Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling
- Thread starter downfader
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
I'm sure the latter is true, but I think your reason is also telling, but then I've never lived in Tokyo's suburbs. And BTW, there are lots of people cycling around Tokyo during the day. I've lived in Ikebukuro, Mejiro and Nippori over the years and they all had cyclists at all times - mainly mama-chari during the day but plenty of them, and pretty much universally on the pavements (except for the crazy old people cycling the wrong way down busy main roads!).
On the weekends, the leisure cyclists and even local club riders would ride the amazing multi-use paths along the rivers. For a long time, my weekend ride would start on the Arakawa route before heading north and, eventually, out of Tokyo (well, sort of, you never really seem to get out of Tokyo...). But my favourite thing used to be long rides through the city on summer nights after all the workers had gone home. Clear, neon-soaked streets, the humid air cut by cool breezes. I really miss Tokyo!
Yes there are downtown but nowhere near as many. The reason AIUI is that many people cycle from home to the station. Japanese stations would give the Dutch a run for their money for the number of parked cycles. But they nearly all walk from the station to work downtown. So the only cyclists downtown are the relatively few who live there.
I was mainly Osaka BTW - foods much better
- Toyonaka and Suita.Going south you leave the Tokyo conurbation around Kobe
. But club and weekend riders, as in the UK, are different in their cycling habits to transportation cyclists. But there is nothing I miss about Tokyo or Osaka in july or August. Life in a sauna! Matte neWhich is actually where all the risk is anyway. The bits in between are relatively safe.
stowie
Legendary Member
18 Pages!
I have been away this week, in Copenhagen which I visit often (but sadly never manage to get to cycle).
It is interesting at junctions that cyclists (and pedestrians) usually have priority over turning cars. So, at 8:30am, I am treated to being in a car turning right which has to wait at the junction whilst cyclists swarm to the left and right of the driver. I watch with admiration at this, whilst my non-cycling colleague watches in horror and wonders why all these cyclists down get mown down. Presumably because drivers in Copenhagen are used to not having priority on virtually all parts of the road system.
The standard of driving isn't any better. The standard of cycling isn't. Pedestrians still wonder into the roads and cycle ways on mobile phones. It is somewhat chaotic. But the roads tend to be designed to at least level the playing field between cyclists, pedestrians and cars, if not cede priority to the first two. And great swathes of the centre is inaccessible by car. The city is a joy to walk around.
At junctions the potential for conflict is quite large. But the cars are slowed by the road system and the other users, the road marking clearly indicate priority, and presumably the law favours the vulnerable in an accident. It makes one realise that segregation may be part of the answer on a small section of the road network, but alone won't have a hope of helping in the UK. It also makes me realise that trying to promote cycling culture without addressing the uneven playing field on our roads won't work well either.
It appears that TfL recently released plans of Blackfriars bridge which looked a nightmare for cyclists and pedestrians, but ceded more lanes to cars even though cyclists and pedestrians vastly outnumber cars on the road. Whilst certain road planners appear to regard walking and cycling (and indeed public transport at times) only when it doesn't inconvenience the private motorist (and still seen to be living in the 1970s when roads such as Blackfriars Bridge could be considered "trunk roads"), we will be left with roads which are not conducive to other modes of transport aside from the private car.
I have been away this week, in Copenhagen which I visit often (but sadly never manage to get to cycle).
It is interesting at junctions that cyclists (and pedestrians) usually have priority over turning cars. So, at 8:30am, I am treated to being in a car turning right which has to wait at the junction whilst cyclists swarm to the left and right of the driver. I watch with admiration at this, whilst my non-cycling colleague watches in horror and wonders why all these cyclists down get mown down. Presumably because drivers in Copenhagen are used to not having priority on virtually all parts of the road system.
The standard of driving isn't any better. The standard of cycling isn't. Pedestrians still wonder into the roads and cycle ways on mobile phones. It is somewhat chaotic. But the roads tend to be designed to at least level the playing field between cyclists, pedestrians and cars, if not cede priority to the first two. And great swathes of the centre is inaccessible by car. The city is a joy to walk around.
At junctions the potential for conflict is quite large. But the cars are slowed by the road system and the other users, the road marking clearly indicate priority, and presumably the law favours the vulnerable in an accident. It makes one realise that segregation may be part of the answer on a small section of the road network, but alone won't have a hope of helping in the UK. It also makes me realise that trying to promote cycling culture without addressing the uneven playing field on our roads won't work well either.
It appears that TfL recently released plans of Blackfriars bridge which looked a nightmare for cyclists and pedestrians, but ceded more lanes to cars even though cyclists and pedestrians vastly outnumber cars on the road. Whilst certain road planners appear to regard walking and cycling (and indeed public transport at times) only when it doesn't inconvenience the private motorist (and still seen to be living in the 1970s when roads such as Blackfriars Bridge could be considered "trunk roads"), we will be left with roads which are not conducive to other modes of transport aside from the private car.
All the risk? Relatively safe? Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing about relative safety, but you could be easily misinterpreted saying as if there were no risk at all between junctions. According to DfT 2009 stats bit less than 25% of cycling "accidents" on built-up roads were not within 20 metres of a junction, seems quite high to me. In DfT categorisation that's second most common place for cycling accidents, most common being in T and staggered junctions, third roundabouts.
(In non built-up roads over 55% of "accidents" are not in junctions, but as the numbers are order(s) of magnitude lower it's not something to cling to.)
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
No, because he did the research and a lot of other hard work and wrote a pretty good book, which has proved to be very popular. If you can write a better book on the subject, then let's see it; I'm sure you will make your fortune and we will all be so much better cyclists as a result!
Looking further at the statistics I noticed by far (74%) the most common manoeuvre for cyclist involved in an accident is "going ahead" - in a junction or not. Combined with the bit about T-junctions I get the feeling the main reason for accidents is car making a turn and not notice the cyclist. How is current situation different from cars not noticing cyclists in junctions with segregated infrastructure?
jonesy
Guru
I'm not entirely clear what you mean, but segregated infrastructure means a) more junctions to have conflicts at, b) loss of priority and c) the cyclist is further out of the line of sight of the driver, so less likely to be seen until the driver has already started to turn.
The main cause is turning vehicles and for segregated cycle facilities it is worse, particularly for the "wrong way" traffic because cyclists are out of sight out of mind in their facility.
stowie
Legendary Member
It means loss of priority in the UK - surely this is a function of the road priority bestowed by the planners and law, not the result of segregation per-se?
As I mentioned earlier, the drivers in Copenhagen seem to be able to cope with ceding priority at junctions to cyclists.
stowie
Legendary Member
Signals at many junctions give green for cyclists going straight on at the same time as right turning traffic. Sounds like recipe for disaster, but it works - cars cede priority.
Signalised junctions for cycles doesn't seem like a bad idea. I assume there are insurmountable reasons why they are not used in the UK (traffic flow, smoothing, confusion for motorists etc. etc.).
jonesy
Guru
The situation you describe also applies to pedestrian crossings, not just in Denmark but other parts of Europe as well.So drivers are used to having to give way when turning right at signals. Clearly this would be a big change in the UK. But irrespective of how priority is managed at junctions, there is no doubt that segregation increases the number of points of conflict that have to be managed.
stowie
Legendary Member
Yes - everyone goes at once and amazingly it seems to work.
I would point out that our road planners manage to manufacture points of conflict very nicely anyway with pedestrian islands, build outs, speed cushions, on-street and pavement parking. And that Cyclecraft itself can be seen to increase the number of potential points of conflict with advice on primary and so on.
I had a discussion with someone about this the other day. They felt that the volume of traffic through most London junctions meant that cars ceding priority would never work. I didn't have the heart to point out that if cars were de-prioritised then maybe more people would use other forms of transport and therefore the volumes would decrease...
- Status