Can Scotland copy the Netherlands?

[Rasmus]

Some perspective from someone who lived and cycled in Copenhagen for 10 years:

Environment: Denmark is just as wet and windy as Scotland. Copenhagen bicycle commuters have no issues with the weather. Hills can be overcome with suitable gearing.

Attitude: The difference is not as great as you might think. The Danish motoring lobby is the same as the plonker on Newsnight yesterday, and you see the exact same vitriol spouted on newspaper website comments etc. The "hardcore" motorists are irrelevant, as they will never cycle anyway. The persons that need to be convinced are the ones who have no great feelings about mode of transport, apart from convenience and safety, and with commutes of about 5 miles or less. How to convince them: Make cycling convenient, and safe!

Legislation: I don't think it's that big a deal. Noone I have ever encountered in Denmark has ever cited legislation regarding bike/car collisions as a reason to ride the bike. The reason: Collisions are so much less infrequent, and perceived safety so much greater, that it simply is not an issue. While we (rightly) complain that the courts are too lenient on poor drivers in this country, I don't think change in this area would make much of a difference in driving people from cars onto bikes.

Infrastructure: This is the clincher. In Glasgow (I believe conditions are similar elsewhere) we have a number of cycle "routes" (colleges cycle route, clydeside path, East Kilbride route, Commonwealth games route, etc). Even if these were of impeccable quality (they're not), it would still be insufficient infrastructure, as there is no overall plan for integration. Cycle infrastructure only works if it is (near)-ubiquitous, taking people from their house to work/school/shops along a direct route of their choice, without being forced into detours on cycleroutes designed for travel from one end to the other. Achieving this is a big ask of national and local government, but there is no inherent reason it couldn't be done.

If (that's a big if) investment happens, and we get high quality, properly designed cycling infrastructure in Scotland, cyclists like us ("road-warriors", used to battling motor traffic) will also have the responsibility of actually using it. This _will_ mean that speed needs to be decreased. You're closer to pedestrians and hopefully a whole bunch of slower moving cyclists, and you will need to stop multiple times if making turns at big/complex junctions. This is the price we must be willing to pay if cycling is to become mainstream.

 

[Scoosh]

Excellent, Rasmus - thank you

 

[Poacher]

When was that legislation introduced in the Netherlands?

According to David Hembrow, the Netherlands have had strict liability, rather than presumed liability, since the '90s:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/01/campaign-for-sustainable-safety-not.html
although his description (to my shame, I have no command of Dutch, and haven't followed his links) sounds more to me like presumed liability.

 

[snorri]

and the smug, smooth-tongued,skilled motoring journalist ate him for his late-night snack.

Alan Douglas, for it was he, is really just tedious, no more able to argue effectively than the pub bore. In the past he has claimed to be a cyclist himself, and attempted to put the cyclist point of view on a programme in which he had been wheeled in as a transport expert because he happens to be a motoring journalist. However it soon became clear his 'knowledge' was very limited and he relied on imagination more than experience.

 

[dellzeqq]

it's not going to happen. Cycling in Glasgow is a breeze, and people don't do it. Scottish cities are utterly disfigured by traffic, and nobody gives a monkeys. The Scots are wedded to their cars. The further north you go, the worse it gets. Inverness reeks of exhaust smoke. It's astounding that people hide in tin boxes when the country is so beautiful, but there you have it.

And the rhetoric is just window dressing on a huge road-building programme.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Some perspective from someone who lived and cycled in Copenhagen for 10 years:

Environment: Denmark is just as wet and windy as Scotland. Copenhagen bicycle commuters have no issues with the weather. Hills can be overcome with suitable gearing.

Attitude: The difference is not as great as you might think. The Danish motoring lobby is the same as the plonker on Newsnight yesterday, and you see the exact same vitriol spouted on newspaper website comments etc. The "hardcore" motorists are irrelevant, as they will never cycle anyway. The persons that need to be convinced are the ones who have no great feelings about mode of transport, apart from convenience and safety, and with commutes of about 5 miles or less. How to convince them: Make cycling convenient, and safe!

Legislation: I don't think it's that big a deal. Noone I have ever encountered in Denmark has ever cited legislation regarding bike/car collisions as a reason to ride the bike. The reason: Collisions are so much less infrequent, and perceived safety so much greater, that it simply is not an issue. While we (rightly) complain that the courts are too lenient on poor drivers in this country, I don't think change in this area would make much of a difference in driving people from cars onto bikes.

Infrastructure: This is the clincher. In Glasgow (I believe conditions are similar elsewhere) we have a number of cycle "routes" (colleges cycle route, clydeside path, East Kilbride route, Commonwealth games route, etc). Even if these were of impeccable quality (they're not), it would still be insufficient infrastructure, as there is no overall plan for integration. Cycle infrastructure only works if it is (near)-ubiquitous, taking people from their house to work/school/shops along a direct route of their choice, without being forced into detours on cycleroutes designed for travel from one end to the other. Achieving this is a big ask of national and local government, but there is no inherent reason it couldn't be done.

If (that's a big if) investment happens, and we get high quality, properly designed cycling infrastructure in Scotland, cyclists like us ("road-warriors", used to battling motor traffic) will also have the responsibility of actually using it. This _will_ mean that speed needs to be decreased. You're closer to pedestrians and hopefully a whole bunch of slower moving cyclists, and you will need to stop multiple times if making turns at big/complex junctions. This is the price we must be willing to pay if cycling is to become mainstream.

Copenhagen's modal share is in decline. How come?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

According to David Hembrow, the Netherlands have had strict liability, rather than presumed liability, since the '90s:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/01/campaign-for-sustainable-safety-not.html
although his description (to my shame, I have no command of Dutch, and haven't followed his links) sounds more to me like presumed liability.

So given they had high modal share before the law was introduced can it have been the law that made the difference?

 

[Rasmus]

Copenhagen's modal share is in decline. How come?

Do you have a source for this? The most recent numbers I could find are from 2010 (link - in Danish), and the decrease (from 37% in 2008 to 35%) is attributed to the strong winter in 2010. I also suspect that the introduction of free bicycle carriage on the s-train network has contributed, as combined train/bike commuters are counted as public transport in the statistics.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

it's not going to happen. Cycling in Glasgow is a breeze, and people don't do it.

Most of my non cycling female friends won't consider it, their main concern is fear of traffic.
They would like to after seeing me loose weight since starting cycling, but they are scared of getting run over. They are also concerned about the safety of cycling after dark: cycle paths are mostly unlit here.
Of my cycling female friends, some are off the road a lot because of mechanicals: lbs are expensive, some areas do not have any - obviously, as there are not many cyclists.
Self taught know how takes time and effort - as I've discovered myself, hardly read any books in the last year for tinkering with bikes!
Others stop cycling in winter: they can't afford proper gear or do not know what to get/never heard of marathon winters, or are simply not that hardy.
Other reasons for not commuting by bike are: no safe place to leave the bike, no facilities for changing/showering.

 

[Poacher]

So given they had high modal share before the law was introduced can it have been the law that made the difference?

OK, Greg, point taken. My first post was a bit of a throwaway line, as is my wont. Maybe I should delete the "more effective" bit, but leave the "cheaper and easier". Either way, it's not likely to happen, considering the hysterical outbursts in e.g. the Daily Wail last time it was tentatively suggested, but likelier than the commitment of serious amounts of cash for genuinely useful cycling facilities - it just ain't going to happen in this country.

 

[Rasmus]

It has been done.

They're called roads.

Dedicated cycling infrastructure is not for you, or me, or most people on this forum. We are both able and willing to share urban roads with motor traffic.

It is about children, the elderly, and people like Pat's friends. Even in a world where all motorists behaved perfectly, these people still would not be comfortable on the road. If we want to increase cycling in the general population, high quality segregated infrastructure is the only option.

 

[Richard Mann]

Dedicated cycling infrastructure is not for you, or me, or most people on this forum. We are both able and willing to share urban roads with motor traffic.

It is about children, the elderly, and people like Pat's friends. Even in a world where all motorists behaved perfectly, these people still would not be comfortable on the road. If we want to increase cycling in the general population, high quality segregated infrastructure is the only option.

There's a big group between the assertives and that avoiders that can use the roads perfectly fine, *if the roads are tamed*. As many do in Oxford. Your assertion does not hold water.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Dedicated cycling infrastructure is not for you, or me, or most people on this forum. We are both able and willing to share urban roads with motor traffic.

It is about children, the elderly, and people like Pat's friends. Even in a world where all motorists behaved perfectly, these people still would not be comfortable on the road. If we want to increase cycling in the general population, high quality segregated infrastructure is the only option.

Part of the solution.

You're not seriously postulating that, in a world where motor traffic speed and volumes were restricted to the levels of, say, the first decade, or the first quarter, or first 40 - 50 years, of the 20th Century, these folk wouldn't be comfortable on the roads, surely?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It has been done.

They're called roads.

Whether we like it or not the vast majority of folk in the UK are convinced you need to be brave, bold or bonkers to cycle on our roads.

Until they are convinced that is not the case, or find, say, public transport distasteful, or perceived to be risk laden (see bomb dodgers passim), and private motoring too expensive and impractical/difficult, the existing-roads-only argument, with current speed and volume of motor traffic, is as pointless as the traffic-free-only argument.

 

[snorri]

Can there be no middle ground on this segregation issue?
I don't want or believe segregation makes economic sense or would encourage cycling in my local town.
I do want segregation, on a well designed and maintained path, from a 70mph dual carriageway carrying a high volume of traffic and which is the only practical route on part of a journey I make fairly frequently.