Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[GrumpyGregry]

almost. It added a mile to the trip. But it adds a bit of mystery, a bit of confusion, a smidge of romance to the night. Big up Surrey County Council for repairing the path when I asked them to, but, even if I were minded to, I doubt that my powers of persuasion would persuade the taxpayer to stump up a few billion quid for mystery, confusion and romance.......

No about about it. A mere 1.5ish % of our total journey and an extra mile in good company is always well spent.

 

[stowie]

Safety in Numbers takes care of that. Its not about the instantaneous numbers at any time but the effect of numbers in general on driver behavior. If there are few cyclists around in general then coming across one tends to be a surprise followed by "what am I supposed to do". If you are generally meeting and interacting with cyclists day in day out then you come to expect them to be around and are familiar with how to behave. Its not an effect that operates only in rush hour and fades during the evening.



Copenhagen and Amsterdam have high cycling levels because they've always had high cycling levels. The major $1Bn build of cycling facilities in the Netherlands started in the mid 80s and ended in the mid 90s. Cycling levels at the start were high compared to the UK and cycling levels at the end were still roughly the same in both countries. The Louisse study of the results in Delft was summarised by SWOV (the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research) as follows:

"In the 1990s, Louisse et al. (1994) reported the (second) evaluation of the Delft Bicycle Route Network. This city introduced many bicycle facilities in the 1980s. In 1994 the situation in Delft was again studied, and compared with the evaluation that took place a short time after introduction. There is more bicycle use in Delft than in other medium-sized towns, but this was also the case before the introduction of the bicycle route network. The conclusions in the evaluation study were not very positive: bicycle use had not increased, neither had the road safety. A route network of bicycle facilities apparently has no added value for bicycle use or road safety."

You won't find any mention of facilities other than cycle parking in the Dutch Cycle Balance Audit of cycling provision either and when I asked the person who runs it why not his answer was they were not important.

It is very easy to link the high cycling levels to something superficially attractive as a cause but detailed investigation indicates that it is more coincidence than cause.

I believe the Dutch situation is far more to do with urban planning (distances, convenience), discouraging cars from cities and ensuring cycling is seen as a normal everyday activity

I wish I could be as optimistic about the safety in numbers argument. I see drivers slowing down, backing off and not overtaking when they meet a large number of cyclists. Hence the behaviour is modified in a way that is positive. I also experience close overtaking, speeding and agression when the number of cyclists drop off.

Your thoughts about the statistics backing up behavioural change may not be the actual reason. The increase in cycling mileage may be predominately at the "rush hours" where the safety in numbers works. This makes the cycling statistics look safer, but doesn't say anything about the safety outside the "rush hours" - it may have remained completey the same.

I think the way to make motorists more amenable to cyclists is to turn them into cyclists. I am a lot more understanding of cyclists needs after starting to cycle myself. Measuring this needs to understand the number of individuals cycling (say once per week or more) - I don't see any statistics to show whether this number is growing or not.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Finally, I believe you and like-minded persons miss out on one crucial aspect of the Dutch model: in spending all that money, in re-designing roads and junctions, in implementing all their cycling measures, they have also CLEARLY stated through their actions that cycling is an important, prioritised and valid form of transport. This message will undoubtedly influence drivers' behaviour.
Contrast that to the UK, where cycling almost invariably as an afterthought, and where whatever provision reflects that attitude. After all, how can we expect drivers to take cyclists seriously when neither central, nor local government does?

The reason people feel that the Government does not prioritise cycling is because the Government does not prioritize cycling; nothing to do with cycle paths. They have just cut Cycling England, whose annual budget wouldn't even have paid for a mile of motorway. They have no political will to address the imbalances between motorized and vulnerable road users because they are scared of the "war on motorists" crowd. At the same time they waste time and money debating stupid, pointless proposals for laws about "death by dangerous cycling" as a sop to Daily Mail readers. All of this has nothing to do with Cyclecraft and everything to do with our political system and vested interests.

In the political climate here, there is not a hope in hell of having even a fraction of trhe kind of infrastructure that exists in Holland within my lifetime or my children's. So all we are left with is vehicular cycling and we might as well learn how to do that properly.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I am a lot more understanding of cyclists needs after starting to cycle myself.

How so and why?

 

[Red Light]

I'm sorry, but this is disingenous. The CEGB has been set up to campaign for segregation (and possibly to shoehorn people in to consultancy employment).

Is the CEGB really a credible threat that needs worrying about? I looked the other day and their forum had 65 posts on it total. Compare that with 500 people currently on-line here and 1.6 million posts it hardly seems like a force for change.

 

[dellzeqq]

it's certainly not credible, but, then again, neither was Safespeed.

The Warrington website, with its collection of daft segregated schemes is proof that where people are spending other people's money (uusually via S106 agreements) nothing has to make sense. We're not going to see the kind of (anti)nirvana the CEGB would wish on us, but, once residential building takes off again a whole host of cycling officers will be wanting to make their own mark on the world, and the CEGB will be there to show them what 'best practice' is.

 

[blockend]

The road vs segregation argument has reached an impasse and there's little original thought to the matter. It's self evidently true that a) most bicycle facilities are shyte and b) not many Brits use a bike for transportation. Around those facts orbit a lot of polemic.

One point the link made that is undeniable is utility cycling is drawn from a narrow demographic. It really, really is and catching sight of a middle aged woman with a basket of organically grown sprouts on Old St roundabout won't change the matter. Quite a lot of existing highway engineering is problematic to the point of lethal for cyclists. There are various ways around the problem, you can ensure every tricky bit is 20mph to reduce contact speeds in the inevitable bumps, you can make motorists culpable in a guilty-till-proven-innocent kind of way to scare them off, or you can re-engineer cycle tracks round the worst parts. Riding quickly in the middle of the road and waving your arms about is not, I would suggest, tackling root causes.

None of the solutions are tried in anything other than a piecemeal way. Arguments range from the one where Brits are instinctively opposed to utility cycling in some profound way and roads conditions are an excuse for national sloth, to lemmings in numbers survive but the demographic facts remain, whatever spin is put on them. I suggest most posters on this and indeed every other cycling forum are from within existing cycling demography, which carries the wisdom of experience and the ignorance of familiarity, simultaneously.

 

[Red Light]

it's certainly not credible, but, then again, neither was Safespeed.

The Warrington website, with its collection of daft segregated schemes is proof that where people are spending other people's money (uusually via S106 agreements) nothing has to make sense. We're not going to see the kind of (anti)nirvana the CEGB would wish on us, but, once residential building takes off again a whole host of cycling officers will be wanting to make their own mark on the world, and the CEGB will be there to show them what 'best practice' is.

Sustrans has been doing that for years and is far larger and more credible than CEGB. And if it happens we already have the Cycling by Design from Transport Scotland, Cycling Infrastructure Design from DfT and Design Standards from TfL as official documents to point the cycling officers to. A far bigger risk is the local Cycling Campaign groups who usually have a vocal and active segregationist or two (think Seven Stations route in London) and when faced by stupid designs by local authorities are prepared to compromise on the "something is better than nothing" principle. They are usually in close contact with the local authority so far more influential than CEGB can ever be.

 

[blockend]

when faced by stupid designs by local authorities are prepared to compromise on the "something is better than nothing" principle.

Those were the exact words used by my local authority in correspondence over the recent introduction of a cycle path. They relayed a road surface and decided to put in cycle paint while they were at it, or so I was told. My complaint wasn't about the path per se but it's appropriateness. Where the road is wide, sight lines are good and there are no junctions - in other words where a lane isn't required - they laid a paint line. When the road narrows, turns sharply and there's a crossroads with a sinister reputation for accidents, the paint ends and the rider is left to their own devices. The path then continues on the other side of the road but only for direction of travel, confusing even for an experienced cyclists as signs don't confirm this either way.

I enquired as to the council's reasoning and received a reply from the contractor that summat was better than now't and when I pressed him on the lack of logical consistency he said he'd forward my complaint to the chap who designed the scheme. That was last year and I'm still awaiting his response.
The curious thing is that since the paint went down cycle use has definitely gone up (at least in my observation) which would suggest that facilities, even utterly crap ones, may play a part in cycling take up. The security offered by the narrow strip of paint and a few blue signs might be completely illusory and their ending at a dangerous pinch point ill-considered to the point of immorality, nevertheless there does seem to be a psychological process among a section of the population (bike curious, bus hating, impecunious, wotever) where a path disposes them positively towards use.

 

[Red Light]

One point the link made that is undeniable is utility cycling is drawn from a narrow demographic. It really, really is and catching sight of a middle aged woman with a basket of organically grown sprouts on Old St roundabout won't change the matter. Quite a lot of existing highway engineering is problematic to the point of lethal for cyclists. There are various ways around the problem, you can ensure every tricky bit is 20mph to reduce contact speeds in the inevitable bumps, you can make motorists culpable in a guilty-till-proven-innocent kind of way to scare them off, or you can re-engineer cycle tracks round the worst parts. Riding quickly in the middle of the road and waving your arms about is not, I would suggest, tackling root causes.

I think there are lots of things you can do and that the segregationist arguement is a dangerous distraction from them (and part of the problem)

First, stop promoting the dangers of cycling all the time. Helmets, need for segregation, hi viz all say DANGEROUS to the average person. You don't find the Dutch doing it and when the Danes tried it recently, cycling fell for the first time in decades.

Compare:

British:

with

Dutch

Second. read some of the research on why people don't cycle by sociologists and psychologists e.g David Horton's Fear of Cycling and research by the University of Surrey.

Third, have a real push on cycling to school both primary and secondary to get the next generation cycling. Too many aren't cycling because their parents don't cycle and are fearful of it. School programmes that give cycle training and involve parents have been very successful.

 

[blockend]

I believe both 'sides' of the argument are logically consistent within their own world view but translating their respective utopias into Dutch style cycle autobahns or safe-swarming on roads are as far away as ever. Meanwhile the general public are oblivious to cycling as a meaningful way of getting about and the ones who aren't get knocked off far to often.

People love cycling for its freedom, health giving properties and socialising to a degree that excludes at least some of their judgements from rationality. Regular cyclists are conditioned to adopt roads that nobody in their right mind should have to use and an objective risk assessment would close to them. Unfortunately that debate is cloaked in suspicion and familiar lines are drawn behind 'segregationist' and 'road fundamentalist' ranks and the rest of the world leaves us to get on with them unhindered by their participation.

 

[dellzeqq]

I believe both 'sides' of the argument are logically consistent within their own world view but translating their respective utopias into Dutch style cycle autobahns or safe-swarming on roads are as far away as ever. Meanwhile the general public are oblivious to cycling as a meaningful way of getting about and the ones who aren't get knocked off far to often.

People love cycling for its freedom, health giving properties and socialising to a degree that excludes at least some of their judgements from rationality. Regular cyclists are conditioned to adopt roads that nobody in their right mind should have to use and an objective risk assessment would close to them. Unfortunately that debate is cloaked in suspicion and familiar lines are drawn behind 'segregationist' and 'road fundamentalist' ranks and the rest of the world leaves us to get on with them unhindered by their participation.

that's a one-dimensional analysis which presupposes that the safety argument is credible, or even interesting (it's neither), misses the point about urban form, and implies that people don't cycle because cyclists don't know what they want.

 

[Richard Mann]

Cyclecraft is a well-considered approach to cycling on untreated UK roads, and highlights safety risks with poor facilities, quite correctly. It's pretty good advice to young male cyclists. But it's not a transport strategy.

If you want a serious strategy, go to somewhere that's been doing stuff for a few decades, work out what they've done, which bits work well, which bits work not-so-well, and work out whether you could copy it, given land-availability, political and financial constraints.

The Oxford model - lots of (quite narrow) cycle lanes, lots of bus lanes, narrow traffic lanes, a secondary quiet cycle network, very little parking on main roads, calming of C roads, high parking charges, park & ride, lots of buses, blocking of through routes to cars. Pretty feasible in most UK towns/cities, if you set your mind to it.

I don't especially want what they're having: what I'm having works pretty well.

 

[Tommi]

We should not be dealing in mentalities. It should be evidence based policy and this should really be about discussing the evidence which has been the basis of my posts. If you disagree with the evidence say so, give the evidential basis for your disagreement and lets have an informed debate. And by all means play devil's advocate to challenge assumptions if you want but using evidence not proof by assertion please. Maybe the right answer is a compromise but it shouldn't be assumed to be the right answer a priori. After all in the flat v round earth dispute, compromising on a slightly curved flat earth would not have been the right outcome.

I thought that's what I was doing when reading the Danish report more closely. That is, until you changed the units used in the report. Nevertheless, as the report concludes the combined gains from cycle tracks are much, much greater than the losses from slight decline in road safety. Any particular reason to ignore the conclusion?

Also I think from the report it's quite clear that the details of cycle track design matter, some are far, far worse than others. As the before-after effects were studied including the more hazardous designs and still the conclusion is that cycle tracks are a good thing, I'm having trouble following how this report is not evidence supporting the safer cycle tracks designs. Not to mention the Dutch might have even better ones, I recall seeing some mention how they stopped using one of the Danish designs a decade ago already.

(I also find it curious Hierarchy of Provision that puts segregation as lowest priority appears to have been born around 1997. I wonder what evidence was used to support that. Although now that I just looked at it again it says "Cycle tracks away from roads" not along roads, so maybe the original intention did include them under "reallocation of carriageway space" but it was just lost by powerpoint. Oh well.)

 

[Red Light]

Cyclecraft is a well-considered approach to cycling on untreated UK roads, and highlights safety risks with poor facilities, quite correctly. It's pretty good advice to young male cyclists. But it's not a transport strategy.

If you want a serious strategy, go to somewhere that's been doing stuff for a few decades, work out what they've done, which bits work well, which bits work not-so-well, and work out whether you could copy it, given land-availability, political and financial constraints.

The Oxford model - lots of (quite narrow) cycle lanes, lots of bus lanes, narrow traffic lanes, a secondary quiet cycle network, very little parking on main roads, calming of C roads, high parking charges, park & ride, lots of buses, blocking of through routes to cars. Pretty feasible in most UK towns/cities, if you set your mind to it.

I don't especially want what they're having: what I'm having works pretty well.

Cambridge works much better and has a much higher cycling modal share (I've lived in both). Until recently its had very few cycle and bus lanes and even now cycle facilities tend to be restricted to the major routes in and out and routes that are additional to those provided by the roads.

What both do have are good roads round the city to take transit traffic so it does not have to go through and measures to discourage cars in the city centre. Much like the Dutch cities to be honest. But that may be coincidence not cause. Both are also aided of course by the university bans on students having cars, the requirement that they live close to the centre and the distributed nature of the buildings making cycling an eminently sensible way to get around. That would be much harder to duplicate elsewhere