# Beauty and the Bike



## Origamist (24 Nov 2009)

_"Why do British girls stop cycling? By simply asking this basic question, the film reveals the damage that has been done by 50 years of car-centric transport policies. Whilst we fill our lives with debates about risk assessment, cycle helmets, cycle training and marketing strategies to try to persuade people to cycle more, the basic barriers to cycling remain untouched - generous urban planning towards the car, and the resultant poor motorist behaviour towards cyclists. Is it any wonder that most people find cycling unattractive in the UK, but attractive in cycling-friendly towns and cities? *It's the infrastructure, stupid!*"_



View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M88sF-rvul0


http://hembrow.blogspot.com/


----------



## summerdays (24 Nov 2009)

Interesting video - I think teenage girls could like those style of bikes, they have to be just as practical as the BMX's that the boys and quite a few of the girls ride - except they actually have a means of carrying bags too.

As to the infrastructure - having it separate would encourage lots of non-cyclists especially families.


----------



## Nipper (24 Nov 2009)

Great short film. I will have to get the DVD when it is out. The film really should be shown on TV?

The comment about would you take your family out on a main road was very telling. All the training in the world would not be enough for me to let my small children anywhere near the nutters driving cars and lorries. We are able to go out cycling as a family only because we use separated paths (not just paint but the real paths with physical separation). However due to the lack of suitable paths we sometimes have to ride the pavements too.

It is time for the lycra nuts to shut up about vehicular cycling on painful and unsuitable bikes, it hasn't worked and now it is just slowing down real change. The future is simple we need to copy the Dutch and the Danish, they have high rates of safe cycling where everyday people use comfortable bikes to replace journeys they would have otherwise made by car.

Well done to all involved in cycle campaigning in Darlington they are on the right track.


----------



## MartinC (24 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> It is time for the lycra nuts to shut up about vehicular cycling on painful and unsuitable bikes, it hasn't worked and now it is just slowing down real change.



I agree with most of what's said here, but not this. It's a false dichotomy for a start. Cycling is, and should be, many things to many people. I use bikes for many forms of cycling. It's a great shame that utility cycling is unpopular and difficult in the UK and we could do much to encourage it. Railing at another group of cyclists certainly doesn't help, this tribal animosity seems to be a perennial and counter productive feature of cycling in the UK. 

Encouraging any form of cycling helps. The idea that sporting cyclists are impeding change is a ludicrous as suggesting that people enthusing about marathon running are discouraging others from walking.

One way to encourage others to cycle is to enjoy it and to enjoy and celebrate others doing it in any shape or form. This is a simple form of campaigning which is available to all of us (cyclists) and we should take every opportunity to do it.


----------



## Nipper (24 Nov 2009)

Hi Martin, glad we can agree on most of it. I am curious that yon didn't bring 'Summerdays' comments in, as he/she was critical of the bikes used by the Darlington girls, jokingly comparing them to the BMXs; strange when for the rest of Europe they are the practical, everyday, normal, type of bike.

The thing is as you race by in lycra on a painful looking road bike you are putting normal everyday people off cycling. However wide your smile is, they still look at you and think, that sort of thing is not for me and jump back into their cars. 

Having said that the main issue is cycle paths, the more we have, the more people will cycle and the fewer cars there will be. The problem is that the lycra boys are going round spreading disinformation that vehicular cycling is going to be the answer. They spread this lie which then benefits car drivers by keeping the number of cyclists down. If the lycra boys were on the side of truth and promoted cycle paths and so actually tried to increase the number of cyclists, then I would be more supportive of them, despite their strange penchant for fetish gear.

To stay on track with the thread, well done to the girls of Darlington. They are bucking the UK trend and showing bicycles can be chic and practical.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Nov 2009)

I am from the Cambridge area and my teens have a lot of fond memories of young ladies, summer dresses and classic dutch ladies bikes.


----------



## StuartG (24 Nov 2009)

The major impact of cycling in Copenhagen was, for me, just the ordinariness of it. Everyone was dressed as they would be for walking on the pavement. Some in high heels, some flat shoes, skirts, jeans but not a millimetre of lycra to be seen. 99% of bikes were 'sit up & begs'.

Cycles being the majority of vehicles on the road meant they didn't have to stand out - and if it rained or if you had a flat you could easily take it home by public transport. Cycling is just a thing you do, no need to make a statement as over here. Heaven!


----------



## summerdays (25 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> Hi Martin, glad we can agree on most of it. I am curious that yon didn't bring 'Summerdays' comments in, as he/she was critical of the bikes used by the Darlington girls, jokingly comparing them to the BMXs; strange when for the rest of Europe they are the practical, everyday, normal, type of bike.
> 
> The thing is as you race by in lycra on a painful looking road bike you are putting normal everyday people off cycling. However wide your smile is, they still look at you and think, that sort of thing is not for me and jump back into their cars.
> 
> ...



I (female by the way) wasn't really having a go at BMX bikes or the dutch style bikes, just meant that its the popular type of bike to ride around here for kids, but that they aren't always suitable for the location. Some kids struggle on anything that isn't flat on them. I presume its based on what gear is supplied which tends to be too high frequently. 

A 9 year old girl school last week was telling me proudly that she had just learnt to cycle (on a BMX style bike) but because the front cog was very large when I watched her, she was struggling with getting started and cycling in a straight line.

Me I would love to ride one of the dutch style ones for cruising around casually but again wouldn't find it practical commuting on the hills - I need my full set of low gears (yeah I know I'm a wimp).

What I meant was that the boys like the BMX's whether they are practical or not, so if the girls liked the dutch bikes was that any different. If anything I think the dutch bikes are better, but does it matter whether its practical if it gets them cycling and doesn't put them off.

I'm a jeans wearing cyclist so it doesn't bother me what other cyclists wear.

There are some important reasons why cycle paths aren't always right and certainly not for all cyclists, but I do agree they are a good way to introduce new cyclists to the pleasures of cycling.


----------



## Origamist (25 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> The thing is as you race by in lycra on a painful looking road bike you are putting normal everyday people off cycling. However wide your smile is, they still look at you and think, that sort of thing is not for me and jump back into their cars.
> 
> Having said that the main issue is cycle paths, the more we have, the more people will cycle and the fewer cars there will be. The problem is that the lycra boys are going round spreading disinformation that vehicular cycling is going to be the answer. They spread this lie which then benefits car drivers by keeping the number of cyclists down. If the lycra boys were on the side of truth and promoted cycle paths and so actually tried to increase the number of cyclists, then I would be more supportive of them, despite their strange penchant for fetish gear.



The above unintentionally highlights another dimension to the low cycling modal share in the UK - the divisive and dialectical nature of debate amongst cyclists (certainly on fora) and the cycling community in general. Is it any wonder cycling is stymied in this country?

Back to the promo vid - I think it's great.


----------



## Norm (25 Nov 2009)

The promo vid was great, wasn't it. I wish we had more opportunity to get everyone on bikes, not just teenagers.



Origamist said:


> The above unintentionally highlights another dimension to the low cycling modal share in the UK - the divisive and dialectical nature of debate amongst cyclists (certainly on fora) and the cycling community in general. Is it any wonder cycling is stymied in this country?


I agree with Nipper.

I think that, as / if cycling becomes more widespread, the diversity will increase but I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing.

Cycling is a single word to pigeon-hole a widely diverse range of activities, those who ride for pleasure don't get the same out of it as those who commute who have different drivers from those who race. You have only to look at the number of sub-forums on CC to see that diversity.

For instance, increasing the number of cycle paths may help encourage more families out but not if the (sorry to use the phrase) lycra louts take over. In the threads we've had about mixed-use paths, it seems there is some sort of consensus that people should not cycle fast when there are pedestrians about, but how about mixing someone who wants to ride a dedicated cycle-way at speed with a group of cyclists out for a picnic.

IMO, countries which have a high proportion of cyclists do not have a high proportion of high performance cyclists. The difference in the numbers between London and Copenhagen is not in the numbers on bikes with drops but the numbers on clunkers, shoppers and Dutch-style bikes, basically, the number of ordinary people who use a bike as a means of transport. I think that seeing brightly clad racing snakes riding around on scalpels does not encourage that sort of cycling.


----------



## Origamist (25 Nov 2009)

Norm said:


> I agree with Nipper.
> 
> I think that, as / if cycling becomes more widespread, the diversity will increase but I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing.



Neither do I! I think you might have misunderstood my point. It is the nature of the debate propounded by Nipper that is wrongheaded; I too lament the lack of utility cyclists in the UK. Just as "vehicular cycling" is going to do diddly-squat for increasing the number of cyclists, neither is stereotyping those that choose to wear lycra (or Hi Viz for that matter).

My tastes are catholic with regard to bikes and apparel: a folder for multi-modal use, a mtb for X country, a fixed gear for commuting, a racer for long distancing riding, a tourer with panniers for shopping...I've also ridden happily in Denmark and the Netherlands.




Norm said:


> Cycling is a single word to pigeon-hole a widely diverse range of activities, those who ride for pleasure don't get the same out of it as those who commute who have different drivers from those who race. You have only to look at the number of sub-forums on CC to see that diversity.



This is my point, Nipper is polarising the debate: lycra vs the rest. It's a reductive and counterproductive argument. Cycling is many things to many people. 




Norm said:


> IMO, countries which have a high proportion of cyclists do not have a high proportion of high performance cyclists. The difference in the numbers between London and Copenhagen is not in the numbers on bikes with drops but the numbers on clunkers, shoppers and Dutch-style bikes, basically, the number of ordinary people who use a bike as a means of transport. I think that seeing brightly clad racing snakes riding around on scalpels does not encourage that sort of cycling.



Indeed, but encouraging utility cycling is better served by highlighting the multifarious benefits of cycling, not attacking those who choose to wear lycra! How can we champion diversity and inclusivity on the one hand and then fire pot shots at those who do not meet a certain dress code...

Like Nipper, I'd be far happier when more people are cycling in ordinary, everyday garb - it's a very powerful way to normalise cycling - be it to commute to work, for a trip to the theatre/cinema, or to pop down to the pub for a roast etc. Where I disagree with Nipper, is that I don't see attacking lycra wearers as constructive.


----------



## Norm (25 Nov 2009)

Origamist said:


> Where I disagree with Nipper, is that I don't see attacking lycra wearers as constructive.


OK, I can go with that. I didn't see Nipper's comments as an attack, just saying that an increase in the numbers of those highly visible "butterflies" on performance machines won't necessarily get more people cycling. 

However, having read it back, I see your point and my own thoughts might have coloured my reading.


----------



## Origamist (25 Nov 2009)

Norm said:


> OK, I can go with that. I didn't see Nipper's comments as an attack, just saying that an increase in the numbers of those highly visible "butterflies" on performance machines won't necessarily get more people cycling.
> 
> However, having read it back, I see your point and my own thoughts might have coloured my reading.



It was unfair of me to narrowly focus on Nipper's language and his caricature of lycra-wearing cyclists, as the wider point about the perception of cyclists is valid and well made.

Does ubiquitous Hi Viz do much to encourage people to cycle (the roads are like a network of building sites - an inherently dangerous environent?), does my folding bike send out clown-bike vibes (cycling as a silly/non-serious form of transport), does Nipper's retro Pashley and tweed simply remind people that cycling is outmoded in the 21st century (a throwback to to a bygone era). Should cyclists consider such things when they choose a bike, get dressed in the morning etc? I'm not sure, but I admire Nipper for trying to set an example.

Back on topic, I hope the complete doc gets broadcast.


----------



## StuartG (25 Nov 2009)

I shouldn't re-stir the arguement - but I will 

The point about Copenhagen is, from my observations, far less drop bars & MBX bikes in absolute numbers. Indeed they are very hard to spot. Lycra is just not seen in city. The norm of ordinary street clothing and SU&Bs displaces the rider apparel and bikes we see in London. If that is true then is the reverse? Is Norm right that the fiercesome assertive lycra male on an aggressively styled bike sets an expectation many women and other men may not wish to join. Taking to a bike in a city is not an easy choice, to deviate from the norm of what to wear and ride makes it harder.

So Norm is right. But to misquote; "I disapprove of what you wear, but I will defend to the death your right to wear it". Actually is not disapproval but an unfortunate acceptance that this freedom is not helpful to extending ridership in this country.

It will be intriguing to see whether Boris's hire-bikes can do anything. We should be able to tell by what those riders wear. Oh by the way I have drop-bars, a hard Brooks saddle and flash-by jaundice style ... so I'm not helping either.


----------



## Origamist (25 Nov 2009)

Ahhh, cycling clothes - the "discourse of dress" (rational dress, ladies?!). As I have perhaps not made clear in my previous posts, clothes are really a side issue here - they will signify different things to different people - particularly when you throw cycling into the mix. Mr and Mrs Joe Bloggs are likely to be deterred from riding a bike for many reasons - Batman and Robin types might in some small measure adversely affect cycling take-up, (and yes, "lycra clad super-heroes" do feed into the cultural construct of cyclists as sporty outsiders in the UK), but there are more insidious and deeply entrenched barriers to cycing that we should be addressing - impugning cyclists for sartorially failing to look like they're shopping in Lidl on a Sunday afternoon is not going to do much for cycling numbers.


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> The thing is as you race by in lycra on a painful looking road bike you are putting normal everyday people off cycling. However wide your smile is, they still look at you and think, that sort of thing is not for me and jump back into their cars.


no. People cycle because it's cheap, quick, reliable and healthy. They're not put off by other cyclists, they're put off because at least one of the four above is missing, and because they believe it to be unsafe. The extraordinary mix of styles that crowds up London's bus lanes every day is proof that cycling is, as people have said, different things to different people, and different things to the same people at different times.



Nipper said:


> Having said that the main issue is cycle paths, the more we have, the more people will cycle and the fewer cars there will be.


and that's just wrong - the two areas of the country that have experienced the greatest surge in cycling in the last ten years did so without cycle paths.


----------



## Nipper (25 Nov 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> no. People cycle because it's cheap, quick, reliable and healthy. They're not put off by other cyclists, they're put off because at least one of the four above is missing, and because they believe it to be unsafe. The extraordinary mix of styles that crowds up London's bus lanes every day is proof that cycling is, as people have said, different things to different people, and different things to the same people at different times.



Indeed and I am a fat scruff on a folder as well as a tweedy on a Pashley... it takes all sorts and a diverse bus lane is good because there are plenty of different role models for non cyclists. I am a bit militant about lycra because it is usually the lycra speed boys who are most anti cycle path.


Originally Posted by *Nipper* 

 
_Having said that the main issue is cycle paths, the more we have, the more people will cycle and the fewer cars there will be._


dellzeqq said:


> and that's just wrong - the two areas of the country that have experienced the greatest surge in cycling in the last ten years did so without cycle paths.



WHAT! Are you mad! The countries with the highest rates of cycling have the most separated infrastructure. _ It is the infrastructure stupid! _I don't want small increases in cycle use but a revolution, the only way there will be a real increase in bike use is if we follow the countries that have really made it work.

In my 30 years of cycling all I have seen are a small minority of conviction cyclists encouraging each other...getting the mass of everyday people onto bikes as a real alternative to the car will require separated infrastructure. There is no way that a majority of people will want to share main roads with fast cars and massive lorries, it is just not going to happen. What ordinary people and families want is the feeling of safety they get from separated paths.

Your surge is really a dribble in comparison to the countries who have actually funded infrastructure. Cyclists who muddy the argument with crap about vehicular cycling are just a gift for the motoring lobby as they help keep cycle numbers low. I know vehicular cycling is faster, more exciting and statistically safer but it is a complete waste of time in getting people to use the bike as an alternative for the car.

Just remember "_It is the infrastructure stupid!"._


----------



## Baggy (25 Nov 2009)

Origamist said:


> Batman and Robin types might in some small measure adversely affect cycling take-up, (and yes, "lycra clad super-heroes" do feed into the cultural construct of cyclists as sporty outsiders in the UK), but there are more insidious and deeply entrenched barriers to cycing that we should be addressing.



Agreed (and wot Delzeqq said, too). Most of the people I see in lycra on a day to day basis are riding into the city from some (hilly) distance away.
Most of the people I see in the city during the day are wearing civvies. Some of these people are the same people, many of them are not. And this isn't London, it's not far from where Nipper lives.

There's a noticeable increase in the utility cycling side of things and that's partly because of the cheaper and greener aspect, offer of free cycling lessons and promotion of cycling as getting from A-B whilst you're looking good, not just as a sport. It's a combination of things that is making the difference, not just providing paths (which we've also had more of). 

It's wonderful that more people are taking to the roads (and paths). However, there are plenty of cyclists of all types but people still think "that's not for me". We're still not developing a cycling culture.

As I see it, places like Copenhagen, cities in the Netherlands etc have never lost their cycling culture - that is why they have good infrastructure and why cycling is perceived as being safe, normal and not something you only do if you can't afford a car. 

The biggest difference between the UK and European cities and towns is the fact they also tend to have excellent integrated public transport which encourages people to leave their cars at home in the first place. 

Based on what I've seen and people I know, people don't tend to commute to work by bike. They might keep a bike at work for use during the day but won't be cycling 12 miles home in their civvies - they'll be on the train, tram or bus.

All of this adds up to being able to trundle round the city during the day with the breeze in your hair, looking fab, stately and unflustered.

As an aside to the debate - plenty of our european counterparts also have more than one bike and dig out their lycra and "painful" bikes at weekends to hit the roads...


----------



## Baggy (25 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> I know vehicular cycling is faster, more exciting and statistically safer but it is a complete waste of time in getting people to use the bike as an alternative for the car.
> 
> Just remember "_It is the infrastructure stupid!"._



And that's exactly why we should be investing in excellent public transport infrastructure.

Countries that have really made it work may invest in infrastructure, but they've also done that since, well, forever and don't have to turn the tide against car use as the norm in the same way we have to.

I'll wager peak oil is going to have far more impact than infrastructure in the shape of paths.


----------



## Nipper (25 Nov 2009)

Baggy said:


> it's not far from where Nipper lives.



Bristol? Come on be brave and reveal a tiny detail...



Baggy said:


> It's wonderful that more people are taking to the roads (and paths). However, there are plenty of cyclists of all types but people still think "that's not for me". We're still not developing a cycling culture.
> 
> As I see it, places like Copenhagen, cities in the Netherlands etc have never lost their cycling culture - that is why they have good infrastructure and why cycling is perceived as being safe, normal and not something you only do if you can't afford a car.



Good points. I think because we have lost so much of our cycle culture our only option is to restrict car use too. Ken said he was just the first politician with the balls to do what needed to be done when he introduced the congestion charge. If only some of other of our politicians would grow a pair we might have a chance. In Taunton the council have two park and ride schemes, they seem to be having very little effect because they haven't actually linked the main one with any kind of cycle route, or banned cars from the town centre, or made much effort to reduce the car parking spaces in the centre, or made any effort to ban car parking by the towns employers or for council workers, or made any effort to ban cars outside local schools, or increased council tax for two car households or offered council tax reductions to cyclists. Nationally the tax on fuel for private cars and taxis should be also be massively increased... 

The changes are simple but car drivers are many and very selfish, so it's unlikely that any of the changes will be made.


----------



## summerdays (26 Nov 2009)

Further down the page on one of Origamist link's there was the following blog:

http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2009/11/paying-to-use-cars-not-to-own-them.html



> The Netherlands is soon to be the first place in Europe to tax people's use of cars rather than ownership. The expectation is that six to ten percent fewer car journeys will mean that traffic deaths will fall by about the same percentage, saving twenty to forty lives a year in the country which already has the world's safest roads.



Perhaps the people in power might look and take note?


----------



## Norm (26 Nov 2009)

summerdays said:


> The Netherlands is soon to be the first place in Europe to tax people's use of cars rather than ownership


What is all that duty on fuel then, other than a tax on use?


----------



## dellzeqq (26 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> Just remember "_It is the infrastructure stupid!"._


right. As you were, then. Bikes outnumbering private cars on the A24...........

A few years back I attended a meeting of TfL's Greenways committee. They were just about to spend over a million quid on the Wandle Way, a smooth offroad route that goes north to the centre of Wandsworth. It runs parallel to a road called Garratt Lane. They discussed how they would assess the effectiveness of the Wandle Way in order to spend the money wisely. A survey was called for. I suggested that the survey should cover Garratt Lane. This was treated with the kind of derision Nipper employs. 

The money was spent. I'd put a fiver of my own that the cycle traffic on Garratt Lane exceeds that on the Wandle Way by 50 times. And the last time I took my dear lady wife, then a tracksuited hybridiste on the Wandle Way she said 'never again - life is too short'.

Anyway - this is a far cry from beauty. I'm not convinced by the video. Last week the kid had a soiree. A girl arrived on a marvellous bright red retro bike, festooned with chrome lights. She hated it. She wanted a Langster.


----------



## summerdays (26 Nov 2009)

Norm said:


> What is all that duty on fuel then, other than a tax on use?



Because as it says:



> The intention is that driving on busy roads in the rush hour will cost more than driving on less busy roads at other times. It is intended to be a revenue neutral change to the tax on motorists, so that 60% of drivers will see their costs drop.



If you wanted to it could get very complicated in its calculations - imagine charging lorries following sat nav's past signs saying unsuitable for heavy vehicles. Or cars stopping within 50 m of a school at the beginning or end of school


----------



## Norm (26 Nov 2009)

Which reads like a form of congestion charging, as evidenced on many toll bridges and roads as well as the streets of our very own capital.

I take the point that it's an evolution of past measures but I am not at all convinced that it is the first place in Europe to tax use rather than ownership.

Actually, having now read some of the replies on that page, I realise I'm just churning up stuff which has been discussed there already.


----------



## Origamist (26 Nov 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> Anyway - this is a far cry from beauty. I'm not convinced by the video. Last week the kid had a soiree. A girl arrived on a marvellous bright red retro bike, festooned with chrome lights. She hated it. She wanted a Langster.



Funny that. After dragging Ms O around all the bling on display at the Earls Court Bike Show, only one steed caught her eye. Was it titanium, adorned with campag, sporting £2Ks worth of wheels - no, it was the Pashley Tube Rider...!

http://www.pashley.co.uk/products/tube-rider-pintail.html


----------



## Nipper (26 Nov 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> The money was spent. I'd put a fiver of my own that the cycle traffic on Garratt Lane exceeds that on the Wandle Way by 50 times. And the last time I took my dear lady wife, then a tracksuited hybridiste on the Wandle Way she said 'never again - life is too short'.
> 
> Anyway - this is a far cry from beauty. I'm not convinced by the video. Last week the kid had a soiree. A girl arrived on a marvellous bright red retro bike, festooned with chrome lights. She hated it. She wanted a Langster.



Right so you don't like a cycle path that may not be of the best design and so from that you have confidently worked out that all cycle paths are rubbish.

You know one girl that prefers a racing bike to a real bike and you confidently say the video must be wrong.

What arrogant nonsense. You obviously want cycling to remain a minority activity. Please don't go to any planning meetings pretending to be talking for cyclists because you will be stopping potential cyclists from using the bicycle as an alternative to the car. You have to be realistic a new cyclist, family or slow utility cyclist doesn't want to be on main road with lorries and fast moving cars. Your selfish racing cyclist attitude will mean more road deaths and fewer cyclists.


----------



## MartinC (26 Nov 2009)

There's a great confusion between cause and effect going on here. In the Netherlands, Denmark etc. there are many cyclists so many of them will be utility cyclists in 'ordinary' clothes. In the UK only very committed cyclists cycle so there's a greater proportion of sporting cyclists. Blaming them for the lack of cycling is looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Similarly in the Netherlands, Denmark etc. many people cycle so there are lots of cycle paths.

Consider two other examples. The UK in the fifties - many cyclists, few cycle paths. China, many cyclists few cycle paths.

The reluctance to cycle in the UK is largely, IMO, down to the attitude and the behaviour of car drivers. These cultural values are an echo of the US where the same reluctance to cycle is also evident.

If you want more people to cycle then this is the issue that needs addressing. Provision of cycle facilities is one, of very many, measures that can be used to address this. Banning lycra or removing cyclists from the road certainly aren't


----------



## snorri (27 Nov 2009)

MartinC said:


> In the UK only very committed cyclists cycle so there's a greater proportion of sporting cyclists.


 I can't agree that only committed cyclists cycle in the UK, but agree on the proportions. It's this high proportion of cyclists in specialised clothing that gives the impression to the non cyclist that specialised clothing is essential wear for the cyclist, this is quite clearly nonsense for much utility cycling. 
Sometimes I think this forum could do with a section for utility cyclists, I find it quite disheartening when newbies are encouraged in Beginners to go clipless and wear base layers etc without first asking them why they want to start cycling in the first place.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> Right so you don't like a cycle path that may not be of the best design and so from that you have confidently worked out that all cycle paths are rubbish.
> 
> You know one girl that prefers a racing bike to a real bike and you confidently say the video must be wrong.
> 
> What arrogant nonsense. You obviously want cycling to remain a minority activity. Please don't go to any planning meetings pretending to be talking for cyclists because you will be stopping potential cyclists from using the bicycle as an alternative to the car. You have to be realistic a new cyclist, family or slow utility cyclist doesn't want to be on main road with lorries and fast moving cars. Your selfish racing cyclist attitude will mean more road deaths and fewer cyclists.


very entertaining.

- I'm not a racing cyclist. I'm too old and slow. At night I ride a Colnago. By day I ride a Brompton
- the Langster is not a racing bike - it's a singlespeed, which is a type of bike very popular with young people. For no good reason - it's a fashion thing. I've got nothing against the dutch style of bike - the first bike I bought my dear lady wife was a ladies bike - I'm just not that sure that teenage girls are going for them in big numbers
- cycle paths are not all bad - it's just that in London very few people use them. And this particular cycle path was held up by Sustrans to be the best design.
- utility cyclists in London do precisely the opposite of your expectations - they go down the main roads because they are direct, and that is where the bus lanes are. And, as I have said, there are main roads on which, in summer, cyclists now outnumber private cars
- and, lastly, when you have introduced anything like the number of people that I have introduced to cycling your opinion will be worth something

sometimes I just stand and watch the new breed of London cyclist go by at Kennington. There's all sorts. All ages. All kinds of physique, and some with no physique to speak of. A greater percentage of cyclists are women than I can remember in my lifetime. Some in lycra but most in a kind of scruffy semi-cyclist outfit. Some in suits, some wearing heels. All of these people are testament to the bus lane, and to the idea of critical mass. When cycling reaches level of visibility, provided the conditions are there, it takes off. There might be some nirvana in which cycle paths can be run through towns and cities along lines of open space that have, thus far, eluded us, but the simple fact is that most destinations will be in the centre of town or along high streets, and that is where our task lies - not in channelling traffic in to seperate alleyways, but in the rescue of our town centres and high streets from the car.

And, although you weren't to know this, I have spent spells working in a bike shop in your part of the world. The shop is the home of the town's racing club. It's best selling bike is the Ridgeback Velocity, a 'city bike' that weighs about 27lbs. A cyclist is a cyclist is a cyclist.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Nov 2009)

correction

young people and some more mature types who are blessed with whippet properties!


----------



## summerdays (27 Nov 2009)

Well I was looking at the cyclists I saw yesterday - I would say that the MAJORITY were not wearing specific cycling clothing on the bottom half. The top half of their body were mainly covered in waterproofs in a variety of shades (due to the heavy rain), but a reasonable number of the hi-vis amongst them. The bikes were a complete spectrum too: from brompton, halford/toy'r'us specials, fixed and everything in between. 

I'm sure that I'm seeing more bikes on the road than this time last year.


----------



## MartinC (27 Nov 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> correction
> 
> young people and some more mature types who are blessed with whippet properties!



 Still wrong - I can't claim either youth or whippet properties but I do have a Langster. It further illustrates your point about all sorts.

I think one factor in the clothing debate has to be UK culture. In the UK people tend to only wear indoor clothes - they go from their front door directly to the car outside and then directly from the car indoors again at their destination. People don't possess or use the shoes and top layers that enable them to be comfortable ouside in the winter. In the rest of Europe where other modes of transport are common people routinely wear outdoor clothes - warm and waterproof. Cycling requires you to be outside so you need outdoor clothes. In the UK the cyclist will always be wearing 'different' clothes.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Nov 2009)

I am happy to be corrected on singlespeeds, and especially the Langster, yet again. This is a bicycle that regularly clogs up my hallway, and I may have, in consequence, typecast it as the bike of choice for teenagers.

I confess I once bought a singlespeed. It now sports 18 speeds.


----------



## Nipper (27 Nov 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> - and, lastly, when you have introduced anything like the number of people that I have introduced to cycling your opinion will be worth something



I quite enjoyed your post until this! I want exact numbers per year and in what context, how long did they cycle for and did they use the bike for shopping... I will compare your score to my own scores and if you are right and you have a higher number, I will ignore my own opinions and tell myself to shut the f*** up.



dellzeqq said:


> And, although you weren't to know this, I have spent spells working in a bike shop in your part of the world. The shop is the home of the town's racing club. It's best selling bike is the Ridgeback Velocity, a 'city bike' that weighs about 27lbs. A cyclist is a cyclist is a cyclist.



You Cycle Chat boys are into the mystery posting crap... revealing your name and town is not going to lead to the sky falling in.

So did you work at Bicycle Chain in Taunton? I like the shop, I bought my Pashley there. Ha, Ha, the Ridgeback is not a city bike!!! It has no mudguards, no hub gears and has a nasty leaning over ride. A city bike is upright with hub gears and mudguards... you know that, you ride a Brompton. (I hope you didn't work for RC, that shop is pants)

If you have lived in Taunton you will know the hell that is the Taunton car driver and you will understand the need for separated cycle paths. I have lived and cycled in Birmingham and the drivers are a whole lot better and much more courteous to cyclists.


----------



## Baggy (28 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> You Cycle Chat boys are into the mystery posting crap... revealing your name and town is not going to lead to the sky falling in.



 Does that mean girls are excluded from your disparaging comments?

The sky might not fall on your head if you reveal your name and town online, but you might end up with a little bit more real-life attention than you're comfortable with.

My previous post referred to Exeter, not Bristol, though both are cycling demonstration towns.

Anyway, like summerdays, I'm certain there are definitely more cyclists out and about, the increase in studenty girls on old Peugeots and Raleighs being particularly noticeable. Maybe that's the Duffy diet Coke ad factor coming into play, or maybe it's because the Uni are actively promoting cycling.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> You Cycle Chat boys are into the mystery posting crap... revealing your name and town is not going to lead to the sky falling in.


er - yes. Ahem.


----------



## patheticshark (29 Nov 2009)

The 06 Langster was the first 'proper' bike I bought as a teenage girl, having previously owned a Raleigh Pioneer off freecycle.

Six years later I am slightly cycling obsessed and on my tenth bike (though I sold the Langster a few years ago)

So easily dismissed they might be, but they definitely got one teenage girl into cycling.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Nov 2009)

patheticshark said:


> The 06 Langster was the first 'proper' bike I bought as a teenage girl, having previously owned a Raleigh Pioneer off freecycle.
> 
> Six years later I am *slightly* cycling obsessed and on my *tenth* bike (though I sold the Langster a few years ago)
> 
> So easily dismissed they might be, but they definitely got one teenage girl into cycling.


my emphasis.........


----------



## jonesy (29 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> ...
> 
> 
> WHAT! Are you mad! The countries with the highest rates of cycling have the most separated infrastructure. _ It is the infrastructure stupid! ...
> ...


_

Sorry, but as others have pointed out there is no evidence that segregated cycle lanes are either a necessary or sufficient condition to increase cycle use. I give you Oxford and Cambridge, both of which achieved significant modal share for cycling in the 1970s and 80s (utility cycling: normal people, normal clothes) without significant segregated infrastructure; London that is doing so now; and Milton Keynes and Bracknell, both with extensive segregated networks and very low modal share for cycling. So please don't put forward simplistic assertions about how to get more people cycling and don't accuse people of being mad when they have a better understanding of the evidence than you do! 

NB- I, like dellzeqq and others here are not saying there is no role for infrastructure, but don't lets kid ourselves that x more thousand miles of gravelly path in the middle of nowhere, or yet more horrid cycle paths on pavements will give Britain a Netherlands cycling culture..._


----------



## Nipper (29 Nov 2009)

jonesy said:


> Sorry, but as others have pointed out there is no evidence that segregated cycle lanes are either a necessary or sufficient condition to increase cycle use. I give you Oxford and Cambridge, both of which achieved significant modal share for cycling in the 1970s and 80s (utility cycling: normal people, normal clothes) without significant segregated infrastructure; London that is doing so now; and Milton Keynes and Bracknell, both with extensive segregated networks and very low modal share for cycling. So please don't put forward simplistic assertions about how to get more people cycling and don't accuse people of being mad when they have a better understanding of the evidence than you do!
> 
> NB- I, like dellzeqq and others here are not saying there is no role for infrastructure, but don't lets kid ourselves that x more thousand miles of gravelly path in the middle of nowhere, or yet more horrid cycle paths on pavements will give Britain a Netherlands cycling culture...



There is plenty of evidence that it is all about infrastructure, the Dutch and the Danish haven't built their separated cycle networks on a whim. They actually researched what works and built infrastructure accordingly. The level of cycling in Oxford, Cambridge and London while improved is still nothing like the levels of cycling in Holland.

To quote David Hembrow,_ "In attempting to grow cycling, Britain seems willing to try almost anything other than the only thing that actually works - which is... building proper infrastructure for cycling."_

I am not talking about piss poor gravel paths or pavement paths but real separated infrastructure, look at Hembrow's blog and you will soon get the idea. http://hembrow.blogspot.com/

It is hard for you to admit you're wrong and have been all your life, especially when the answer to increased cycling is so bloody obvious; copy the Dutch! It is a bit like not noticing the stars in the night sky because you never looked up. You have been saying to yourself I know better because I ride a bike on British roads and understand the evidence better; do you? Really? Are you that blind to the success of Holland and Denmark? They are just like us you know, it's just 93% of them rode a bike last week, where as over here 84% of us never cycle.

I know you chaps feel a bit foolish, but come on swallow your pride, if you truly want more cyclists and fewer cars then you have got to admit vehicular cycling is not going to work, never has, never will. You know the truth is out there, _"It's the infrastructure stupid"_


----------



## jonesy (29 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> There is plenty of evidence that it is all about infrastructure, the Dutch and the Danish haven't built their separated cycle networks on a whim. They actually researched what works and built infrastructure accordingly. The level of cycling in Oxford, Cambridge and London while improved is still nothing like the levels of cycling in Holland.
> 
> To quote David Hembrow,_ "In attempting to grow cycling, Britain seems willing to try almost anything other than the only thing that actually works - which is... building proper infrastructure for cycling."_
> 
> ...



That's a staggeringly arrogant post actually, particularly as it is directed at people who have spent a considerable amount of time looking at what works and what doesn't, including looking at the evidence of what other countries do differently. And there is vastly more to the difference between Britain and the Netherlands than simply the provision of segregated cycle routes. Have you heard of Home Zones? Have you heard of Shared Space? Have you considered other factors, like planning policy, urban density, use of public transport? Speed limits on roads? Priorities? Liabilities? I could go on. 

Infrastructure is certainly an important part of it, but in the wider sense that the way in which the whole road infrastructure is designed is important, and there is indeed much to learn from the Netherlands. But to single out one aspect of it, segregation, which is particularly difficult to retrofit effectively in existing streets, and rather arrogantly shout at us that it provides THE solution is being inexcusably simplistic and is the sort of argument that has lead to the vast amount of sub-standard worse than useless segregated routes that is so common at the moment.


----------



## Madcyclist (29 Nov 2009)

Nipper, buy a car !!


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Nov 2009)

tell you what, Nipper, you draw a map of all those cycle lanes on a map of Taunton......


----------



## Baggy (29 Nov 2009)

jonesy said:


> Milton Keynes and Bracknell, both with extensive segregated networks and very low modal share for cycling.


Having grown up near Milton Keynes I can vouch for the fact that the Redway network has never been particularly popular.

In the 80s when it was all new, smooth tarmac I remember it being more popular, but it wasn't exactly heaving with cyclists.

Last time I rode there (last year) the network was poorly maintained, poorly signposted and think I saw two other cyclists in about an hour.

It's not just about the infrastructure.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Nov 2009)

the MK Redway system is really sad. It was a visionary sort of effort, and I remember cycling up there from Waddesdon just to try it. It was really difficult to find....anyway the last time I rode through MK a really nasty fat-faced item leant out of the car window and told me to get off the road and on to the cycle path. Typical.

One of the many striking things about the growth of cycling in London is that it's been on the very roads (over 10,000 vehicle movements a day) that the DfT believes should have seperate cycle paths. The A24, the A3, the A12, the A2, the Embankment, and so on. Those cyclists, eh?


----------



## Baggy (29 Nov 2009)

jonesy said:


> That's a staggeringly arrogant post actually, particularly as it is directed at people who have spent a considerable amount of time looking at what works and what doesn't, including looking at the evidence of what other countries do differently. And there is vastly more to the difference between Britain and the Netherlands than simply the provision of segregated cycle routes. Have you heard of Home Zones? Have you heard of Shared Space? Have you considered other factors, like planning policy, urban density, use of public transport? Speed limits on roads? Priorities? Liabilities? I could go on.



In post 20, Nipper agreed I had a point in saying the Netherlands etc had maintained their cycling culture, whereas in the UK we have not, that there is excellent public transport, blah, and that it's not, therefore, all down to infrastructure. The focus of subsequent posts then immediately returned to infrastructure.

The Netherlands, Germany, France etc all have utility cyclists and also have a strong road racing and riding culture, and they will have used the roads long before there was infrastructure. 

Ninety three percent rode a bike last week, but they haven't had a cycling Renaissance, they just haven't embraced the car like we have in the UK and haven't sidelined bicycles. That percentage fugure has probably been the same for decades. Cycling and cyclists are respected, and that's the key difference.

If it was as simple as providing segregated infrastructure, Milton Keynes would be teeming with cyclists. But it's not.


----------



## Baggy (29 Nov 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> the MK Redway system is really sad. It was a visionary sort of effort, and I remember cycling up there from Waddesdon just to try it. It was really difficult to find....



Each time I visit MK I admire the effort that the planners went to in providing so many trees, so much green space, Redways, footpaths...and wonder where the hell all the people are. Sadly the answer seems to be that they are in their cars and in the shopping centre.


----------



## style over speed (29 Nov 2009)

Baggy said:


> If it was as simple as providing segregated infrastructure, Milton Keynes would be teeming with cyclists. But it's not.




the infrastructure needs constant attention to what works and what doesn't. Improvements, maintenance and investment. Read the copenhagnize blog for some fresh ideas. 

They haven't stood still for the last 20 years, its been an ongoing process of building more infrastructure and taking road space away from cars and from car parking. Things have evolved and cycling levels increased.

If, as a previous poster says, MK bike lanes have been abandoned to decay with minimal maintenance and no improvements or growth to the network then it is quite obvious that bike use will fall.

It amazes me how narrow minded the vehicular cyclists are, Holland is so close and easy to get to but it might as well be the other side of the world for all their ignorance of the place. 

I long for the day that the engineers from Denmark will be seconded to work here, and all our current road planners fired.


----------



## Baggy (29 Nov 2009)

style over speed said:


> If, as a previous poster says, MK bike lanes have been abandoned to decay with minimal maintenance and no improvements or growth to the network then it is quite obvious that bike use will fall.
> 
> It amazes me how narrow minded the vehicular cyclists are, Holland is so close and easy to get to but it might as well be the other side of the world for all their ignorance of the place.
> 
> I long for the day that the engineers from Denmark will be seconded to work here, and all our current road planners fired.



Bike use in MK fell before the network fell into decay, and was nothing like as high as envisaged in the first place. 

Holland is marvellous, and shocking as it may seem I've even ridden a bike there, but what I've repeatedly said and am not going to say again is that it's like that because of its culture and mindset, both of which are very different to the UK - it's not just about infrastructure. 

The pro-car lobby here is stronger than it has ever been in Holland, Denmark etc so unless we have a very brave and progressive govt voted in we need to focus on increasing all types of cycling by tackling some of the multiple factors that stop people getting on their bike in the first place, which are also about culture and mindset and not just about infrastructure.

Numbers might then grow to the point where the govt wants to invest in road planning that's more bike centric, and where infrastructure in the shape of paths is actually bike-friendly. Hopefully it will also mean that cyclists on the road are respected.

I might be a vehicular cyclist, but I'm also a utility cyclist and leisure pootler.


----------



## Nipper (29 Nov 2009)

style over speed said:


> the infrastructure needs constant attention to what works and what doesn't. Improvements, maintenance and investment. Read the copenhagnize blog for some fresh ideas.
> 
> They haven't stood still for the last 20 years, its been an ongoing process of building more infrastructure and taking road space away from cars and from car parking. Things have evolved and cycling levels increased.
> 
> ...



Indeed Style Over Speed. I am not sure what the misunderstanding is with these chaps; it's so simple but they don't seem to get it. I think they fear losing the right to battle with the traffic as they speed along at 20+mph. The need is to get cars off the roads and replace the journeys with bikes, these chaps don't seem to realise that most people do not want to share a small bit of road with fast moving lumps of metal.

Today I took my daughter to a birthday party, I used a trailer and rode on a traffic calmed road, some cycle path and a bit of pavement. The paths needed resurfacing, the on road parking needed to be removed, and I needed a bit of extra path to replace the pavement part, BUT, I did not have to ride along the main road with cars and HGVs travelling at 30-40mph. I would never take my child on a fast moving road with tons of metal, being operated by morons. 

Just because the bike lanes are not the best doesn't mean I want to share my journey with cars. If the cycle paths/traffic calming were of the standard found in Holland I am sure I would not have been the only parent to arrive by bike. Indeed the journey was of less than 2 miles and everyone else travelled by car (about 20 cars). A well maintained safe cycle path would surely have encouraged a few others out of their cars.

There are some journeys I can't make with my children because the only route is along main roads, with no pavement or cycle path. I would love to take my children to their grandparents but I can't because there is only a main road with lorries and cars doing 60mph. I simply could not do this with my 4 year old daughter in a trailer.

The planners over here think that by doing nothing, or throwing in the odd ASL they are helping cyclists. They say, we asked the cyclists and it's what they want, they don't want separate cycle paths. The thing is we are not going to see a modal share that will actually make a difference unless we follow the countries that have got it right.

BTW Cool bicycle in your avatar!


----------



## Nipper (29 Nov 2009)

Baggy said:


> I might be a vehicular cyclist, but I'm also a utility cyclist and leisure pootler.



Do You have children? See my above post.


----------



## Norm (29 Nov 2009)

style over speed said:


> the infrastructure needs constant attention to what works and what doesn't. Improvements, maintenance and investment. Read the copenhagnize blog for some fresh ideas.


Whilst I think that the infrastructure leaves plenty of room for improvement, I think the bigger hurdle is social / cultural. 

My wife happily rides horses, throws chainsaws around, heck, she even walks a dog but she will not ride a bike and doesn't like the idea of my kids riding the 4 miles into town with me. She had a go at me yesterday because my daughter and I cycled home from school along the roads rather than using the bridleways. Gee, how could I be so irresponsible.

Dedicated cycle paths would help but, unless every route we could ever envisage taking was covered by a bike track, the "it's unsafe" attitude will prevail.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Nov 2009)

I see there's a concerted effort to brand people as 'vehicular cyclists'. It's not going to fly. Most of the people who post on this forum have a fair idea of each others way of doing things, and describing somebody who does the grocery shopping on a Brompton as a 'vehicular cyclists' doing '20+' just invites ridicule.

Nipper - time has passed you by. Twenty years ago the LCC started campaigning for bike lanes. Londoners spent over £140million on LCN+. As a board member of the LCC said to me a year or two back, Londoners would be entitled to ask for their money back. All those wiggly green lines on the map, and the wretched cyclists, of all descriptions, insist on pootling up the main roads.......

Keith Hill, my MP and a former minister said to me 'Simon, I've signed orders for tens of millions of pounds of cycle lanes and I don't know whether they've done a bit of good'. And he's got a point. Sustrans have covered the country with green wiggly lines, but cycling hasn't taken off as a result.

Norm's hit a large nail on the head. We have a culture problem. In London, or rather in some parts of London, and in Oxford and Cambridge cycling has achieved a critical mass, and there does now seem to be no way we'll go back to the seventies, when those of us who cycled around the Elephant and Castle could dine out on it for months afterwards. I think (and I'm willing to listen to argument on this) that culture is generated by neccessity and convenience and sustained by politics. We're very fortunate in London in that neccessity, convenience and politics combine to make cycling the most pleasant way (mornings like this one excepted) to do the ordinary things like commuting and shopping. That's where the hope lies, although it's clearly going to take something radical to convince people in rural areas that it's neccessary and convenient to ride a bike.

The big problem in this country is that for the last fifty years we've built for the car. Bypasses, out of town d-i-y stores, large supermarkets and retail parks all conspire to make car ownership and use convenient. The planning profession still don't get it - they're still demanding car spaces be put in to new development and still looking to out of town shopping to generate prosperity. That, I'm afraid, is where the big challenge lies. Our town centres and high streets have been dehumanised and impoverished by town planners and (sorry, Jonesy) transport planners alike, and we've lost the congeniality that walking and cycling affords.

Good luck with the bike lanes in Taunton. Let us know when they're built and we'll all come down and ride around them for a day. In the mean time, weather or not, I've a date with the A24.


----------



## MartinC (30 Nov 2009)

Insisting that there's one reason why people don't cycle in the UK is far too simplistic. In my view the biggest factor is cultural - but that's an aggregation of many things anyway. 

If infrastructure is the key only?) thing then why are there so many cyclists in China?

In the Netherlands there's lots of separate cycling infrastructure, lots of infrastucture cyclists share with pedestrians and lots of infrastructure where cyclists share with cars. Separate infrastructure does have a place but the civilised operation of shared space is crucial - and that's what's missing in the UK. 

Cycling apartheid hasn't been tried anywhere in the world but gets promoted in the UK and US. This comes from the cutural bias against cycling in these places even when the promoter cycles themselves.


----------



## summerdays (30 Nov 2009)

I've got kids and they make some of the journeys on road with traffic - the eldest and youngest are generally OK (the middle one has always had problems with coping with traffic - I'm always surprised she passed her Level 2 Bikeability). The youngest I'm sure will do fine in a couple of year time when he does his Bikeability if he hasn't learnt too many bad habits by then - he is confident on non-main road traffic, he regularly has to pass JCB's, dumper trucks, lorries etc every day on his route to school and he is 8. He cycled on the path mostly up to last year and now has progressed to the road. Its much easier now we don't have to stop at every side road to get anywhere. 

Now I wouldn't expect every 8 year old to be confident to cycle on the road - like I said his 12 year old sibling isn't brilliant even now. There is even one child in year 6 that cycles to school on the road without an adult (after several years of doing it with a parent). This is in the city but on quieter side roads, but clogged with parents dropping off their kids by car - because it isn't safe to let them walk to school!!!! (All those cars you know!!).

I think that we do need to build some off road cycle routes - its how quite a few come to cycling, for leisure, with their family. However I think eventually when those cyclists become more confident then they prefer the quicker pace on the road. We haven't got the space in cities to allow for loads of new cycle paths. 

Where I think cycle paths are needed is to create useful short cuts for cyclists where cars can't go and to iron out some of the contours. They have recently widened a old footpath which runs on a shallow gradient and allows me to avoid a steep hill and a motorway roundabout and provides a nice break from the traffic. I don't have a problem doing the other way - its just more effort and less pleasant - I enjoy my couple of mins along a green corridor.

We want as many cycling as possible so I think the different types of cyclists should accept each other and that they have different desires. That leisure cyclist who only ever rides on the path, might be in the car behind you in the road and give you that extra bit of room in passing.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Nov 2009)

summerdays said:


> Where I think cycle paths are needed is to create useful short cuts for cyclists where cars can't go and to iron out some of the contours. They have recently widened a old footpath which runs on a shallow gradient and allows me to avoid a steep hill and a motorway roundabout and provides a nice break from the traffic. I don't have a problem doing the other way - its just more effort and less pleasant - I enjoy my couple of mins along a green corridor.


I think this is the way to go, and Homezones, which are bits of suburb that cannot easily be traversed by car, are one way of achieving this. Closing off one end of a residential street to cars, and allowing pedestrians and cylists to go through makes city streets safer for all of us. Why, we might even see children playing in the street again!


----------



## wafflycat (30 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> There is plenty of evidence that it is all about infrastructure, the Dutch and the Danish haven't built their separated cycle networks on a whim. They actually researched what works and built infrastructure accordingly. The level of cycling in Oxford, Cambridge and London while improved is still nothing like the levels of cycling in Holland.
> 
> To quote David Hembrow,_ "In attempting to grow cycling, Britain seems willing to try almost anything other than the only thing that actually works - which is... building proper infrastructure for cycling."_
> 
> ...




Considering the nature of British towns & cities, just what roads are you going to narrow, buildings, including homes, demolish, to make way for all of this dazzling infrastructure? Such infrastructure was put into Milton Keynes during the build stage yet it's not exactly the hub of UK cycling.


----------



## wafflycat (30 Nov 2009)

When I was a girl, I couldn't wait to cycle on road. Cycling on paths was for sissies and little kids. All the local kids were the same. Did the Cycling Proficiency Test at school (got 100% *smugness creeps in*) and I was off. When WCMnr was a young boy, his dad & I trained him in the skills required to cycle safely and confidently on road. As a mother I worried and worried about him cycling on road, but I familiarised myself with understanding risk and danger and also understood that I was not doing him any good long-term if I wrapped him in cotton wool. Cycling on road from a relatively young age gave him a confidence, maturity and road awareness his non-cycling friends just didn't have. At 15 he was cycling dual carriageways as well as roads from narrow quiet lanes, rural roads, urban roads, home & abroad. He did not require special facilities to get him cycling; he simply required a couple of adults to teach him how to cycle on road properly. Indeed when he was a baby, the normal form of transport was him in a childseat on the rack of my bicycle and that's how we got around - on busy urban roads for the most part.

I cannot, for the life of me, fathom this obsession some have with the supposed need for cycling to have some sort of special provision in order to become popular. It was never needed in the past and it's only since the rise in private car use and all the hype that goes with that as being the only desirable form of transport (apparently it does wonders for a bloke in the penis-enlargement department) and the growth of long-distance commuting due to many years of that being effectively promoted by the policies of assorted governments, that all of a sudden we cyclists require farcilities. This cyclist doesn't. And I'm no racer. I'm a middle-aged matron of the parish who pootles about on her bike for leisure, shopping, a way of attempting to keep fit and the odd holiday.


----------



## Nipper (2 Dec 2009)

wafflycat said:


> Considering the nature of British towns & cities, just what roads are you going to narrow, buildings, including homes, demolish, to make way for all of this dazzling infrastructure? Such infrastructure was put into Milton Keynes during the build stage yet it's not exactly the hub of UK cycling.



Wafflycat... Did you read any of David's blog? They manage to retro fit in Holland and we could over here.

You say you have been riding for many years, it is a shame that there has not been any significant increase in cycling during that time. Perhaps because most people don't like riding on roads with HGVs and cars. You, like so many other cyclists here, sound like a flat earther; the simple fact is that the countries with the most separate infrastructure have the highest rate of cycling. All your confident claims that other forces are at work are rubbish, the truth is we have failed and they have succeeded.

Many here seem to cite the shoot infrastructure found in the UK as evidence that cycle paths don't work and never have. That is... well...just plain stupid, good infrastructure such as that found in Holland does work, it has just never been tried here.

Simon you seem wedded to the idea that everyone will be fine fighting with traffic in bus lanes, truth is you are a bit strange and most people prefere the subjective safty offered by separated paths. I suspect you are in fact a car supremacist, any cyclist who advocates vehicular cycling and then thinks there is nothing wrong with an 83 foot lorry is either very foolish or is actually a petrol head. I wonder do you think you could get many non cycling mums to take their 3 and 4 year old kids by bike along a main road with those lorries hurtling past?


----------



## wafflycat (2 Dec 2009)

Flat-earther? Stupid? Don't be so insulting. You do yourself no favours. Fighting with traffic? I certainly don't. I have little hassle cycling on roads - except from idiots who delight in informing me that I should be on the cycle path... Cycling on road is not a hassle. It's level of danger is exaggerated by your terminology. And your attitude to those who do cycle on roads is patronising and insulting. I repeat - you do yourself no favours.


----------



## Nipper (2 Dec 2009)

Waffles, you seem to think because YOU don't have a problem on the road, that everyone will be the same. The truth, as is evident by most people in the UK not cycling, is that far more people don't like the idea of vehicular cycling. But hay ho, you carry on with your head in the sand, though you may not see the next left turning HGV with a driver on the phone and coat-hanger securing his load.


----------



## jonesy (2 Dec 2009)

Yawn. Let's ignore high levels of cycling in Oxford and Cambridge, let's ignore recent growth in cycling in London; let's ignore all the other things that the Netherlands does differently, all the other factors that affect cycling levels like land use planning, travel distances, use of public transport, legal liabilities, speed limits, culture, etc etc, let's ignore all the practical difficulties we face in trying to build segregated infrastructure in narrow British streets, let's chuck out all the awkward facts then you are quite right, the answer does look easy then, doesn't it...


----------



## wafflycat (2 Dec 2009)

Nipper said:


> Waffles, you seem to think because YOU don't have a problem on the road, that everyone will be the same. The truth, as is evident by most people in the UK not cycling, is that far more people don't like the idea of vehicular cycling. But hay ho, you carry on with your head in the sand, though you may not see the next left turning HGV with a driver on the phone and coat-hanger securing his load.




You are really very insulting and coming across as a nasty bit of work. So I suggest you read Jonsey's response and I'll add this - re-read - I refer not just to me in my post, but people I know. And as for HGV drivers - there's lots in my neck of the woods, and they are the most courteous drivers I meet, so much so I have been known to write to the relevant companies to acknowledge this fact. Now - back to your spot under the bridge, troll.


----------



## wafflycat (2 Dec 2009)

jonesy said:


> Yawn. Let's ignore high levels of cycling in Oxford and Cambridge, let's ignore recent growth in cycling in London; let's ignore all the other things that the Netherlands does differently, all the other factors that affect cycling levels like land use planning, travel distances, use of public transport, legal liabilities, speed limits, culture, etc etc, let's ignore all the practical difficulties we face in trying to build segregated infrastructure in narrow British streets, let's chuck out all the awkward facts then you are quite right, the answer does look easy then, doesn't it...




Quite.


----------



## Nipper (2 Dec 2009)

And Jonesy let's forget that this thread was about the Darlington Bike project to get NEW PEOPLE CYCLING and that those new people don't want to share the road with nutters in cars and that the only way to get them on bikes is to make cycling seem safe and attractive.

READ David Hembrow's blog and Copenhagenize and you will find all your points against cycle paths are answered. For example the streets that need cycle paths, big main roads are more than wide enough to take new infrastructure. There would also be far more room if we removed on road parking. The travel distances thing, oh yes that's right all those long distance commuting cyclists on this board they are typical, yes you are right... oh no hold on 80% of car journeys are less than 5 miles. So in Holland they choose to have a 30kmph speed limit in urban areas and so we couldn't do that here... oh hang on we could if we wanted too... As I said before it will take a politician with balls to really do it.


----------



## Nipper (2 Dec 2009)

wafflycat said:


> And as for HGV drivers - there's lots in my neck of the woods, and they are the most courteous drivers I meet, so much so I have been known to write to the relevant companies to acknowledge this fact.









This was taken yesterday in Bristol, courteous driving?


----------



## wafflycat (2 Dec 2009)

Yes, an example of bad driving. Tell you what, people die in bed. Whatever you do, do NOT, I repeat, DO NOT ever go to bed. You may DIE!  And people get injured by electric toasters! Do not ever go near one!


----------



## wafflycat (2 Dec 2009)

And by the way - my son fell off his bike last week. On a cycle path. One of those special safe facilities needed to make cycling safe.


----------



## jonesy (2 Dec 2009)

Well, actually it is more like 55% of car trips are under 5 miles- see the National Travel Survey- but let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant hey?

And if 'big main roads' are all wide enough for segregated paths, perhaps you can explain how they could be fitted on Cowley Road in Oxford, the main cycle commuter route into the city centre and probably the busiest cycling corridor in the country. A narrow carriageway that wasn't wide enough for standard width cycle lanes, certainly not if you wanted to allow enough space for buses to pass safely, narrow pavements and a busy street with lots of shops and cafes. And no alternative route, because there are so few crossings of the river. Which buildings would you knock down? There was no ideal solution, but segregation was out of the question, so the effort had to go into making it safer for everyone to share the road. I'm sure many things could have been done better, and there is a lot of campaigning to get far more 20mph zones, but your Dalek like repetition of "segregate segregate segregate" is entirely unhelpful to those who are trying to find workable solutions to problems like these.


----------



## marinyork (2 Dec 2009)

There is indeed a great deal of campaigning for 20mph zones , it just doesn't hit the news. I'm not that convinced it'll make that much difference but it could be pretty interesting in a few areas where there are known conflicts. As for this segregation business it's an awful lot of money. For example one could try and get local by-laws on no cycling in certain areas reverted and instantly convert some places for say children to cycle on overnight on the cheap  or say concentrate on schemes that are in LTPs and represent value for money for both commuters and leisure . Crazy stuff.


----------



## Nipper (3 Dec 2009)

wafflycat said:


> And by the way - my son fell off his bike last week. On a cycle path. One of those special safe facilities needed to make cycling safe.



I hope your son was not hurt. What if he had fell in front of a bus or a lorry? The cycle path means he didn't.

Let's just look at that picture again





Jonesy sorry got my % who never cycle and less than 5 miles figures mixed up. You have to admit that is still a massive number of twunts clogging up the roads. As to your one road in Cambridge, I suppose if you can't get a workable solution there, well the same must be true everywhere. You could always get rid of the cars, or do you sometimes drive...


----------



## summerdays (3 Dec 2009)

Nipper said:


> So in Holland they choose to have a 30kmph speed limit in urban areas and so we couldn't do that here... oh hang on we could if we wanted too... As I said before it will take a politician with balls to really do it.



Some towns and cities have introduced 20 mph areas. Bristol has just had a consultation about 2 reasonable sized areas which are going to be trial location. As a result of the consultation some of the main roads (not all) that were to be excluded from the 20 mph limit are now to be included. During the consultation there were other areas of the city that also wanted to be included, so hopefully it will be rolled out across the city.



Nipper said:


> This was taken yesterday in Bristol, courteous driving?



As I said knowing that area, I really doubt the lorry could have been travelling in any way more than crawling... trying to make that turn. The cyclist was probably a student and being honest you have to say that they don't always make sensible decisions. Would you pass a lorry on a very narrow road whether it was turning or not? (Ignore which side of the lorry she was on and the fact it was manoeuvring).


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Dec 2009)

Nipper said:


> Simon you seem wedded to the idea that everyone will be fine fighting with traffic in bus lanes, truth is you are a bit strange and most people prefere the subjective safty offered by separated paths. *I suspect you are in fact a car supremacist*, any cyclist who advocates vehicular cycling and then thinks there is nothing wrong with an 83 foot lorry is either very foolish or is actually a petrol head. I wonder do you think you could get many non cycling mums to take their 3 and 4 year old kids by bike along a main road with those lorries hurtling past?


if you think that's going to get you anywhere, you're mistaken. When you've succeeded in getting cycle paths built in Taunton, let us know.


----------



## wafflycat (3 Dec 2009)

Nipper said:


> I hope your son was not hurt. What if he had fell in front of a bus or a lorry? The cycle path means he didn't.must be true everywhere.



What if he had been hit on the head by a meteorite...


----------



## MartinC (3 Dec 2009)

Nipper, you still haven't answered the question. China has few segregated cycling facilities but many cyclists - how can this be if your theory is right?


----------



## marinyork (3 Dec 2009)

summerdays said:


> Some towns and cities have introduced 20 mph areas. Bristol has just had a consultation about 2 reasonable sized areas which are going to be trial location. As a result of the consultation some of the main roads (not all) that were to be excluded from the 20 mph limit are now to be included. During the consultation there were other areas of the city that also wanted to be included, so hopefully it will be rolled out across the city.



How large is reasonably large? This city has been divided up into 100 zones and there's enough funding to do 2 per year. It's much more costly doing it this size so there have been talk of getting this down to about 15 zones. The only one likely to fly here is the city centre .


----------



## theclaud (3 Dec 2009)

You lot are very patient with this Nipper fellow. I take it The Rule applies only to P&L?


----------



## marinyork (3 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> You lot are very patient with this Nipper fellow. I take it The Rule applies only to P&L?



Par for the course. Opinions like Nipper's are very common lower down the cycle campaigning hierarchy and for some bizarre reason higher up in some people. They can also be common in people that have cycled a long time and had little contact with other cyclists. I hear opinions like this every time I go to meetings.


----------



## theclaud (3 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> Par for the course. Opinions like Nipper's are very common lower down the cycle campaigning hierarchy and for some bizarre reason higher up in some people. I hear opinions like this every time I go to meetings.



The opinions, whilst pretty ill-conceived, don't annoy me nearly as much as the appalling manners...


----------



## summerdays (3 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> How large is reasonably large? This city has been divided up into 100 zones and there's enough funding to do 2 per year. It's much more costly doing it this size so there have been talk of getting this down to about 15 zones. The only one likely to fly here is the city centre .



This links to a map that isn't quite upto date.. (I think):

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?sour...1.455184,-2.590199&spn=0.037438,0.077248&z=13

Don't know if you know Bristol but one zone is St Pauls, St Werburghs, Easton, Lawrence Hill and over to St George. The other zone is the area immediately south of the river: Southville, Bedminster, Totterdown.

It doesn't cover every single road in those area but some of the main roads are included (not the M32 either )


----------



## marinyork (3 Dec 2009)

summerdays said:


> This links to a map that isn't quite upto date.. (I think):
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?sour...1.455184,-2.590199&spn=0.037438,0.077248&z=13
> 
> ...



No I don't know Bristol well at all, but that is a fairly large area. Sadly I can see that some of the exemptions do include some minor main roads that probably should be in there. Still, they can always change their minds in the future .

I think I remember you mentioning that take up south of the river was fairly poor compared to other bits of bristol. It's quite good to see a couple of green lines, well routes even leading to bridges.


----------



## summerdays (3 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> No I don't know Bristol well at all, but that is a fairly large area. Sadly I can see that some of the exemptions do include some minor main roads that probably should be in there. Still, they can always change their minds in the future .
> 
> I think I remember you mentioning that take up south of the river was fairly poor compared to other bits of bristol. It's quite good to see a couple of green lines, well routes even leading to bridges.



I think there is a reasonable number of cyclists in that sort of area, but its in the far south of the city that you tend to only see pavement cyclists - usually youths rather than reasonable numbers of cyclists. 

The left green route is well used by cyclists - lovely shared pedestrian/cyclist bridge with traffic lights at either end. Where as the green route on the right is a major snarl up roundabout that isn't one of my favourite places. I wouldn't go out of my way to avoid it but I suspect some would. Ideally we could do with a couple more crossing points over the major barriers such as the River, Floating Harbour and M32 motorway.

Here is a quote about the final roads expected to be included in the area:


> Bristol City Council have just issued a Press Release on their 20 mph proposals for south and east Bristol. The number of roads excluded from the 20 mph coverage has been pared right down. The south Bristol is now 'Total Twenty' with no exclusions except the fragments on Clarence Road and York Road along the Cut which are effectively outside the scheme area. The whole of the A38 (West St - Malago Road - Bedminster Parade) is now included as 20 mph.
> 
> In east Bristol the exclusions (shown red below) are the M32 - Newfoundland Way - Newfoundland St, Easton Way -Lawrence Hill Roundabout - Barrow Road, Lawrence Hill - Church Road,
> Old Market - West Street - Lawford Street/Lamb Street/Lawfords Gate/Trinity Road - Clarence Road (the A420). No one ever expected the M32 and Easton Way to be included so effectively it's just the A420 that has been excluded. That will still disappoint some but the gains compared to the officers' original proposals are enormous.



So the map isn't entirely upto date


----------



## marinyork (3 Dec 2009)

LOL the A38 to the south is seriously going to wind some people up?


----------



## marinyork (3 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> The opinions, whilst pretty ill-conceived, don't annoy me nearly as much as the appalling manners...



You've obviously not spent long enough talking to sustrans people


----------



## MacB (3 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> The opinions, whilst pretty ill-conceived, don't annoy me nearly as much as the appalling manners...



I'd assumed it was a 'returnee', under new guise, with an axe to grind. If not then he's not presenting a convincing case for himself or his stance.


----------



## summerdays (3 Dec 2009)

I don't think they are expecting 20 mph, more a reduction in speed. And I can almost keep up with the traffic so it can't be going that fast in the first place.


----------



## marinyork (3 Dec 2009)

summerdays said:


> I don't think they are expecting 20 mph, more a reduction in speed. And I can almost keep up with the traffic so it can't be going that fast in the first place.



Indeed, but it doesn't stop people ranting and raving about it .

One of the most major roads here badly needs a 20mph zone and the amount of anger it generates .


----------



## jonesy (3 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> Par for the course. Opinions like Nipper's are very common lower down the cycle campaigning hierarchy and for some bizarre reason higher up in some people. They can also be common in people that have cycled a long time and had little contact with other cyclists. I hear opinions like this every time I go to meetings.



Yes, I'm afraid so. The 'segregation is the only way' ideology exists right to the top of transport policy making, and sadly one of the negative consequences of the National Cycle Network (there are positive ones as well) has been to institutionalise the belief that cyclists are much better off on shared use paths, no matter how compromised the standards are, no matter how much more indirect and discontinuous the resulting routes are. It is really depressing, because no matter how often you refer people to the cycle friendly infrastructure guidance, or tell people about the hierarchy of measures  (which comes from Dutch practice by the way Nipper...), they've seen lots of blue signs on pavements on a 'flagship' project so think that must be OK.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Dec 2009)

Part of the problem, surely, is the need to be seen to be 'doing something'?

In fairness the Demonstration Towns thing is mostly about 'soft measures'. Somebody, somewhere in the DfT must be getting the message. It's just a pity that cycling officers at borough and city level want to leave their mark on towns, and, oftentimes, manage to do so via S.106 monies. I've slammed the phone down on some idiot in Portsmouth who wanted to cover all the open space around a building with stainless steel bike containers, when we'd gone to the trouble to design the lifts and flat hallways around bicycles (and prams and shopping trolleys........)


----------



## jonesy (3 Dec 2009)

Nipper said:


> ...
> Jonesy sorry got my % who never cycle and less than 5 miles figures mixed up. You have to admit that is still a massive number of twunts clogging up the roads. ...



Well these little details matter a great deal, as understanding what sort of trips people make and how long they are is fundamental if we are going to implement the right measures to get them to change their travel behaviour. If we look at the National Travel Survey:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/mainresults/nts2008/

Table 3.5 tells us that about 55% of car journeys are under 5 miles, 22% are under 2 miles. So yes, there's a lot of potential for modal shift (though bear in mind that this refers to the proportion of trips, not total mileage,which is skewed towards the longer trips). However, if you look at the figures for cycling, 86% of trips are under 5 miles, 49% under 2 miles, 19% under 1 mile. Clearly there's a long tail of people who cycle longer distances, but for most people, most cycle trips are short, especially utility trips, and this is as true of countries where there is a high level of cycle use as it is in the UK. Now this really ought to tell us a lot about the sort of trips we should be focusing on, i.e. short ones, so why on Earth has so much effort gone into creating routes that only serve much longer distances, either because they are remote from settlements or are simply indirect? 

See also table 3.7 which reports average trip times- they are pretty well identical for cars and cycling at just over 20 minutes. I rather doubt this is a coincidence- people are cycling for those journeys that are time competitive with driving. The key to getting people to cycle instead of driving is therefore to make it advantageous in terms of time. You get that in places like Oxford, Cambridge and increasingly London where congestion and difficulty parking make cycling time competitive for commuting journeys. So if you want to encourage more people to cycle then you have to make sure you are improving the time competitiveness over driving, i.e focus on the direct routes and only do things that make it easier to make progress. You don't get that from routes and infrastructure that are indirect, discontinuous or simply slow because they are shared with large numbers of pedestrians, but that is what you'll get if you demand segregation above all else.

Edit- this also affects the Oxford vs Milton Keynes comparison we were discussing earlier. Oxford is much more compact, so journey lengths are much shorter and cycling hence time competitive with driving for a greater proportion of journeys. No matter how good you make the off -road network in Milton Keynes, cycling will not compete with driving for a large perctenage of trips when journeys are longer and driving so convenient.


----------



## Norm (3 Dec 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> Part of the problem, surely, is the need to be seen to be 'doing something'?


Wouldn't it be nice if the "something" which they did was to enforce the current regulations.


----------



## MacB (3 Dec 2009)

jonesy said:


> Well these little details matter a great deal, as understanding what sort of trips people make and how long they are is fundamental if we are going to implement the right measures to get them to change their travel behaviour. If we look at the National Travel Survey:
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/mainresults/nts2008/
> 
> Table 3.5 tells us that about 55% of car journeys are under 5 miles, 22% are under 2 miles. So yes, there's a lot of potential for modal shift (though bear in mind that this refers to the proportion of trips, not total mileage,which is skewed towards the longer trips). However, if you look at the figures for cycling, 86% of trips are under 5 miles, 49% under 2 miles, 19% under 1 mile. Clearly there's a long tail of people who cycle longer distances, but for most people, most cycle trips are short, especially utility trips, and this is as true of countries where there is a high level of cycle use as it is in the UK. Now this really ought to tell us a lot about the sort of trips we should be focusing on, i.e. short ones, so why on Earth has so much effort gone into creating routes that only serve much longer distances, either because they are remote from settlements or are simply indirect?
> ...



Would also add that, even where cycling is attractive time wise, the theft risk for bikes, in public spaces, is very off putting. There are times when I think, shops, 3 locks, can I be bothered? Even with 3 different locks I'm reluctant to leave a bike anywhere too long, and some places not at all. What should be a liberating experience can become quite tense and traumatic.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Dec 2009)

MacB hits a nail on the head. Safe bike storage at work and at home is one of the big keys to the increase in cycling. TfL does some work in relation to the former, and has issued guidance on the latter (small contribution from yrs truly) but there is a tremendous way to go. Failure to produce a Workplace Travel Plan should preclude companies from public sector contracts. Failure to produce a Residential Travel Plan which is backed up by design should lead to a refusal by the planning committee. WTPs and RTPs are not rocket science - you can steal somebody else's and adapt it (actually, going by the consistency of the product you could steal any Transport Assessment and adapt it to any development proposal, but that's another story) - it's a question of will.

I joined a practice whose brochure went big on sustainability. No place to park the bike in the office.


----------



## jonesy (4 Dec 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> MacB hits a nail on the head. Safe bike storage at work and at home is one of the big keys to the increase in cycling. TfL does some work in relation to the former, and has issued guidance on the latter (small contribution from yrs truly) but there is a tremendous way to go. Failure to produce a Workplace Travel Plan should preclude companies from public sector contracts. Failure to produce a Residential Travel Plan which is backed up by design should lead to a refusal by the planning committee. WTPs and RTPs are not rocket science - you can steal somebody else's and adapt it (actually, going by the consistency of the product you could steal any Transport Assessment and adapt it to any development proposal, but that's another story) - it's a question of will.
> 
> I joined a practice whose brochure went big on sustainability. No place to park the bike in the office.



I agree, there are other factors necessary to get more people to cycle. However, journey time competitiveness is a fundamental requirement. Secure parking, like better surfaced routes, increased safety or attractiveness etc will not attract significant numbers of new cyclists unless cycling is competitive in terms of journey time (for utility cycling). 

NB- this doesn't mean it has to be faster, or even the same, as there are other benefits that motivate people to cycle, but I wonder if there are many people here who cycle for utility journeys when they could make the same journeys significantly more quickly by other mode?

NB2- How 'journey time' is perceived is a bit more complex than simply total travel time, people make allowances for things like time spent waiting at bus stops, the liklihood of delay, time spent in interchange, the risk of missed connections etc, this is represented as 'generalised time' in transport modelling.


----------



## MacB (4 Dec 2009)

jonesy said:


> I agree, there are other factors necessary to get more people to cycle. However, journey time competitiveness is a fundamental requirement. Secure parking, like better surfaced routes, increased safety or attractiveness etc will not attract significant numbers of new cyclists unless cycling is competitive in terms of journey time (for utility cycling).
> 
> NB- this doesn't mean it has to be faster, or even the same, as there are other benefits that motivate people to cycle, but I wonder if there are many people here who cycle for utility journeys when they could make the same journeys significantly more quickly by other mode?
> 
> NB2- How 'journey time' is perceived is a bit more complex than simply total travel time, people make allowances for things like time spent waiting at bus stops, the liklihood of delay, time spent in interchange, the risk of missed connections etc, this is represented as 'generalised time' in transport modelling.



I'd also be curious to know how many people have been deterred, or stopped in their tracks, by bike theft. If you look online for info on bikes you can't miss the amount of info around security. I read this and thought I'd begun properly by buying different locks etc. I lost my first bike, first day, at the train station, along with my shiny new locks(£80 worth of lock, I might as well have burnt the money). Through my own error it was uninsured, I'd made the mistake of assuming it was covered like my golf stuff is. Hadn't realised that coverage was only for stuff locked in boot of car or in garage. Even if insured I'd still have had the hassle and a period without a bike.

Still reported it to police etc but no CCTV and no expectation of recovery. Advice from transport police was never leave a bike at a station. Advice from general police was don't leave a bike anywhere but, if you have to, use 3 different locks and a really rubbish bike. So then I look into locks and find depressing footage showing how long a £100's worth of locks holds out against thieves. Then you find that, even if you manage to transport a ton of locks and make your bike unnatractive to steal, they still might take bits off it or sabotage the bike in some way.

Now, in my instance, this made me bloody minded and determined to continue cycling. I can easily see how these things could make someone revert to using a car or give up on the idea without ever buying a bike.

I truly believe in utility cycling, one of the reasons that I stick to using flat pedals is to keep it a less specialised habit. It doesn't matter how shiny and convenient they make cycling facilities. The further cycling is from a 'hop on and go' scenario the less attractive it becomes for utlity uses.


----------



## Norm (4 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> I'd also be curious to know how many people have been deterred, or stopped in their tracks, by bike theft. If you look online for info on bikes you can't miss the amount of info around security. I read this and thought I'd begun properly by buying different locks etc. I lost my first bike, first day, at the train station, along with my shiny new locks


I swear, we are twins! 

Although it took 5 days for mine to be nicked and it was from Eton High Street rather than the station. Strangely, my son was gutted that they took mine and left his. "What's wrong with my bike..." etc 

Cycled into Windsor last Saturday and, because it had the lights fitted, I took the MTB. It's only when I got into town that I remembered what a load of faff it is, take off the seat pack and the tool bottle, take off the lights and the computer, get the lock out, find something solid to lock it to etc. It took longer to lock than I was in the shop.

Worse still, I got out, reversed the process, turned the lights on and was just about to head off when my phone rang. The wife saying "Can you pop into Marks and get some stuff for us" 

Once more from the top....


----------



## theclaud (4 Dec 2009)

Norm said:


> I swear, we are twins!



Have you got funny handlebars too?


----------



## jonesy (4 Dec 2009)

Theft is a serious problem. There have been research projects looking at the deteterence effect and showing that a lot of people stop cycling after their bikes are stolen. I'm not familiar with the work in this area, but for example, see:
http://www.bikeoff.org/design_resource/ABT_problem_why_prevent.shtml

http://www.designagainstcrime.com/index.php?q=node/65


----------



## Norm (4 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> Have you got funny handlebars too?


No, it's these trousers, they hang funny.
*baddum tish*


----------



## MacB (4 Dec 2009)

Norm said:


> No, it's these trousers, they hang funny.
> *baddum tish*



ignore her, she's only posting out of envy, snazzy handlebars, in the possession of others, does that to some people


----------



## MacB (4 Dec 2009)

jonesy said:


> Theft is a serious problem. There have been research projects looking at the deteterence effect and showing that a lot of people stop cycling after their bikes are stolen. I'm not familiar with the work in this area, but for example, see:
> http://www.bikeoff.org/design_resource/ABT_problem_why_prevent.shtml
> 
> http://www.designagainstcrime.com/index.php?q=node/65



interesting links, in that first one they indicate that theft is the No2 deterrent to cycling after road safety. They also found that, of those that experience cycle theft, 17% stop cycling and 66% cycle less. That's an 83% negative impact from theft and that doesn't count the people that just never bother in the frist place, due to fear of theft.

I'd imagined the issue was big but not as big as that.


----------



## jonesy (4 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> interesting links, in that first one they indicate that theft is the No2 deterrent to cycling after road safety. They also found that, of those that experience cycle theft, 17% stop cycling and 66% cycle less. That's an 83% negative impact from theft and that doesn't count the people that just never bother in the frist place, due to fear of theft.
> 
> I'd imagined the issue was big but not as big as that.



You've alway got to be careful in how you interpret the reasons people give for not doing something that they don't currently do, and which are hard to quantify anyway, like 'safety', but the figures for those who stop cycling after a theft are indeed an indication that this is a serious problem.


----------



## MacB (4 Dec 2009)

jonesy said:


> You've alway got to be careful in how you interpret the reasons people give for not doing something that they don't currently do, and which are hard to quantify anyway, like 'safety', but the figures for those who stop cycling after a theft are indeed an indication that this is a serious problem.



Agreed, I don't trust the I don't cycle because stats. Since my first experience I seem to have aquired an interest in cycle parking and security. I can't help looking over the bikes and facilities every time I'm at a station, shops etc(I'll probably end up getting questioned). Stations are amazing, nearly every bike I've seen is a clear indication that the owner has followed the 'ride a heap of rubbish' advice. I've seen a lot that I just wouldn't take on to a road. I get the impression that they've opted for this plus cheap, lightweight, lock rather than carrying multiple heavy locks. Then there's the folks that have followed the 'disguise' route. Is it just me or does a bike covered in sticky tape, or stickers, scream please steal me?


----------



## jonesy (4 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> Agreed, I don't trust the I don't cycle because stats.


Sadly you see a lot of surveys like that in transport, the sort that begin "why don't you cycle?" followed by a list that goes "cycling is dangerous", "too hilly", "too wet", "bike thieves" etc" and then "What would encourage you to cycle?", followed by something like "Safe cycleways" (invariably undefined), "showers", "lockers","free breakfasts", etc etc. And so prompted people dutifully tick all the boxes, and you draw all sorts of conclusions on what will get them to cycle, potentially spend money on 'safe cycle paths' etc, and still no-one cycles because you didn't actually get to the real reason why people weren't cycling in the first place... 

The same applies to other modes. I once saw some response to a staff travel plan survey, in which half the respondents from one particular village drove, and ticked the box that said they did this because there was 'no public transport'; the other half all travelled by bus.. 



> Since my first experience I seem to have aquired an interest in cycle parking and security. I can't help looking over the bikes and facilities every time I'm at a station, shops etc(I'll probably end up getting questioned). Stations are amazing, nearly every bike I've seen is a clear indication that the owner has followed the 'ride a heap of rubbish' advice. I've seen a lot that I just wouldn't take on to a road. I get the impression that they've opted for this plus cheap, lightweight, lock rather than carrying multiple heavy locks. Then there's the folks that have followed the 'disguise' route. Is it just me or does a bike covered in sticky tape, or stickers, scream please steal me?



I'm not convinced tht everyone riding a heap of rubbish is doing so as a deliberate strategy, not in Oxford at least!


----------



## MacB (4 Dec 2009)

jonesy said:


> I'm not convinced tht everyone riding a heap of rubbish is doing so as a deliberate strategy, not in Oxford at least!



True, I think I was being influenced by some of the more extreme examples I've seen. Standing there wondering how someone actually rides on half a saddle, type thing.


----------



## jonesy (4 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> True, I think I was being influenced by some of the more extreme examples I've seen. Standing there wondering how someone actually rides on half a saddle, type thing.



Most of the students seem to manage without air in their tyres or oil on their chains, never mind having gears that are actually able to change...


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Dec 2009)

which brings us back to the beginning. The Kid is getting a beautiful bike for Christmas. She's been riding a heap of rubbish for the last year, leaving it chained outside tube stations until late at night, and not only has it not been stolen, it wouldn't matter if it was. What are the chances of her beautiful bike surviving?


----------



## MacB (4 Dec 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> which brings us back to the beginning. The Kid is getting a beautiful bike for Christmas. She's been riding a heap of rubbish for the last year, leaving it chained outside tube stations until late at night, and not only has it not been stolen, it wouldn't matter if it was. What are the chances of her beautiful bike surviving?



I wouldn't want to plan a first anniversary party for it


----------



## marinyork (4 Dec 2009)

Talking of bike security I was at a meeting a while back that was on about Lord Adonis's transport hubs for this bit of the country. It was rather depressing because although there would be an improvement on bike facilities at stations they would not be as good as they might because all the things they wanted to do would be banned under the excuse of terrorism.


----------



## Nipper (4 Dec 2009)

OK, I think I've got it now on this forum moaning about the UK not doing all the things they do in Holland is fine as long as you don't mention the cycle paths. You guys don't like cycle paths... well there won't be much of a cycling culture in the UK without the paths but you guys can hide behind your statistics that show that the type of cycling you like best is the best.

Your selfish attitudes are as bad as those of car drivers, you show a despicable lack of interest in actually getting new people cycling. You can hide behind your weak statistics and pathetic claims all you want but it won't get people cycling.

For 30 years I have ridden a bicycle for most of my transport, I have never driven a car and I AM F***ing FED UP with all the cars and lorries that blight this land. With people like you peddling your vehicular cycling lie there will be no change.

OK, rant over continue with your lies...


----------



## jonesy (4 Dec 2009)

Just read the sodding thread properly and stop this endless ranting and misrepresentation of what people are saying... and then read some of the links you've been given as they'll provide the factual basis that your posts have been lacking.

Edit- and there's plenty more links in the Campaign 'sticky' thread, starting with Cycling England. If you want a constructive discussion then do some reading and come back with some serious questions and you'll find people willing to respond in a positive fashion. If not, then the ignore list beckons.


----------



## wafflycat (4 Dec 2009)

Nipper, it's been pointed out many times - your ranting and abuse to posters does you nor your arguments any favours. Stop ranting. Stop your complete misreprestations of other posters' POVs. Stop being abusive.


----------



## summerdays (5 Dec 2009)

I'm not anti-cycle paths - this week alone I've use the Choclate Path, St Werburgh's Farm path, Bristol to Bath, Hartcliffe Way, Malago Greenway, and UWE-Locklease ones in Bristol getting to different locations for work. At least half of those paths are taking routes which don't follow the road and for me that is the nicer path, the only one that runs along right beside the road was the Hartcliffe way - and its a poor quality one but yesterday the advantage was road works (to build a better quality path on the other side of the road) that meant I went past hundreds of stationary cars.

I think part of the problem is route finding for new cyclists - they look at where they want to go and think about the route if they drove there. They forget/don't know all the back roads, short cuts, shared path routes, roads that used to be through roads but now closed to cars etc. (Even as I type I keep remembering other bits of shared path sections I have used this week). I have found out about all these little routes usually in conversation or travelling with friends around the city, together with my habit of exploring. 

Now a new cyclist doesn't know all these helpful routes to avoid some of the junctions/roundabouts that they find a problem. There are cycling maps in Bristol which show most of them but not all.


----------



## jonesy (5 Dec 2009)

> Choice, people. Choice.
> 
> Bikes don't hold up traffic, so let those who don't use the cycle paths ride on the road.
> 
> And let those who don't want to use the road (why should they?) or have reasons not to (like carrying or escorting children) use the cycle paths.



Up to a point, yes. But the argument about which form of infrastructure you should use when a choice is available is not the same as the argument about which form of infrastructure should be provided given limited resources and physical constraints, especially when retro-fitting into existing streets. Hence we have the hierarchy of measures to help identify and prioritise what is the most effective approach for a given location and set of circumstances.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/engineering-planning/design-principles/

See also DfT's Cycle Infrastructure Design guide:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltnotes/ltn208.pdf

in particular Section 1.3 Underlying principles, Table 1.2 showing the Hierarchy and Table 1.3 showing how different forms of provision are appropriate for different traffic flows and speeds. The latter is based on the approach set out in Dutch guidance.


----------



## style over speed (5 Dec 2009)

Nipper said:


> OK, I think I've got it now on this forum moaning about the UK not doing all the things they do in Holland is fine as long as you don't mention the cycle paths. You guys don't like cycle paths... well there won't be much of a cycling culture in the UK without the paths but you guys can hide behind your statistics that show that the type of cycling you like best is the best.
> 
> Your selfish attitudes are as bad as those of car drivers, you show a despicable lack of interest in actually getting new people cycling. You can hide behind your weak statistics and pathetic claims all you want but it won't get people cycling.
> 
> ...



+1 

Similarly I've been cycling for over 30 years mostly around London, and I'm totally fed up with the block that is LCC towards promoting proper infrastructure. I've sadly come to the opinion that most cyclists don't actually want more people to cycle, they like the little boost to their esteem they get from being in an "outsider" group. Look at all the special gear that London commuters wear to identify themselves when there's little need for it on an trip of less than say 10 miles.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Dec 2009)

style over speed said:


> +1
> 
> Similarly I've been cycling for over 30 years mostly around London, and I'm totally fed up with the block that is LCC towards promoting proper infrastructure. I've sadly come to the opinion that most cyclists don't actually want more people to cycle, they like the little boost to their esteem they get from being in an "outsider" group. Look at all the special gear that London commuters wear to identify themselves when there's little need for it on an trip of less than say 10 miles.


you have problems. The LCC persuaded Boroughs and the GLA to sling £140 million at LCN+. The problem is.........very few people use it. Try wandering down the Wandle Trail.

As for your estimation of your fellow cyclists - that's just foolish. And if it's addressed at me it's defamatory.


----------



## Nipper (5 Dec 2009)

style over speed said:


> +1
> 
> Similarly I've been cycling for over 30 years mostly around London, and I'm totally fed up with the block that is LCC towards promoting proper infrastructure. I've sadly come to the opinion that most cyclists don't actually want more people to cycle, they like the little boost to their esteem they get from being in an "outsider" group. Look at all the special gear that London commuters wear to identify themselves when there's little need for it on an trip of less than say 10 miles.



Thanks, SOS you are right that there seems to be no organisation with the vision to try and promote proper infrastructure. I met Koy earlier this year and he is a lovely chap, a ukulele player and a gentleman. He said all the right things about cycling and I am sad to hear that the LCC are not doing their best to promote more cycling. 

I think the views of cyclists here are typical of many seasoned UK riders in that they cling hard and fast to vehicular cycling, that Jonesy chap even argues against choice! He sites cycle England's Hierarchy of provision which puts segregated infrastructure last, what a joke; just because CE says it doesn't mean it's right. The other measures all improve cycling for people confident and happy to share the road with massive HGVs and fast moving nutters in cars, but do nothing to encourage the non cyclists to replace car journeys with bicycle ones. It is strange that we should not copy the countries that have got it right but arrogantly assume that the UK organisations know best.

The websites to read are Hembrow and Copenhaganize as they really have hit the nail on the head. I think the UK cyclists fear becoming marginalised by mass normal cycling, on normal bikes, in normal clothes.

BTW I am sure you must read this
http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/

The guy is great and makes some really important points... do you live near there?


----------



## MacB (5 Dec 2009)

Nipper said:


> Thanks, SOS you are right that there seems to be no organisation with the vision to try and promote proper infrastructure. I met Koy early this year and he is a lovely chap, a ukulele player and a gentleman. He said all the right things about cycling and I am sad to hear that the LCC are not doing their best to promote more cycling.
> 
> I think the views of cyclists here are typical of many seasoned UK riders in that they cling hard and fast to vehicular cycling, that Jonesy chap even argues against choice! He sites cycle England's Hierarchy of provision which puts segregated infrastructure last, what a joke; just because CE says it doesn't mean it's right. The other measures all improve cycling for people confident and happy to share the road with massive HGVs and fast moving nutters in cars, but do nothing to encourage the non cyclists to replace car journeys with bicycle ones. It is strange that we should not copy the countries that have got it right but arrogantly assume that the UK organisations know best.
> 
> ...



Excellent stuff Nipper I'd not picked up any of that from your earlier rantsposts!!!


----------



## jonesy (5 Dec 2009)

Nipper said:


> ..
> 
> I think the views of cyclists here are typical of many seasoned UK riders in that they cling hard and fast to vehicular cycling, that Jonesy chap even argues against choice! He sites cycle England's Hierarchy of provision which puts segregated infrastructure last, what a joke; just because CE says it doesn't mean it's right. ..



Didn't you read? The hierarchy is based on Dutch practice, the very thing you keep telling us to follow! But if you keep on misrepresenting my posts, and accusing me of lying, then into the ignore you list go. bye.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Dec 2009)

how are those cycle lanes in Taunton coming along?






The LCC is a democracy. If people want to join and promote segregation they can do so. 

In the mean time, after taking a 90 mile round trip to run a Dr. Bike session for beginners yesterday, I thought I might try this 'vehicular cycling' lark...





I do know of a cycle lane that goes some way to emulating that ghastly Dutch example - it's on the way out of Ipswich. Never seen anybody use it, though.


----------



## theclaud (6 Dec 2009)

dellzeqq said:


>



You lycra road warrior, Dellzeqq. I trust the thing on the back is full of beer? Save one for Nipper - he could obviously do with a drink to calm himself down...


----------



## summerdays (6 Dec 2009)

This is one of me in the summer:




Taken on route dropping off a child to go to camp - no I'm not very good at bedding rolls.


----------



## wafflycat (6 Dec 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> In the mean time, after taking a 90 mile round trip to run a Dr. Bike session for beginners yesterday, I thought I might try this 'vehicular cycling' lark...



Yeah, yeah, yeah... but we all know that under that checked shirt you're wearing your tightest "I love Ernesto" compression base layer


----------



## Norm (6 Dec 2009)

What on earth is that photo of dz doing posted so many times on a thread titled "beauty and the bike"?


----------



## MacB (6 Dec 2009)

Norm said:


> What on earth is that photo of dz doing posted so many times on a thread titled "beauty and the bike"?



it's quite flattering, the face on is scary


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Dec 2009)

Norm said:


> What on earth is that photo of dz doing posted so many times on a thread titled "beauty and the bike"?


search me!


----------



## chap (6 Dec 2009)

*Vehicuar transport vs. Segregation...why?*

Well it seems that several issues are simultaneously playing out on this thread. To be honest, the segment I am most interested in is that of past efforts of DfT and LCC by Dellzeqq. 

Generally, confrontation on ones beliefs causes them to cling even more tightly to them (like The tale of the Sun and the Wind), and this is evident with Nipper's assertions; although I would say that most have been more tolerant and patient than is strictly necessary.

I can see the argument from both ends (clearly the goal of the thread), indeed there is a lot to say for segregated cycling, and the practicality of vehicular cycling. I often lament that certain cities (Basingstoke, Milton Keynes, and parts of London) were built for cars first, HGVs second, then every other conceivable use bar cyclists, then pedestrians last. The walkability of a town plays a keen part, when resources are near, there is little reason to drive. This is one of the reasons, bar economy why I believe that cycling really has taken off in parts of London (particularly Lambeth, the East, and Wandsworth.): it is simply more convenient to cycle than undergo other pricier less efficient forms of transport such as the car (snail pace, high cost of petrol, expense of parking, and the proximity of services) and even the well run bus and tube systems. Interestingly enough, in the Netherlands and Denmark, the segregated cycle paths are not created to divert cyclists, but to shorten the distances between various resources; this is why they work. Surely, in a well constructed transportation system pedestrians and cyclists should get the most direct routes to services, and motor transport should be made to meander - after all the significance of a quarter mile varies wildly amongst a car driver, a cyclist, and a pedestrian.

Vehicular cycling works best in areas where motor transport is externally slow, therefore it would work well in a busy high street prone to traffic jams, it wouldn't work well on a stretch with a loosley enforced 20mph limit. The China argument almost fits into here, but cannot be applied in full: in China, the bike is historically the most economic and versatile form of transportation so one could argue the critical mass argument (as could they tie in the example of 50's Britain), although this cannot be used to argue in favour of vehicular cycling since the roads are famously congested with slow moving traffic going predictable routes to the extent that a whole culture has emerged to allow motor traffic and cyclist to coexist. As the country has become more 'prosperous' more people are looking to cars as a status symbol, and for use in much the same way as we do here (a means to isolate oneself from the surrounding commotion whilst travelling from A to , this shall cause similar problems to be faced as we have here, particularly if the motor car becomes 'ubiquitous' there, as it did in America, and it has here.

Segregated cycling is ideal for faster moving transport, therefore I would point to the perfect example of this, following the A4 (Great West Road) from Brentford to Heathrow ,through Hounslow. It would also be ideal on the Embankment, Piccadilly, and tricky fast junctions such as Park Lane. Whether it is needed through the residential streets of Chelsea is another thing, although exemption of one way routes would be handy.

Indeed the key goals necessary to promote and facilitate cycling are safety and convenience, but also economy. We need safe routes, scooters should not be allowed on cycle paths (nor on bus lanes); more considered cycle routes (e.g. through parks, and major roads) are required, and serious traffic calming (if not car-free) measures are required particularly in the city centres where people concentrate.

If we argue purely for one ideology over the other then the state of our infrastructure shall continue to deteriorate, since accountability is something missing in our public sphere. It is easier to build an expensive cycle route which fails to meet its users requirements, than it is to seriously address the issues surrounding fair and effective infrastructure, as the former can serve the footnote of an 'I told you so', unlike the latter which initially can be deemed a 'courageous' decision.


----------



## jonesy (6 Dec 2009)

Chap, I'd largely agree with what you say, and this point in particular:



> Interestingly enough, in the Netherlands and Denmark, the segregated cycle paths are not created to divert cyclists, but to shorten the distances between various resources; this is why they work. Surely, in a well constructed transportation system pedestrians and cyclists should get the most direct routes to services, and motor transport should be made to meander - after all the significance of a quarter mile varies wildly amongst a car driver, a cyclist, and a pedestrian



That is the crux of the matter, and I go back to my earlier post about journey times competitive with other modes being a fundamental requirement of getting large numbers of people to cycle.

I would however pick up on your comment that implies there is confrontation over 'ideology' in this discussion: I hope it is clear that no-one here has argued *in principle * against the use of segregated facilities under any circumstances; it is only Nipper (supported by 'style over speed') who has tried to portray the argument as being polarised in this way. I and I'm sure the others would all agree that traffic-free routes done properly and in the right places can be very helpful, where they provide advantage for a particular journey as you describe, for particular groups of users, or where they provide wider benefits, e.g. as linear public spaces, health benefits through recreation etc. 

Nipper gets terribly cross at my references to the 'hierarchy of measures', which I fear he misunderstands. The point is that if you try to create a segregated network without doing the other things in the hierarchy, e.g. traffic and speed reduction, roadspace re-allocation, then you are trying to shoe-horn segregated paths into the little space that remains in a highway environment designed for the benefit of motor vehicles. You will then inevitably get discontinuous, indirect, illegible routes that conflict with motor vehicles at every junction and even driveway crossing, that conflict with pedestrians, that slow you down too much thereby losing any time advantage over driving, that forces cyclists and pedestrians to share inadequate spaces right next to fast traffic flows etc etc. However, by applying the other elements of the hierachy, reducing traffic speed, flows, and taking space from it, you can avoid the need for segregation on most roads that cyclists need to use and make segregation work properly where it is appropriate.

Edit- the other key point to consider is that infrastructure can't fix problems that are caused by planning, education, economic policy etc if these have led to people living too far from work, shops and school for most people to consider cycling to them.


----------



## Nipper (6 Dec 2009)

I like the fact that some of you want to post pictures of yourselves doing normal cycling, and in Simon's picture he has on normal clothes, well done. Do you always cycle like that?. It sort of misses the point though, you already cycle and my crazy idea about cycle paths is that they encourage new people to cycle; it's so crazy it is what the girls in the film (Beauty and the Bike) are also asking for.

jonesy you are a very mixed up chap, please read David Hembrow's blog and then stop whining on like you know something.

Enough of this... With the exception of SOS and chap you are a rude and selfish bunch on this forum.


----------



## chap (6 Dec 2009)

jonesy said:


> Chap, I'd largely agree with what you say, and this point in particular:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I would agree with much of what you wrote. 

I particularly understand that even infrastructure cannot act in isolation; however by linking alternatives through a considered infrastructure, this can act as the required catalyst for change be it enforced one way routes for cars, quick pedestrianised links to the city center and major public transportion links (rail, bus depots), and affordable efficient park and ride facilities (free parking, cheap bus fair and a car free or car restricted city centre.)

These are issues which require proper forethought, and collaboration. We stand to learn a lot from the Dutch, the Danish, and even the Parisians through their Vélib scheme; however British towns and cities deserve credit where it is due, from Cambridge (more a historical evolution) to Newcastle for their pedestrianisation schemes in the city centre.

This is how we can progress as a nation, and relieve ourselves of many of the avoidable issues surrounding traffic congestion and green travel. It is humbling to think that what we now know as 'Dutch bikes', were until relatively recently refereed to as 'English bikes' by the Dutch their-selves.


----------



## StuartG (7 Dec 2009)

Nipper - the point of a discussion forum is to share info and gently persuade. Insulting people, even if it is justified, isn't going to help. I started on your side of the argument. You alienated me. You used repetition as a substitute for facts. You attacked other forms of cycling instead of building your own.

Nobody AFAIR took issue with the original film. It was wonderful, it is the future if we want the young and especially young women on two wheels. You were looking at an open goal but only put it through your own net.

Segregated cycling has to play a part of a great cycling strategy. One near here (Sydenham to Catford) is such a pleasant experience I extend my route to include it. But realistically retrofitting cities can only include this type of facility when a waterway or something similar makes a new interesting and useful link possible. No one should be serious about all cycling to be segregated or on-road. It has to be both with discussion on just the balance.

Being right is no good if you can't convince others of it.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Dec 2009)

here's a sentence to get Nipper all hot under the collar. Cycling in and of itself is neither interesting or politically exciting. It's what cycling can offer that is interesting and exciting. And the greatest thing that cycling can offer is to make towns and cities more congenial.

Here's where the LCC has got something wrong. Their current thinking is to divide the coarse grain from the fine grain, and to make the fine grain more neighbourly by means of home zones which are, in very basic terms, reduced speed limits and greatly reduced permeability for motor vehicles other than buses and fire engines.

The problem with this is that it is the coarse grain that carries most of our social capital. The very roads that cyclists have taken to in the greatest numbers are the very roads that are besieged from within by cars, and the very roads where most of our social capital resides. They're urban 'A' roads, the A24s, A2s, A404s, A12s of this world. They're our high streets. They're the roads which have shops and churches and libraries and post offices. They're the roads that presently bear the most cars.

So, while putting barriers across the fine grain streets to reduce rat-running, and giving cyclists a competitive advantage in relation to the car is a decent start, it sort of misses the main battlefield. Which is a shame, because this is where we sometimes win because bus lanes have given cyclists one heck of a competitive advantage on the very roads the DfT and Nipper think we should be avoiding.

We need to go one stage further and to knock lumps out of the car commuting network. I appreciate that if you were to say 'ban cars from the A24 between Balham and Colliers Wood' local business would scream blue murder and the DfT would roll out their V-bombers - but......actually........roads like the A24, set out in the latter part of the nineteenth century carry so little traffic at such a slow speed that the removal of the items causing congestion would increase the capacity of the road at a stroke. And, as the vacancy rates in High Streets show, turning a road in to a bus lane across its full width is actually pretty good news for traders and landlords. Put it another way - there's an inverse relationship between the number of cars going down a street and the rent of retail units on that street.

I'm not sure how we go about making a case for this...


----------



## wafflycat (7 Dec 2009)

As a girlie, I find it insulting that it is thought I require some sort of special treatment by way of facilities to get me cycling. As a woman, I look at the 'it's not cool' 'It's not pretty enough' 'no one cool does it' well, frankly dispiriting, as what has gone on as regards female liberation since the 60s? It's all gone backwards. Now young women in the UK aspire to be WAGs and celebrities it seems, the adverse effects of which extend to well beyond cycling. That is appalling. As regards danger & 'feeling safe' this is the UK we live in, not bloody Afghanistan, women are safe in the UK, we are able to travel independently. It appears we have bred a generation of wimps of young women. I blame women my age for that and if I had a daughter, I hope I would not have done that to her. Indeed I have had women of all age groups express surpise that I cycle alone, on the grounds "It's dangerous out there, you are so brave!" At which point I point out that this is not Afghanistan, that there isn't a sex maniac behind every lampost and that drivers really aren't out to get us. Yet frankly, I despair of the feeble attiude towards independence in life of a lot of my gender.


----------



## StuartG (7 Dec 2009)

The problem with London's backstreets is they are full of cars. Parked not moving. They are one enormous free (in our borough) substitute for garages. In others an important revenue stream for the council. Parked cars on both sides leaves only space for one stream of traffic. Two cars meet and you have a holdup. Even a passing a car in the opposite direction makes a cyclist enter the 'doorzone'. In other words in London they are not a pleasant, safe or speedy way to travel.

To go off the point it also deprives kids of the street. The consequences of that are profound.

Simon has it right (and planning has it wrong) to say main route bus lanes is the best we have in London. How to take the commuter out? I differ from Simon in not having a problem with the idea of traffic - if its moving it may be doing something useful - delivering doctors, district nurses, bread and butter. Differentiating between good & bad traffic travelling is a administrative nightmare. It won't work and it just pi**es people off. Better to constrict the end points. That's parking. As long as Westminster see it as a revenue item (even more profitable if its illegal) we have a real problem. It is when Westminster, Camden get no money then they will wish to clear the streets of impediments to traffic. That's going to make a lot us space for us and remove a lot of dangerous obstacles.

Ambulances and delivery vehicles would have a much better time too. But, to repeat Simon's question - how can we sell the concept?


----------



## theclaud (7 Dec 2009)

wafflycat said:


> As a girlie, I find it insulting that it is thought I require some sort of special treatment by way of facilities to get me cycling. As a woman, I look at the 'it's not cool' 'It's not pretty enough' 'no one cool does it' well, frankly dispiriting, as what has gone on as regards female liberation since the 60s? It's all gone backwards. Now young women in the UK aspire to be WAGs and celebrities it seems, the adverse effects of which extend to well beyond cycling. That is appalling. As regards danger & 'feeling safe' this is the UK we live in, not bloody Afghanistan, women are safe in the UK, we are able to travel independently. It appears we have bred a generation of wimps of young women. I blame women my age for that and if I had a daughter, I hope I would not have done that to her. Indeed I have had women of all age groups express surpise that I cycle alone, on the grounds "It's dangerous out there, you are so brave!" At which point I point out that this is not Afghanistan, that there isn't a sex maniac behind every lampost and that drivers really aren't out to get us. Yet frankly, I despair of the feeble attiude towards independence in life of a lot of my gender.



I know what you mean, Waffly. I teach an adult beginners' class, and almost all the people who attend are middle-aged women. (They are also invariably tiny, so that it's hard to find a supply of bikes small enough. Make of that what you will - perhaps it's a Swansea thing.) It's heartbreaking to hear the stories of where the barriers to cycling came from - they tell of brothers that were given bikes while they were discouraged or forbidden from doing almost anything that might have been fun or liberating. And for forty or fifty years they have simply been convinced that riding a bike is one of the many things they will always be incapable of doing, because they are not men. It's almost painful that they then learn to do it, usually without difficulty, inside of two hours, for it speaks volumes about lost opportunities and wasted potential. It's vital that we don't find new ways to cripple generation after generation of girls with notions of inadequacy.


----------



## Norm (7 Dec 2009)

wafflycat said:


> As a girlie, I find it insulting that it is thought I require some sort of special treatment by way of facilities to get me cycling.
> <<snipped>>
> Yet frankly, I despair of the feeble attiude towards independence in life of a lot of my gender.


My daughter rides a lot more than my son. I hope I can keep her interest through her teens but I think she's just biding her time until she can get a bike with a motor fitted.


----------



## summerdays (7 Dec 2009)

I have a couple of daughters and I struggle to get them cycling. One has no road sense (at 12) and we are trying one to one riding to get her to be safer on the road, but for the other one the big issue is looks I'm afraid, somehow it isn't cool - perhaps cos mum does it, and her hair gets messed up (to give you an idea she straightened her hair before she went to do Laser Quest!!!). She also isn't that keen on most forms of exercise unfortunately. 

We used to think that the images we had in the mags when I was a child were bad for self esteem and that was before they could do all this retouching. With each passing generation it is getting worse. Look at the clothes that you can put tiny babies in - some completely unsuitable - why do they need to be fashionable at 3 months old? We have to try and use those same images to sell cycling - so the Duffy advert I thought was good - because it could make a connection with teenagers. Someone famous, normal clothes, coke (or was it pepsi - sorry that bit of the ad was wasted on me) ... oh yes and she was on a bike to nip to the shops...


----------



## wafflycat (7 Dec 2009)

That's why, summerdays, it's down to we mums to instil in our daughters the confidence & self-belief so they can cycle (and do lots of all sorts of other things too).


----------



## summerdays (7 Dec 2009)

Oh I haven't given up yet... just that the suggestion of a family bike rides is always met with groans even though we try to chuck in a trip to the pub for lunch or some other treat in there. I realise that when I retook up cycling she was already in the pre-teen stage so I left it a little late to really influence her. (Whereas the youngest - a boy started school and has riden almost every single day since then - probably missed less than 2 weeks in 5 years of going to school - and its only half a mile so we don't need to ride it).


----------



## Norm (7 Dec 2009)

wafflycat said:


> That's why, summerdays, _*it's down to we mums *_to instil in our daughters the confidence & self-belief so they can cycle (and do lots of all sorts of other things too).


Umm... how would that be read if it was down to the Dads to do something? Positive sexism?


----------



## MacB (7 Dec 2009)

Well my eldest(14) has taken to walking to and from school rather than cycling. He wants to walk with friends and is totally oblivious to my bemused looks when he complains about how long it takes, when he gets wet and when he gets cold. He has that teenage aversion to coats, layers and anything suitable for the weather. The other two leave after him in the morning and beat him home by a big margin. He gets annoyed with their smugness when he arrives, half an hour later, cold and/or wet. This annoyance also leaks over to me as I'm the main influence behind stopping lifts to and from school. In true teenage fashion it really is the fault of everyone else.


----------



## wafflycat (7 Dec 2009)

Norm said:


> Umm... how would that be read if it was down to the Dads to do something? Positive sexism?




Dads should be doing it too!


----------



## Norm (7 Dec 2009)

Darned right we should!  Check out just a little further up the page, post #142. 

It just struck me as a bit, I don't know, strange to see that mums should be doing it, as if dads shouldn't. It's no biggie (see sig for details  ) but it was one of those things that make you go "Hmmm...."


----------



## wafflycat (7 Dec 2009)

Norm said:


> Darned right we should!  Check out just a little further up the page, post #142.
> 
> It just struck me as a bit, I don't know, strange to see that mums should be doing it, as if dads shouldn't. It's no biggie (see sig for details  ) but it was one of those things that make you go "Hmmm...."



Mums should be setting the example as women unafraid to be going out in the world. Mums are the closest role model a girl *usually* has, so if a Mum and daughter have a good relationship then the mum is in a particular place to benefit her daughter through example, in a way dads can't - and I say that as a 'Daddy's Girl' as my mother & I did not get along at all. Just as boys can particularly benefit from having a strong male role model, girls particularly benefit from having strong female role models.


----------



## Norm (7 Dec 2009)

wafflycat said:


> Mums should be setting the example as women unafraid to be going out in the world. Mums are the closest role model a girl *usually* has, so if a Mum and daughter have a good relationship then the mum is in a particular place to benefit her daughter through example, in a way dads can't - and I say that as a 'Daddy's Girl' as my mother & I did not get along at all. Just as boys can particularly benefit from having a strong male role model, girls particularly benefit from having strong female role models.


Agreed.  

Unfortunately, Mrs Norm hates cycling so there's no chance of that for Small Norm II. Does it count if I wear a pink wig? I do have one, and I have man boobs? 

Sorry, back on topic, I'm not sure what the answer is or whether anything insightful has come out of this thread, unfortunately. I still think that it's a cultural thing and we can therefore best lead by example. I spent a couple of hours yesterday riding off-road (Swinley Forest) with a good friend who doesn't like riding on the road because of the dangers. 

It's bad enough when Mrs Norm says that (and then takes the kids off for a horse riding lesson!) but from a fellow cyclist?


----------



## chap (27 Mar 2010)

Watched the DVD recently, it is a very well made documentary, a shame it is constrained to a select audience who by definition need little convincing.

I would agree with most of the points raised in the film, as it is a combination of poor town planning, lack of traffic controls, and lack of cycling facilities which results in an intimidating ride for many (regardless of gender.) 

The fact that most of our 'mainstream' bikes do look hideous and unsuited to any stroke of glamour or enjoyment probably plays a part as well. After all, our cycling politicians (Boris and Cameron - interestingly both conservatives) both don the staid mountain bike in the city, with bulky cycle helmet, and reflective jumpers. 

I cannot think of any female politicians, nor high ranking business ladies, that are known for cycling in this country. Even the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas, is seldom seen with a bike, and rarely advocates them.

This is all in spite of this countries cycling heritage (not that history really matters with regards to the future), and the fact that we have 2 non-MTB specific British bike companies in this country: Pashley and Brompton. Whilst the former does create some MTB's, they are known more for their commuters, tricycles, cargo, postal worker, and traditional bikes.

Were this program to be televised on one of our national stations, that is where it would make maximum impact. At present, it is available from their website, and select screenings whenever they occur. It has a high YouTube following, but this is once again among a select audience. 

Therefore our hopes are left with the ever expanding 'cycle chic' movement; unfortunately the Guardian, predictably, so far seems to be the only major paper taking note of this, albeit on a cycling mini-site which is merely a blog (once again niched and preaching to the converted). When it spills over into the public conscious (perhaps at the London Cycle Hire Scheme launch) then that will be when it can become an effectual movement and the film a catalyst for improvement.

Until then, most will take the bus - like Caroline Lucas - then the car.


----------

