without a source to the survey it's hard to comment



Source


----------



## Red Light (9 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I think you've got yourself in to a bit of a tizz about some imagined argument. And, in doing so, been disrespectful.



No I said they were strange views. I notice you have decided not to comment on whether they were strange in your experience. Are we to assume Stuart G's views on here are sacrosanct and cannot be questioned?





> see my manifesto above. Snorri liked it. Although he was right about speed limits.





> And, to reiterate, I wouldn't spend a penny on cycling.





>



I think it will need a lot more than you and Snorri to get a politician to run with your manifesto. Do you really really think it has a snowball in hell's chance of happening? And if not I ask again what proposals do you have with some chance of them getting accepted.


----------



## Red Light (9 Aug 2011)

mickle said:


> Remove real or perceived barriers and people will cycle. I really do think it's that simple.



Its a lot more complex than that. There are all sorts of ways people can rationalise not cycling when asked in a survey. Whether its the real reason or the most convenient excuse is an open question. If you want to actually change people's attitudes its no good just fixing things they say are barriers. They will just find other barriers to replace them. This is all well known in modern change management theory and you can trace it all back to the seminal work done by Kurt Lewin during WWII on how to get American housewives to serve offal to their families instead of steak. There is a brief description of what he found here. To see how resistant people can be to rational change and how irrational they can be in rationalising it to themselves rather than acknowledge they are wrong its worth reading When Prophecy Fails.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Its a lot more complex than that. There are all sorts of ways people can rationalise not cycling when asked in a survey. Whether its the real reason or the most convenient excuse is an open question. If you want to actually change people's attitudes its no good just fixing things they say are barriers. They will just find other barriers to replace them. This is all well known in modern change management theory and you can trace it all back to the seminal work done by Kurt Lewin during WWII on how to get American housewives to serve offal to their families instead of steak. There is a brief description of what he found here. To see how resistant people can be to rational change and how irrational they can be in rationalising it to themselves rather than acknowledge they are wrong its worth reading When Prophecy Fails.


So to paraphrase, people lie. Is that the subtext of your magnum opus above?


----------



## Tommi (9 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Source


Or rather Source .. That wasn't too hard, was it?

(Silly me, I went to Ipsos MORI site which is far from useful.)


----------



## Red Light (9 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So to paraphrase, people lie. Is that the subtext of your magnum opus above?



No.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> No.


Well that's how it reads. Take down the barrier that was defined and another will be set up. Either the first barrier was a lie or some people just don't want to cycle. Some may find it amazing but it is true.


----------



## Red Light (9 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Well that's how it reads. Take down the barrier that was defined and another will be set up. Either the first barrier was a lie or some people just don't want to cycle. Some may find it amazing but it is true.



Why is it a lie? If they say they don't cycle because of the weather, hills, risks....... they are all valid reasons and there are a million reasons you can come up with if you don't want to do something. It doesn't mean its the main reason they don't cycle.

Yes there will be some people who don't want to cycle period but they are relatively few or the Dutch would not have the level of cycling they do, nor Cambridge. There is a large early and late majority who would be perfectly amenable to cycling in the right circumstances as the Boris Bikes have shown. David Horton's Fear of Cycling is an interesting look at the problem from the sociological point of view


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> No I said they were strange views. I notice you have decided not to comment on whether they were strange in your experience. Are we to assume Stuart G's views on here are sacrosanct and cannot be questioned?


no, and you are still in a froth. If you're going to disagree with Stuart, a bit of respect would be appreciated



Red Light said:


> I think it will need a lot more than you and Snorri to get a politician to run with your manifesto. Do you really really think it has a snowball in hell's chance of happening? And if not I ask again what proposals do you have with some chance of them getting accepted.


I'm not too bothered. I don't lie awake at night plotting some cycling nirvana.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Why is it a lie? If they say they don't cycle because of the weather, hills, risks....... they are all valid reasons and there are a million reasons you can come up with if you don't want to do something. It doesn't mean its the main reason they don't cycle.
> 
> Yes there will be some people who don't want to cycle period but they are relatively few or the Dutch would not have the level of cycling they do, nor Cambridge. There is a large early and late majority who would be perfectly amenable to cycling in the right circumstances as the Boris Bikes have shown. David Horton's Fear of Cycling is an interesting look at the problem from the sociological point of view



If multiple reasons are given up front then I think they are valid. If just one reason is give, that barrier is lifted then another reason is given that smacks of lies to me. Either that or a flawed data gathering system

As for the number of people who do not want to cycle - You honestly believe that you could get the majority of people on bikes given the right intensives? I admire your optimism but fear that is all it is. 

I have no time at al for Sociologists I am afraid - They are one of the reasons this country is in such a mess right now.


----------



## Red Light (10 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> no, and you are still in a froth. If you're going to disagree with Stuart, a bit of respect would be appreciated



I fail to see what is disrespectful about saying someone has some strange views and listing them. If that is your definition then everyone here is being disrespectful to everyone else. 

I see you have once again ducked the opportunity to say whether you agree with those views or think them strange too. StuartG is just another anonymous label on CycleChat just like Red Light. The fact he is a friend of yours does not confer special status on him here, not that I have been disrespectful


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I fail to see what is disrespectful about saying someone has some strange views and listing them. If that is your definition then everyone here is being disrespectful to everyone else.
> 
> I see you have once again ducked the opportunity to say whether you agree with those views or think them strange too. StuartG is just another anonymous label on CycleChat just like Red Light. The fact he is a friend of yours does not confer special status on him here, not that I have been disrespectful



I to the first word in the sentence to be his answer.


----------



## Red Light (10 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If multiple reasons are given up front then I think they are valid. If just one reason is give, that barrier is lifted then another reason is given that smacks of lies to me. Either that or a flawed data gathering system



It tends to smack of an underlying issue that is not being addressed rather than a serial liar. If your partner wants you to go out shoe shopping with them I am sure we all find all sorts of excuses to avoid saying we don't want to go - tired, other things to do, important match on the telly, friend might call round....... If they suggest you can pop into the bike shop while they are shoe shopping suddenly the situation changes and not because all your previous excuses suddenly have been dealt with.



> As for the number of people who do not want to cycle - You honestly believe that you could get the majority of people on bikes given the right intensives? I admire your optimism but fear that is all it is.



Plenty of places manage in the 30%+ cycling and some up to 50%. I was in China in 1981 when it was close to 100% although that is no cycling Nirvana - more like walking down Oxford St on the Saturday before Christmas. The thing is in those places with high cycling percentages cycling is seen as a normal thing to do. Walk round Cambridge or Amsterdam and you will see virtually no-one dressed up in lycra and all the gear. They just cycle round on ordinary bikes in ordinary clothes. 

Boris Bikes and Velib and Bicing and Dublincycles have been so successful at getting people cycling because again they are seen as something normal people can do whereas if you get out on the Blueways there is a class apart all togged up, heads down that seems a totally alien activity to most people. And the most amazing thing - the Boris Bikers are far safer. Not a single serious injury in six million journeys when the London and national statistics would have predicted 13 serious injuries by now. And that's not unique to London



> I have no time at al for Sociologists I am afraid - They are one of the reasons this country is in such a mess right now.



Yes, you've already told us elsewhere that you have no time for science or evidence, just your personal beliefs.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> 1/It tends to smack of an underlying issue that is not being addressed rather than a serial liar. If your partner wants you to go out shoe shopping with them I am sure we all find all sorts of excuses to avoid saying we don't want to go - tired, other things to do, important match on the telly, friend might call round....... If they suggest you can pop into the bike shop while they are shoe shopping suddenly the situation changes and not because all your previous excuses suddenly have been dealt with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1/ If my OH wanted me to go shoe shopping with her and I didn't want to I would say so. No need to lie about it. Simplz

2/ I am not disputing that. I am simply asking if you think that you can get the MAJORITY of people on bikes given the right intensives. Remember the average age of the population is increasing.

3/I have already said I know nothing about Boris Bikes

4/I have not said I have no time for science - My degree was in Computer Science FFS. I simply disagree with your application of it through statistics.


----------



## Red Light (10 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> If you're going to disagree with Stuart, a bit of respect would be appreciated



Just for the record, before my post #59 in which you claim I was disrespectful of StuartG I had had a couple of diatribes and the following comments from StuartG for holding a different view to his:

You seem very confused. #23
Get a grip. #28
Now I know you are not serious. #43
My dear RL. #57

If you want StuartG to be respected perhaps he should earn it by not being dismissive and condescending to others.


----------



## jonesy (10 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Well that's how it reads. Take down the barrier that was defined and another will be set up. Either the first barrier was a lie or some people just don't want to cycle. Some may find it amazing but it is true.



Red Light is quite correct, and pointing out that the responses people give to surveys on why they don't cycle aren't necessarily good predictors of what might them change mode isn't the same as saying they are lying. Part of the problem is that people's travel choices tend to be habitual and they don't go through a rational decison making process about which mode to use for each journey they make. 

So when confronted with a survey that says something like "Why don't you cycle more?" and prompts them with lots of leading response like "Cycling is too dangerous", "I've got too much stuff to carry", "It is too hilly", "weather is too wet" , "There isn't a segregated cycle path on my route" etc (which I'm afraid is the sort of thing you often see on travel surveys) they dutifully tick the ones they agree with, thereby supporting their default travel choices, but it doesn't necessarily follow that these are the fundamental reasons why they don't cycle. Which may be that they live in Bracknell for example, and therefore have lots of parking and fast, wide roads, so cycling is never going to be time competitive with drivign for the typical journeys they make. Whereas someone in Oxford may also think that cycling is dangerous and the weather is wet, but they'll still cycle because it is advantageous over driving for most travel around the town.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Aug 2011)

jonesy said:


> Red Light is quite correct, and pointing out that the responses people give to surveys on why they don't cycle aren't necessarily good predictors of what might them change mode isn't the same as saying they are lying. Part of the problem is that people's travel choices tend to be habitual and they don't go through a rational decison making process about which mode to use for each journey they make.
> 
> So when confronted with a survey that says something like "Why don't you cycle more?" and prompts them with lots of leading response like "Cycling is too dangerous", "I've got too much stuff to carry", "It is too hilly", "weather is too wet" , "There isn't a segregated cycle path on my route" etc (which I'm afraid is the sort of thing you often see on travel surveys) they dutifully tick the ones they agree with, thereby supporting their default travel choices, but it doesn't necessarily follow that these are the fundamental reasons why they don't cycle. Which may be that they live in Bracknell for example, and therefore have lots of parking and fast, wide roads, so cycling is never going to be time competitive with drivign for the typical journeys they make. Whereas someone in Oxford may also think that cycling is dangerous and the weather is wet, but they'll still cycle because it is advantageous over driving for most travel around the town.


As I went on to say in a later post "or the data gathering procedure is flawed". If people are just given tick boxes then they will feel they need to fit into one or more of those boxes. One optiom not usually offered is "I don't want to".


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I fail to see what is disrespectful about saying someone has some strange views and listing them. If that is your definition then everyone here is being disrespectful to everyone else.
> 
> I see you have once agai*n ducked the opportunity* to say whether you agree with those views or think them strange too. StuartG is just another anonymous label on CycleChat just like Red Light. The fact he is a friend of yours does not confer special status on him here, not that I have been disrespectful


that's your problem. 

I neither agree nor disagree with Stuart. You consistently attempted to put words in to his mouth, which is something that I don't care for.


----------



## Red Light (10 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> that's your problem.
> 
> I neither agree nor disagree with Stuart. You consistently attempted to put words in to his mouth, which is something that I don't care for.



Whatever. If you are concerned go and give your friend a big hug and kiss and tell him how valiantly youve defended his honour.


----------

