# Overwhelming support for giving up more road space to cyclists,........



## classic33 (20 Oct 2014)

...................poll reveals, as Londoners back cycle superhighway scheme.
_ Giving up more road space for cyclists in London 

"Londoners strongly support Boris Johnson’s plan to remove central London road space from motorists to create safe routes for cyclists, a poll reveals today.

A YouGov poll found 64 per cent support for the Mayor’s 14-mile “Crossrail for bikes” £48 million project that will take up one of four lanes on the Victoria Embankment, with 24 per cent opposed and the remainder undecided.

There was two-to-one backing for segregated cycle routes even if they resulted in longer journey times for motorists, with 51 per cent in favour and 26 per cent against.

The findings came as more than 100 major employers gave their public backing to the proposals. Land Securities - the UK’s largest commercial property company - and the Royal Opera House joined supporters including RBS, the Crown Estate and Barts Health NHS trust.

*The poll of 1,002 Londoners* was commissioned by CyclingWorks.London, a group co-ordinating business responses to the new superhighways. Polling was carried out between October 8 and 13."_


----------



## classic33 (20 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Motorists approve the idea of getting cyclists out of their way shock.


Even if it results in longer journey times for them.


----------



## Markymark (20 Oct 2014)

Nah, its giving up one whole lane to cyclists - this is a +ve step. In the short term this WILL increase journey times for motorists but hopefully people are seeing in the long term removing the single occupancy cars in London will speed up traffic flow for the essential traffic (delivery, buses etc).


----------



## Markymark (20 Oct 2014)

You think? I think it will encourage more cyclists by offering a decent route into London giving them space taken up by motorists.

Many here revere the wonderful Dutch infrastructure of which part of it is dedicated cycle routes. I can't stand the crappy painted bit of paint putting cyclists in danger as a terrible afterthought but this goes way beyond that and will actually be a decent place to be.


----------



## Markymark (20 Oct 2014)

It's a major route East-West and will attract large numbers who may not have ordinarily gone that way in the same way as motorways sometimes take you away from the most direct route.


----------



## Markymark (20 Oct 2014)

The embankment is traditionally 2 lanes. One is now going to be for cyclists - not sure for how much of it but its a major route across London.


----------



## Drago (20 Oct 2014)

Why don't the double yella's extend across the entrances?


----------



## mjr (20 Oct 2014)

It doesn't have to be exactly A to B because I think I'd go slightly out of my way to use the new cycleway, if it's any good, because it'll be easier and possibly faster.

Looking at the GPS recordings of my recent riding in London (trips between King's Cross, Paddington and Waterloo), even the not-very-good Torrington Place cycleway was faster than the on-road section of route west of Tottenham Court Road and I was slightly faster on the lumpy cycleway next to Constitution Hill than on the road... which is counterintuitive because I feel like I'm working harder to keep nearer the motor traffic speed when there is no protected space. What my recordings don't show is what other vehicles were doing: I wonder if any speed improvements from wider lanes and better junction visibility are negated by slowing to negotiate my way between or around motor vehicles at pinch points and junctions - it looks like I slowed earlier on the approach to junctions when I was not on the cycleway.

I know that faster riders may well find that having riders like me in a too-narrow lane like Torrington Place slows them down enough that it wouldn't be quicker for them. That's part of why I support keeping the main traffic lanes open for cycling too. The other is that I think it should keep a check on designers and builders, with them wanting to avoid being shamed for building infrastructure that is worse than the competing roads, although I know that it's currently seen as reckless cyclists ignoring cycleways by an uncomprehending public - I'd welcome any help challenging the people who suggest forcing cycles to use cycleways, pointing out that if they were built well, you wouldn't need to force most riders.


----------



## theclaud (20 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I'd welcome any help challenging the people who suggest forcing cycles to use cycleways



You can challenge it every day by claiming your space on the road. No need to thank me...


----------



## mjr (20 Oct 2014)

theclaud said:


> You can challenge it every day by claiming your space on the road. No need to thank me...


And yet, that approach was tried for decades and did nothing to stem the decline, did it?

Groups like Stop Killing Cyclists are finally getting traction and it seems to be improving things, so let's back them.


----------



## mjr (20 Oct 2014)

User said:


> You like to conflate things and draw spurious conclusions, don't you...


Nah, I'm just not showing all the steps in between during this discussion, because it's more about the Die In than why it's basically a good thing.


----------



## classic33 (20 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Nah, I'm just not showing all the steps in between during this discussion, because it's more about the Die In than why it's basically a good thing.


The "Die In" has a seperate thread, for a reason.


----------



## mjr (20 Oct 2014)

classic33 said:


> The "Die In" has a seperate thread, for a reason.


Yeah, sorry, this cold is a pig!


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> And yet, that approach was tried for decades and did nothing to stem the decline, did it?
> 
> Groups like Stop Killing Cyclists are finally getting traction and it seems to be improving things, so let's back them.


the decline?


----------



## Dan B (21 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> the decline?


Torrington Place is flat as far as I recall, so I guess he's talking about Constitution Hill, which has a pretty good slope on it


----------



## mjr (22 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> the decline?





Maybe not the greatest graph, but all I've seen show pretty much the same thing: falling cycling in the UK, whether measured by % of journeys, number of journeys, distance per person and so on. Some show a slight increase in the last few years but it still seems like it could be just a blip on a near-zero flatline.


----------



## mjr (22 Oct 2014)

User said:


> As they say, there are lies, damn lies and statistics...


Yet the same guy reportedly said figures won't lie, but liars will figure.

Anyway, feel free to show evidence that cycling hasn't declined, if you can. Usually the best we get is people saying it doesn't matter in some way.


----------



## Drago (22 Oct 2014)

User said:


> A few facts and figures for you...
> 
> 
> Daily cycling journeys in London have almost doubled between 1990 and 2013.
> ...



1990 being the year the bicycle was invented.


----------



## mjr (22 Oct 2014)

User said:


> A few facts and figures for you... between 1990 and 2013... the last 15 years ... 2011... between 2003 and 2013.


Yes, and they're not the "decades" before that I said had the decline, where most cycling groups were concentrating on fighting for theoretical road rights.

One could suggest what changed: 1986 completion of Bristol and Bath Railway Path; 1995 National Cycle Network starts; late 1990s onwards - Cyclenation groups (LCC and siblings, then called Cycle Campaign Network) start adopting "hybrid" road/tracks policies which developed into today's space4cycling approach; 2012 (I think) - even historic cycleway-opposer CTC adopts hybrid policies.


> The only people who seem to think that cycling is in such dire straits in the UK and in need of more infrastructure are the 'professional' cycling 'advocates' and town planners. But then again, they're the people with a self-interest in spreading cycling doom and gloom.


Well, I'm none of the above, but then again, I don't think "cycling is in such dire straits". I do think there was a huge decline while too many "advocates" seemed to be concentrating on berating cyclists like me who grew up riding near cities with cycleways as being too wimpy to ride on increasingly cycle-hostile main roads. The ideas of journeys being more fun (and not in a masochistic way) seemed foreign to them.


> Those of us who are actually out there cycling know it is a very different story.


Yes, and those of us with memories longer than a few years remember the tidal flows of cycling commuters in every town and village and know that most places aren't back to anything like that level yet. (Still only 5.1 billion kms in 2013? I think it was something over 20 billion km in 1950, with a smaller population of about 50million people, but I can't find the source for that right now.)


> PS: If you're going to quote figures make sure they come from a reputable source and aren't just chunder churned out by some CEGB acolyte who was combining graphs taken from a third party publication.


I clicked through and thought Rutgers University working from DfT and Netherlands Ministry of Transport was fairly reputable. If you're going to quote figures, link or at least cite all the sources, please, or don't your claims stand up to the same scrutiny? Or was the earlier "lies, damned lies and statistics" a self-description?


----------



## benb (22 Oct 2014)

Some people may not need proper cycling infrastructure, but that is only going to consign cycling to forever being a niche transport choice.

Proper Dutch infrastructure, including segregation, is a necessary precondition for mass cycling.
If someone aged 8-80 cannot feel safe when cycling, then it is not fit for purpose.


----------



## summerdays (22 Oct 2014)

benb said:


> Some people may not need proper cycling infrastructure, but that is only going to consign cycling to forever being a niche transport choice.
> 
> Proper Dutch infrastructure, including segregation, is a necessary precondition for mass cycling.
> If someone aged 8-80 cannot feel safe when cycling, then it is not fit for purpose.


I agree to an extent, but you are never going to have segregation on every single road, or if we are it's going to be a long time in the future so you still need the right attitude from drivers respecting cyclists, and the courts to deal with those who don't give us that respect.


----------



## mjr (22 Oct 2014)

benb said:


> Proper Dutch infrastructure, including segregation, is a necessary precondition for mass cycling.
> If someone aged 8-80 cannot feel safe when cycling, then it is not fit for purpose.


Ahhh, let me disagree with the other extreme too!  We need protection, not merely segregation. Segregation is what UKIP was pushing for in its 2010 manifesto, to limit cycling to the current crap by denying access to nearby roads, instead of needing to build cycleways that are actually good enough that people would *choose* to use them.


----------



## benb (22 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Ahhh, let me disagree with the other extreme too!  We need protection, not merely segregation. Segregation is what UKIP was pushing for in its 2010 manifesto, to limit cycling to the current crap by denying access to nearby roads, instead of needing to build cycleways that are actually good enough that people would *choose* to use them.



Well I did say proper Dutch infrastructure.

We know what works, it's simply a lack of political will that has left us 40 years behind the Dutch when it comes to encouraging mass cycling.


----------



## benb (22 Oct 2014)

summerdays said:


> I agree to an extent, but you are never going to have segregation on every single road, or if we are it's going to be a long time in the future so you still need the right attitude from drivers respecting cyclists, and the courts to deal with those who don't give us that respect.



Yes, we do also need that as well.


----------



## mjr (22 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Both remain largely bottommed out from then. I am not seeing any great indication of ongoing decline in UK levels there, nor any great increase in Netherlands ones.


Two things: the population of the Netherlands is growing too (so even keeping the same per-person total reflects a widening gap in the total national distance); there looks to be a slight upward trend in the Netherlands since the late 1970s while the UK flatlines - debatably because it's hard to fall below the rump of us nutters who would probably keep cycling even if it were banned completely.


benb said:


> Well I did say proper Dutch infrastructure.


I think we need proper English infrastructure. It's likely to be heavily influenced by the lessons learned by others, including Dutch, but there will be local differences. What we need is to make sure they're the right ones and not sacrificing safety like many farcilities do - it's no good being "Dutch-quality" for the safe-ish straight wide 400m and then dumping cyclists on the corner of a T junction (Norfolk screwed up and built one of these last year).


> We know what works, it's simply a lack of political will that has left us 40 years behind the Dutch when it comes to encouraging mass cycling.


Amen to that. With political will, everything could become possible: fix the infrastructure, enforce traffic laws and test if that helps enough, build new cycleways, relink great country lanes cut off by bypasses and so on.


----------



## mjr (22 Oct 2014)

User said:


> A slight upward trend is not the sea change that we are told came about from the stop the murder of the children campaign and wide scale building of segregated facilities though.


Well you'll need to take that up with the people who told you that. It wasn't me. I believe in neither a great "sea change" that will reverse the decline overnight, nor in the compulsion aspect of segregated facilities. I do find that protected spaces, modal filtering, park routes and so on make my cycling more enjoyable.


----------



## Pete Owens (23 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Maybe not the greatest graph, but all I've seen show pretty much the same thing: falling cycling in the UK, whether measured by % of journeys, number of journeys, distance per person and so on. Some show a slight increase in the last few years but it still seems like it could be just a blip on a near-zero flatline.


Well certainly not evidence of a current declining trend.
Lets look at look at what the graph actually shows:
1. Historically the NL has always had a cycling culture. (In Holland vs Germany football matches the chant "Give us back or bikes" refers to the preceding period)
2. Post war, cycling declined in both countries (a bigger decline from a higher base in the NL)
3. Since 1970 cycling levels have been more or less stable in both countries - though since 2006 cycling has been growing in the UK we are now back above 1970 levels

There is nothing in the graph to support the oft made claim that the Dutch created their cycling culture out of nothing by changing course in 1973. Indeed, if you were to plot km of cycle infrastructure for each year on that chart you would see an inverse relationship.


----------



## Drago (23 Oct 2014)

Those crazy Dutch!


View: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IRfluaMKoOY


----------



## mjr (23 Oct 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> There is nothing in the graph to support the oft made claim that the Dutch created their cycling culture out of nothing by changing course in 1973.


Ah, another claim not made here.

Would you agree it's a fair illustration that cycling in the UK declined in the decades before, say, 1990?


----------



## mjr (23 Oct 2014)

User said:


> This is the claim that is made, that around 1973, the dutch made a conscious change about the relationship between people in cars and people on bikes. They built a whole new network of segregated facilities and everything was better.
> This is the model that people wish for here. The graph you linked doesn't support the story though. Why is this?


Mainly because the claim is subtly misstated in order to construct a strawman, such as suggesting there was a snap change at some fixed date and that it was a whole new network (even the linked video shows the earlier network which is rather like most of the junk we have in the UK today). Anyway, argue with yourselves about made-up claims: it doesn't really interest me.

I note the reply quotes but still completely ignores the question about why the graph was actually posted: would you agree it's a fair illustration that cycling in the UK declined in the decades before, say, 1990?

We tried for so long to encourage people to ride among motors. Now it's worth trying taking the lane in an entirely different sense...


----------



## mjr (23 Oct 2014)

User said:


> That cycling declined in that period is not in dispute. I don't understand the argument though, are you claiming that people do dispute this?



Someone seemed to:



dellzeqq said:


> the decline?





User said:


> Laudable though the corollary is, where is the evidence that this taking the lane, in a separatist way, would be likely to work?


Yes, the evidence is weak, either for or against. Where has it even been tried and measured properly in the UK before?

Possible examples in London or Norwich (often imperfect, but they're all I can think of) seem to be variously too young (Royal College Street Camden), I failed to find the data (I didn't find counts for University Drive Norwich or the notorious narrow Tavistock Place, while some only counted *after* taking the lane - would it have been so hard to count while it was being considered?), or appear to be distorted by another obvious factor (London Cycle Hire starting in 2010 seems to coincide with a big jump in most of its areas).

Even then I know it would be open to accusations of deflecting riders from other routes (does that matter though?) and no single scheme so far looks likely to cause a measurable change at the area level.


----------



## Bikemiff (23 Oct 2014)

User said:


> That cycling declined in that period is not in dispute. I don't understand the argument though, are you claiming that people do dispute this? Laudable though the corollary is, where is the evidence that this taking the lane, in a separatist way, would be likely to work?



New member. I would suggest that in UK, 1930s to 50s, motoring was promoted as inevitable, desirable and congestion regarded as deplorable. Thomas Sharp, renowned for town planning, was employed to produce 'Oxford Replanned', 1948.
He illustrates various traffic counts at junctions, including Carfax, Oxford High St junction, Vehs: 5370, Cycles: 5482 (8 am to 8pm). He writes, 

It will be noticed that, in the figures given above, some prominence has been accorded to the number of bicycles that help to make up that volume of traffic at the various points mentioned. In most English towns and cities bicycle traffic can be more or less ignored as a factor leading to traffic congestion. It cannot be ignored in Oxford. The bicycle is not only one of the main components in any Oxford landscape: it is one of the main causes of traffic congestion. ... In Cornmarket St, cyclists and pedestrians overflowing from pave,nets to carriageway (which might ordinarily just manage to function as a four-lane street) to an effective capacity of only two lanes for vehicles on more than two wheels. So these, and the 24,000 two-wheeled vehicles that are propelled over Magdalen Bridge in a single day, cannot be lightly dismissed as a number of mere bicycles. A few locusts are of little importance. A swarm is a plague".
Whilst Sharp's conclusion for Oxford was a road through Christchurch Meadow, (not actually expunged for ten years) his perception that a bike was not a mode of traffic has not disappeared in 'our' thinking. To cycle safely, for most needs segregation on the busy roads. This is demanding as 60+ years of 'informed' orthodoxy is that it's unnecessary. My recipe isn't massive doses of extra spending. In Oxfordshire the bicycle is so disdained by transport planners and some engineers, that the Cycle Ambition project has known problems and no safe space. A major junction by the station has tight-ish roads for buses and other vehicles, and very large footway areas. Following five years are battling the footways are now 'shared', in part. But no indicated path for cycling, and of course, almost no connections between this shared space and the three traffic roundabouts which must be negotiated. You cant have paths because, given their own space, cyclists will go too fast and ignore pedestrians.

Such insane and prejudiced logic will not ever change, only direction will win. Norman Baker tried hard, using the word 'enable' as often as possible. But he couldn't rewrite the rules, or guidance. 

I put my faith ... in instructing HAs to enable cycling for all, in every street reconstruction. Since the busiest routes are all our busiest routes, and roads last a generation or so before needing major reconstruction, such an 'edict' could see the nation's busiest general roads rebuilt for the use of anyone cycling, safely, in a generation or so. Whilst that implies a long wait for a kind of perfection, it could start in the next couple of years as my County spends millions each year on reconstruction. And whilst 'extra' moneys would be needed for significant new infrastructure, most of the network could be changed for next to nothing.

Of course, 'the will' is everything.

Graham


----------



## mjr (23 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Yours certainly is. You seem to be relying on a graph that's cobbled together by a CEGB acolyte from data extrapolated from another source.


It's rather pathetic to attack the source rather than the data but I'm not "relying on" that one at all. I just thought it was fairly clear. There are plenty of others. Have a table of raw data:





Draw whatever graph you like and show that there wasn't a decline. Pick whatever data you like as long as the source is cited.


> And you wonder why the wider world doesn't take 'cycling campaigners' like you seriously...


I wonder no such thing. I'm taken seriously by some of the decision-makers - I wish it were more, but the bike-bashers have their representatives too. I know I'm not taken seriously by a few on this forum who seem to long for a return to the failed approaches.


User said:


> If there is no strong evidence for, there is no argument to justify what amounts to a wild and expensive experiment. Those who wish to promote this have just got to do better, otherwise they are doing no more than peddling a faith.


I've asked about the evidence in a few places and I'll let you know if any comes back. Even if there isn't, experimentation is worthwhile, for if we don't experiment then we'll never know the effect. I think it would be good if some of the sceptics were pushing hard for the measurements to be taken properly, before and after, if it goes ahead.

It's not like there was strong evidence that London Cycle Hire would work before it started, though. Actually the contrary: hire schemes had been spectacular failures in a few UK cities.


> As for things that haven't been tried, we still have the simple option open to us. Police our roads with a view of protecting the vulnerable from the dangerous.


I campaign for that too, but that's not going so well - I think that's mainly because police resources are being cut and there may be further cuts in several of the party manifestos for next year's election. If you want it, keep pushing for it, but it's not in direct competition with infrastructure.


----------



## mjr (23 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Why is it not going so well? Perhaps if we chucked all our resource behind campaigning for road justice for all, as opposed to special pleading for cyclists, we might get somewhere.


I tried to explain why it's not going so well, but in short: policing is being cut for reasons unrelated to cycling.

I doubt that all our resource would be sufficient to overcome that. Also, it's a rare organisation that puts all its eggs in one basket, or all its hopes on one campaign, so it seems highly unlikely that everyone funding or working on cycle campaigning (BikeBiz, CTC, BC, CN, Sustrans(?), ...) would agree to push only for road justice to the neglect of all else, especially when it seems like road and street design seem to be becoming open to change again.



User said:


> Another table taken out of context and another set of assertions.


Just channelling Statler, rather than able to show any alternative?


----------



## snorri (23 Oct 2014)

User said:


> As for things that haven't been tried, we still have the simple option open to us. Police our roads with a view of protecting the vulnerable from the dangerous.


Any evidence?
Hit me with some graphs.


----------



## Archie_tect (23 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Motorists approve the idea of getting cyclists out of their way shock.


I read it as an addition to existing cycling infrastructure, not instead of.


----------



## classic33 (23 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I tried to explain why it's not going so well, but in short: policing is being cut for reasons unrelated to cycling.
> 
> I doubt that all our resource would be sufficient to overcome that. *Also, it's a rare organisation that puts all its eggs in one basket, or all its hopes on one campaign,* so it seems highly unlikely that everyone funding or working on cycle campaigning (BikeBiz, CTC, BC, CN, Sustrans(?), ...) would agree to push only for road justice to the neglect of all else, especially when it seems like road and street design seem to be becoming open to change again.
> 
> ...


 *Australian Cyclists Party *
One of the founders is a member on here.


----------



## mjr (23 Oct 2014)

I refer you to the lists of campaigns at https://australian-cyclists-party.org/policy-options/ and http://lcc.org.uk/pages/policy (left sidebar) and nearby linked pages.


----------



## classic33 (23 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I refer you to the lists of campaigns at https://australian-cyclists-party.org/policy-options/ and http://lcc.org.uk/pages/policy (left sidebar) and nearby linked pages.


See my previous post above, with regards the A.C.P..


----------



## snorri (24 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Evidence of what? Graphs showing what?


You appeared to be claiming there was no evidence to suggest segregation would lead to increased cycling, but that increased policing would lead to increased cycling.
I merely ask for evidence to back up that claim,if that is what you claimed..


----------



## Drago (24 Oct 2014)

In order to prove an assault over a driving offence one needs evidence of mens rea. Without that then often the driving offence is all that one is left with.

There's a difference between what we think know, and what the CPS thinks we can prove to a court.


----------



## Drago (24 Oct 2014)

Yep, we don't call them the Criminal Protection Service for nowt.


----------



## mjr (24 Oct 2014)

User said:


> First part, go back a couple of pages and start with the graph. We are told by people promoting segregation that it is the only way and that it worked in the Netherlands. The graph does not show this.


Yes, please, go back a couple of pages and read why the graph was posted: one illustration among many of the decline of cycling in the UK during the mid/late 1900s; and nothing to do with a made-up argument with imaginary demons. With hindsight, I wish I had removed the NL line from it.


User said:


> Second part, no I cannot prove it at all, because we haven't tried it.


If there is no strong evidence for it, is there no argument to justify what amounts to a wild and expensive experiment?


----------



## snorri (24 Oct 2014)

User said:


> imply enforcing the laws of the land is neither an experiment nor need it incur any additional expense.


It would mean diverting police time from other matters, so not without cost in one form or another. However I don't disagree with you regarding policing and court action, which is why I support the aims of http://roadshare.co.uk/


----------



## mjr (24 Oct 2014)

User said:


> I can understand why you would wish in retrospect to have removed the NL data from the graph. It doesn't show what you want it to. Unfortunately this just illustrates your fundamental dishonesty here.


As stated repeatedly, I wanted it to show the decline in cycling in the UK, which it does - or can you explain why not?


> Simply enforcing the laws of the land is neither an experiment nor need it incur any additional expense.


Why is more law enforcement cost-neutral?


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Maybe not the greatest graph, but all I've seen show pretty much the same thing: falling cycling in the UK, whether measured by % of journeys, number of journeys, distance per person and so on. Some show a slight increase in the last few years but it still seems like it could be just a blip on a near-zero flatline.


a graph that ends in 2006?

Now....in which city has cycling doubled since 2000? Clue - it's the one without zillions of bike paths.....


----------



## mjr (24 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> a graph that ends in 2006?


Yes, because I was illustrating the decline in the decades before 1990. 


> Now....in which city has cycling doubled since 2000? Clue - it's the one without zillions of bike paths.....


What's Brighton got to do with this? 

Or do you mean the other one, which has built more bike paths and protected lanes during that time than most and is still building yet more, apparently to a standard higher than we've ever seen in the UK before?


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I refer you to the lists of campaigns at https://australian-cyclists-party.org/policy-options/ and http://lcc.org.uk/pages/policy (left sidebar) and nearby linked pages.


this would be the same LCC that ignored the deaths caused by construction traffic for five years while they pursued sweetheart deals with local authorities?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (24 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> As stated repeatedly, I wanted it to show the decline in cycling in the UK, which it does - or can you explain why not?


It may just be me, but the graph does seem to show pretty much a flat line. There's a slight decline to it after the massive drop at the beginning, but without a much more favourable scale it's hard to call it significant.

To me the graph looks like it says 'around the 1950's the UK population started being able to afford cars, so bought them and stopped cycling creating a huge drop in the number of miles cycled per head. A few people kept on at it. In the late 70's there was a fuel crisis and unemployment increase, more people couldn't afford cars or driving so were forced back on to bicycles. Since then the number has slowly tailed off, probably because the people who'd taken it up had gotten older and become unable to ride for some reason, possibly death.'

Isn't attributing any of this to some poorly connected painted bits of road a bit of a stretch?


----------



## Markymark (24 Oct 2014)

Loads more cyclists in London compared to 2006.


----------



## benb (24 Oct 2014)

This is worth a read: http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/netherlands/

Whilst it's clear that segregation and infrastructure are not a magic bullet, I would argue that if we want all of the people, no matter their age and ability, who _want _to cycle to be _able_ to cycle, then Dutch-quality infrastructure is necessary.


----------



## Markymark (24 Oct 2014)

The risk the risk the risk....

...is that as usual we'll get a half-arsed attempt which is worse than nothing. I'd love decent cycle routes. I think some I have seen are excellent and am all behind them. My worry is that by the time the planners has agreed to motorists concerns and politicians interfering all we'll get is more painted strips of danger making everything worse.

I would need to be convinced that what we get is fit for purpose. My instincts tell me it won't.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (24 Oct 2014)

I'm afraid I just go in to stuck record mode. The Dutch infrastructure comes with compulsion. I don't want the latter so I'll skip the former thank you. I think it's incredibly naïve to imagine that we can argue up spending on cycling segregation while avoiding compulsion and while it's selfish I don't want to be forced off of the roads for my ride to work and back even if it means little Timmy can cycle safely with his Grandpops on Sunday afternoon, it's not like there aren't already places they can go and do that.


----------



## benb (24 Oct 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> The risk the risk the risk....
> 
> ...is that as usual we'll get a half-arsed attempt which is worse than nothing. I'd love decent cycle routes. I think some I have seen are excellent and am all behind them. My worry is that by the time the planners has agreed to motorists concerns and politicians interfering all we'll get is more painted strips of danger making everything worse.
> 
> I would need to be convinced that what we get is fit for purpose. My instincts tell me it won't.



I'd be the first person to argue that crap infrastructure is often worse than no infrastructure.
We need proper, legally binding, design standards for councils to follow, informed by people who actually know what they are talking about.


----------



## Mugshot (24 Oct 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> The risk the risk the risk....
> 
> ...is that as usual we'll get a half-arsed attempt which is worse than nothing. I'd love decent cycle routes. I think some I have seen are excellent and am all behind them. My worry is that by the time the planners has agreed to motorists concerns and politicians interfering all we'll get is more painted strips of danger making everything worse.
> 
> I would need to be convinced that what we get is fit for purpose. My instincts tell me it won't.


In the mean time I'm going to continue to use the fabulous infrastructure which is already in place, is (reasonably) maintained and always goes exactly where I need to.


----------



## mjr (24 Oct 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I'd love decent cycle routes. I think some I have seen are excellent and am all behind them.


Where are they and are they excellent throughout? I know of many that are good in parts, but then some councillor has demanded that they have stupid crash-causing obstructions put in them, or the terminal junction has been bodged, or... well, I'm sure everyone knows the sort of things I mean. I'm often asked for examples in this country and I can never think of ones that stand up to an end-to-end test ride.


w00hoo_kent said:


> It may just be me, but the graph does seem to show pretty much a flat line. There's a slight decline to it after the massive drop at the beginning [...] Isn't attributing any of this to some poorly connected painted bits of road a bit of a stretch?


Attributing it to anything is a bit of a stretch. I was using it as illustration of the decline, not as a way to attribute that decline to a single cause. Earlier, I suggested the old defend-our-right-to-the-roads approach didn't do enough to arrest the decline, but that graph is only offered as a way to show the decline, including what you call the massive drop.

In some ways, cycling is basically engaged in a beauty contest with other modes of transport because you can only use one at a time. Motoring became more attractive in the 1950s, yet until recently, the approach of cycling organisations (civic and commercial) seems to have been that cycling should try to carry on broadly as it did BC - Before Cars - rather than trying to make cycling more attractive. To make it more attractive to more people, we have to look at why it's considered unattractive and having no choice to sharing busy roads is often near the top (third-highest reason in a 2007 survey of my locality)... so the survey result in the initial post is hardly a surprise, is it?


----------



## Mugshot (24 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Where are they and are they excellent throughout? I know of many that are good in parts, but then some councillor has demanded that they have stupid crash-causing obstructions put in them, or the terminal junction has been bodged, or... well, I'm sure everyone knows the sort of things I mean. I'm often asked for examples in this country and I can never think of ones that stand up to an end-to-end test ride.


I guess it depends on exactly what you want, if you refuse to share with peds and other cyclists for example or make any concessions what-so-ever then you will almost certainly struggle. but I'd like to recommend the NCN4 Neyland to Haverfordwest. 8 miles of bliss as far as I'm concerned, if you wanted 10 miles though.......well.....it doesn't quite cut the mustard.


----------



## angus h (24 Oct 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I think it's incredibly naïve to imagine that we can argue up spending on cycling segregation while avoiding compulsion and while it's selfish I don't want to be forced off of the roads for my ride to work and back even if it means little Timmy can cycle safely with his Grandpops on Sunday afternoon, it's not like there aren't already places they can go and do that.



Perhaps in your corner of the world, cycling for little Timmy is just about having some fun with Grandpops, and the distances are such that he needs to hop in Dad's car if he actually wants to _go somewhere_.

Where I live, a child of 5 or 6 could, in principle, meet 95% of their transport and mobility needs with a bike plus public transport (there are something like 6 different rail lines within a distance a kid that age can easily ride, a dozen parks, four or five major shopping districts). So, for that matter, could most of the adults if they weren't some toxic combination of lazy, selfish and afraid of the roads. The idea that having somewhere kids can "go and ride a bike" is acceptable provision completely misses the point. Actually we have an excellent velodrome a few miles away, but getting there with a kid and their bike is far harder than it should be (even driving - the roads are gridlock at school pickup time, I wonder why?). It's not just about making cycling safer though, it's about removing the number one reason|excuse (delete as applicable) for _not _cycling.

Granted, if you live in a rural or outer-suburban area this may not hold true, 20-mile-each-way trips are a regular fact of life, but I don't think anybody is proposing to build segregated cycle superhighways in Sevenoaks?


----------



## Markymark (24 Oct 2014)

When I first got back into cycling a few years ago, everyone said "oh, isn't that dangerous?". Rarely hear that now, everyone says, "oh yes, I do a bit too, what sort of bike do you have?"


----------



## benb (24 Oct 2014)

The point for me is how do we enable everyone who wants to be able to cycle to actually be able to cycle.
At the moment many people have had that choice effectively removed from them because the roads are so hostile.


----------



## Markymark (24 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Why not just go for the simple and obvious option and remove the hostile?


..won't win many votes - more drivers than cyclists.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (24 Oct 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> When I first got back into cycling a few years ago, everyone said "oh, isn't that dangerous?". Rarely hear that now, everyone says, "oh yes, I do a bit too, what sort of bike do you have?"


My wife said similar when I told her about this thread. Nobody asks her if her commute is dangerous, they are more concerned with why she wouldn't just use a car and what about the weather? It's very possible that the dangerous moniker has lowered in status over the last couple of years.

Also, I'm really not sure it's an actual reason. When most of the 'why I wouldn't cycle' replies are trotted out I get the suspicious feeling that the one they'd really tick is 'I don't want to because it looks like hard work'.


----------



## mjr (24 Oct 2014)

Mugshot said:


> I guess it depends on exactly what you want, if you refuse to share with peds and other cyclists for example or make any concessions what-so-ever then you will almost certainly struggle. but I'd like to recommend the NCN4 Neyland to Haverfordwest. 8 miles of bliss as far as I'm concerned, if you wanted 10 miles though.......well.....it doesn't quite cut the mustard.


I don't mind sharing with other cyclists and walkers are OK if it's wide enough, so I started looking through the cyclestreets photomap from Neyland. The junction to cross the A477 http://cycle.st/p56151 isn't great but I'll call that a concession. Next I met this bike-blocking barrier: http://cycle.st/p56152 - those things cause nasty crashes. There are more of them http://cycle.st/p56156 http://cycle.st/p56169 - Mountain and hybrid bikes started off with old-fashioned motorbike handlebars (600mm wide by 22.2mm thick I think), so those barriers logically can't work as claimed and I feel they're often more about making life difficult for cyclists than anything else.

Much of it looks really quite good like http://cycle.st/p28790 http://cycle.st/p56172 http://cycle.st/p56173 - and http://cycle.st/p56168 is better than many but I'm not sure it should give way to the road, really. 

Then at the other end, http://cycle.st/p56177 looks like an "over the shoulder" junction, where riders are expected to look both ahead and behind simultaneously, instead of the track sweeping out to meet the road at right angles with proper visibility... and http://cycle.st/p56178 is a more extreme example of it.

So I'd say that's a fairly good route let down by poor end junctions and bad barriers.


----------



## angus h (24 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Why not just go for the simple and obvious option and remove the hostile?



If you mean the bad drivers.. it's because _most_ bad driving is not the product of a 1% of sociopathic a-holes who drive like they stole it 100% of the time (yes, there are a few of those, but they really are a few), but the product of probably 10-50% of the driving population when they're having a particularly bad minute, hour, day, week or month. So the idea that you can simply banish bad driving is unrealistic - it's too widely dispersed through the population.

Now, much as I'd like everyone who ever gets behind the wheel to do so with the reactions of a fast jet pilot and the concentration of a neurosurgeon, that's not the reality when mass motoring is the order of the day. So yes you can remove some of the hostile with 20mph limits, enforcement, refresher driving tests every 10 years etc., but I can't see how that can remove enough of it to enable mass 8-80 cycling (and if any of the above are done rigorously enough to be effective, the motoring lobby whinge like spoiled babies having their toys taken away).

It's not a car thing specifically, anyhow - London commuters have a high potential for dickish behaviour even on foot, but the damage pedestrians can do one another is fortunately pretty limited. Human nature is hard to fix.


----------



## Markymark (24 Oct 2014)

Make it 6 points and lost license for a year with a retest, instant ban for mobile use, 10 year retest and you'll soon see people perk up.

But it wont happen as it'll be too unpopular with the electorate.


----------



## Mugshot (24 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I don't mind sharing with other cyclists and walkers are OK if it's wide enough, so I started looking through the cyclestreets photomap from Neyland. The junction to cross the A477 http://cycle.st/p56151 isn't great but I'll call that a concession. Next I met this bike-blocking barrier: http://cycle.st/p56152 - those things cause nasty crashes. There are more of them http://cycle.st/p56156 http://cycle.st/p56169 - Mountain and hybrid bikes started off with old-fashioned motorbike handlebars (600mm wide by 22.2mm thick I think), so those barriers logically can't work as claimed and I feel they're often more about making life difficult for cyclists than anything else.
> 
> Much of it looks really quite good like http://cycle.st/p28790 http://cycle.st/p56172 http://cycle.st/p56173 - and http://cycle.st/p56168 is better than many but I'm not sure it should give way to the road, really.
> 
> ...


Well, you've started in the wrong place. Go to the marina instead, have a look at the boats and maybe a cup of coffee in the cafe first, or last. The barriers, well I would say if you choose to crash into something then it can cause an injury, I do take your point about mountain bikes, but the idea of course (I suspect you are aware) is to keep motorcycles off and horses actually) All the rest lovely jubbly until the other end, but I'm afraid you've gone further than the 8 miles i mentioned, as I said, if you want to go 10 miles it doesn't quite cut the mustard. If you want to get rid of all barriers and sections where you cross the road there is a very easy solution, the alternative is some concessions. As a cycle facility (actually shared use) I think it's excellent.


----------



## Mugshot (24 Oct 2014)

angus h said:


> So the idea that you can simply banish bad driving is unrealistic - it's too widely dispersed through the population.


Acknowledging that bad driving exists and dealing with it accordingly would be a start. From casual speeding to mobile phone use to skimming past a cyclist at 80mph, they're all treated with a shrug of the shoulders and dare I say it, it's somebody having a bad minute, hour or day, well if it's that bad that is affects your driving maybe you shouldn't getting in the car in the first place.


----------



## angus h (24 Oct 2014)

Exactly, User13710 - _but_, if you assume that people are losing the right to drive regularly, that means alternatives have to exist. As is, it's taken for granted that people will want or need to drive when they're angry, stressed, tired, sad, ill and a million other things.Yet with a transport system that offers reasonable alternatives - so that those who've been banned, or those simply not feeling their best, can still get from A to B reasonably efficiently, then who really needs to drive those trips at all?


----------



## mjr (24 Oct 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Well, you've started in the wrong place.


Story of my life...  In my defence, I was just following NCN4 as suggested.


> Go to the marina instead, have a look at the boats and maybe a cup of coffee in the cafe first, or last. The barriers, well I would say if you choose to crash into something then it can cause an injury, I do take your point about mountain bikes, but the idea of course (I suspect you are aware) is to keep motorcycles off and horses actually)


That's the claimed idea, but they don't do it, nor can they as long as most non-racing pedal cycles use the same size handlebars as motorcycles... and horses used to get through the narrow barriers installed near the start of this bridge https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.0...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1se__EXEo0lg8SCn_4p9R8YA!2e0 so they'll get almost anywhere.

In reality, the main function of those barriers is at best to slow cycles right down to almost stopped and at worst to cause injury to cyclists - and no, it's not because they "choose to crash" into them. It's because deliberately putting obstructions in cycleways is not safe.


> All the rest lovely jubbly until the other end, but I'm afraid you've gone further than the 8 miles i mentioned, as I said, if you want to go 10 miles it doesn't quite cut the mustard.


So where would I be after 8 miles? Anywhere worth going, or does it mean that bit is basically a dead end?

But that's what I meant: there are some good _bits_ of cycle path in the UK, but I don't know one that is good all the way through. It's like near me, NCN1 is pretty good from the A1078 to the B1144, but few people want to go from the A1078 to the B1144 - they want to go across the dangerously botched Level Crossing junction of the B1144 and into the town centre, or over the lumpy tree roots to the villages further north.


----------



## Mugshot (24 Oct 2014)

mjry said:


> Story of my life...  In my defence, I was just following NCN4 as suggested.
> 
> That's the claimed idea, but they don't do it, nor can they as long as most non-racing pedal cycles use the same size handlebars as motorcycles... and horses used to get through the narrow barriers installed near the start of this bridge https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.0...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1se__EXEo0lg8SCn_4p9R8YA!2e0 so they'll get almost anywhere.
> 
> ...


Personally I think theyre there to stop less experienced riders riding straight out into the road.
At the end of the path you could turn round and head back, 16 miles of cycling would be quite a challenge for many riders, i guess it depends where you want to go.
It seems that what you would like is a system of paths which criss cross the country and enabled you to get to just about any destination in the UK which cyclists are free to use, now if only we could come up with a catchy name for them


----------



## summerdays (24 Oct 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Personally I think theyre there to stop less experienced riders riding straight out into the road.


Barriers also stop the inexperienced and experienced cycling off the road too! I have one set that you have to queue to get through and sometimes that's on the road, if there is more than one cyclist waiting.


----------



## mjr (25 Oct 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Personally I think theyre there to stop less experienced riders riding straight out into the road.
> At the end of the path you could turn round and head back, 16 miles of cycling would be quite a challenge for many riders, i guess it depends where you want to go.
> It seems that what you would like is a system of paths which criss cross the country and enabled you to get to just about any destination in the UK which cyclists are free to use, now if only we could come up with a catchy name for them


Ah there we go! Useful or well-built, but in this country if you want both then you are some kind of loon! FWIW I'm OK riding on most roads but I don't always enjoy it and I can quite understand why it deters some people from riding. It sucks to have a choice between a cycle-unfriendly rural A road and a big detour.

It doesn't seem very clever to make less experienced riders concentrate on not crashing into obstacles when they should be concentrating on crossing roads. It doesnt work either: I've seen riders approaching the NCN26/A368 junction from the north be so relieved at getting through the barrier partway down the descent that they rolled right out into the road. It would be better to paint a big marking and put up a sign than distract them with barriers.


----------



## Mugshot (25 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Ah there we go! Useful or well-built, but in this country if you want both then you are some kind of loon! FWIW I'm OK riding on most roads but I don't always enjoy it and I can quite understand why it deters some people from riding. It sucks to have a choice between a cycle-unfriendly rural A road and a big detour.
> 
> It doesn't seem very clever to make less experienced riders concentrate on not crashing into obstacles when they should be concentrating on crossing roads. It doesnt work either: I've seen riders approaching the NCN26/A368 junction from the north be so relieved at getting through the barrier partway down the descent that they rolled right out into the road. It would be better to paint a big marking and put up a sign than distract them with barriers.


I haven't personally seen anybody ride into a barrier or into the road having negotiated one, but I do take your point. However if you are looking for a segregated cycle network what are you proposing would be allowed on them and how do you propose we stop the things you don't want on there getting on there.
I do believe that on the face of it the idea of a segregated cycle network is appealing, the issues come when you get down to the nitty gritty. We've touched on one already, who is segregated and by what means, but you also have the where will they be, because they wont be everywhere nor will they go everywhere, the cost would be astronomical where would the money come from and so on. 
Whilst I will not try to suggest that it is a regular occurance it is not unknown for me to be told to "Get on the cyclepath" by a helpful driver if I'm riding alongside one, but I'm also told to "Get off the road" if there isn't a cyclepath to ride alongside. I cannot for a moment imagine that these incidents would improve if more segregated cycle routes were introduced. We already have a wonderful network which we can use as cyclists, in my opinion it would be far better financially and make travelling far better for all road users if we were to concentrate our resources into better education and better adherance to the raft of laws which exist which should be sufficient to protect us all already.
Now, what was the question again?


----------



## Mugshot (25 Oct 2014)

angus h said:


> Exactly, User13710 - _but_, if you assume that people are losing the right to drive regularly,* that means alternatives have to exist*. As is, it's taken for granted that people will want or need to drive when they're angry, stressed, tired, sad, ill and a million other things.Yet with a transport system that offers reasonable alternatives - so that those who've been banned, or those simply not feeling their best, can still get from A to B reasonably efficiently, then who really needs to drive those trips at all?


Do they? I don't see why people that act in a manner which means they lose their license should be able to demand that an alternative exists nor do I see that I should feel obliged to provide one for them. As it happens alternatives do exist bicycle or Shanks' pony spring to mind.


----------



## clid61 (25 Oct 2014)

This planet will never serioulsy encourage less use of cars and more use of bikes as the powers that be #want people sat in their own little cells be it home plane or car and not interact with other people


----------



## clid61 (25 Oct 2014)

User said:


> When I was at school, I recall a teacher explaining that something or other was theoretically possible but wouldn't happen, in the same way that any of the constituent parts of the soviet union could theoretically leave.
> He was wrong about that. You are, I hope, wrong about this.



I hope im wrong too !


----------



## w00hoo_kent (28 Oct 2014)

angus h said:


> Exactly, User13710 - _but_, if you assume that people are losing the right to drive regularly, that means alternatives have to exist. As is, it's taken for granted that people will want or need to drive when they're angry, stressed, tired, sad, ill and a million other things.Yet with a transport system that offers reasonable alternatives - so that those who've been banned, or those simply not feeling their best, can still get from A to B reasonably efficiently, then who really needs to drive those trips at all?


If you lose the right to drive a car there are a huge number of alternatives you can use already.
There is a public transport network. Where that isn't convenient for you, there are bicycles, there is walking, there is asking a friend (presuming you have one) there are taxis. I have a large number of friends who have never bothered to learn to drive. They are at times very annoying, but they are also not housebound hermits unable to go anywhere. They have to make compromises, and they have to be aware of more information than car drivers. It's arguable if they spend more money in the long run vs car ownership. But they exist quite happily and most of them have been living this life and surviving as functioning adults for decades. And no, they aren't all in London (most of them aren't in fact). And this is people who have chosen, for some reason, not to go for car use. I don't see why we need to worry more about the people that had to be banned for abusing the privilege of having car use. We don't currently and while we don't seem to ban many people, it does still happen. It's possible the extra patience that they would have to learn would help them appreciate driving more when they came back to it.

Similarly, a lot of people driving cars aren't driving them per se, they are just going from place to place in them. They are a tool like the knife and fork they eat their dinner with or the smart phone they need to tweet on. Regularly reminding them, with retests etc, that they need to drive properly is not a waste of time when it comes to making places safer. Reminding them that there are things they have to care about outside of their car is a positive thing. It's not just the utter tossers that need dealing with.

But I think this is the basic point isn't it. Everyone can see that the right thing to do is to make the people who are driving around in a ton or more of metal do it better. Some people still hold out hope that that can happen, some have already submitted and are now looking around for the next best thing. But it'll never be as good as making the roads safer in the first place, if only because at some point you will have to interface with the rest of the traffic and if they've been allowed to forget you even exist, it'll be a lot worse than it already is.


----------

