Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

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.

Do pavements alongside busy urban roads send out the message that walking is dangerous?

 

[dellzeqq]

Do pavements alongside busy urban roads send out the message that walking is dangerous?

does it tell you that walking on the road part of streets is dangerous?

Actually I think that the accusation that segregationalists are spreading the notion that cycling is dangerous is a bit of a bum rap. People choose not to cycle for all kinds of reasons, and they're perfectly capable of making their own minds up.

Oxford and Cambridge are both great towns to cycle in, and, if Richard has played a part in the former then he has our thanks. They benefit from pre-Georgian street patterns and high land values in the centre - the latter being more important than anything else. A town like Worthing, which has relatively low land values in the centre (due, in part, to out-of-town retailing) will, sadly, see parking and access to all areas by car as vital to economic survival.

 

[Red Light]

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.

I didn't change the units used in the report. I clarified some of the english usage based on communications with the authors. Remember they are not native speakers and when I first read it I too had questions about whether it was accidents or the accident rate that had increased.

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?

Its a general conclusion irrespective of cycle tracks and lanes which is the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks. In this case I would take some issue with their conclusion which I think has made a mistake. If 20% more people cycle and get the 20:1 health benefit generally assumed but the risk to everyone else goes up 10% (for tracks 7 and 15% respectively for lanes) its quite finely balanced as to whether there is an overall health benefit or not. The new cyclists get a benefit at the expense of everyone who was already cycling. I think they are just thinking about the 20:1 effect and haven't thought through the different populations involved.

The question though is what is the best way to get more people cycling. This is one of the very few reports finding an increase from cycle tracks (~20%) and as I have posted elsewhere in this thread there is plenty of other evidence showing no increase. But are we really looking to increase UK cycling from 1.0% to 1.2% with cycle tracks noting that the Dutch spent $1Bn building theirs to no apparent effect? Leeds University's research reckons the best you can do with cycle tracks is a 50% increase and that is if they are ubiquitous. Or do we want to look at places like London that now has cycling modal shares equal to cars and in the high 30's percent coming into the city at peak times without building any tracks

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've seen that argument used so many times. We must build segregated cycle tracks. Tracks are built, safety goes down. Proponents respond by saying it wasn't built properly but next time..... ! That excuse has been trotted out for 70 years in the UK. We've seen it on here ..."Ah but Milton Keynes, Stevenage and East Kilbride have very low cycle use because they didn't built their totally segregated network properly. If they had have done....." If the Dutch are still getting wrong after a century what makes you think the magical solution to getting it right is going to happen next time?

 

[Red Light]

does it tell you that walking on the road part of streets is dangerous?

Actually I think that the accusation that segregationalists are spreading the notion that cycling is dangerous is a bit of a bum rap. People choose not to cycle for all kinds of reasons, and they're perfectly capable of making their own minds up.

I disagree. The prime rationale put forward for needing segregated facilities is the roads are too dangerous for cyclists.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

does it tell you that walking on the road part of streets is dangerous?

Actually I think that the accusation that segregationalists are spreading the notion that cycling is dangerous is a bit of a bum rap. People choose not to cycle for all kinds of reasons, and they're perfectly capable of making their own minds up.

Thanks dellzeqq - that's generous. I think there is a great deal of crossover here that shouldn't be forgotten, particularly on the helmets issue, and making cycling seem 'normal'. Also on shared space/calming/road closures etc on quieter streets. I think people seem to have got the wrong end of the stick about the CEGB position on that.


Re: your point about pavements. I agree, it does make walking seem dangerous on those kinds of roads - or at least, something you have to be wary about doing. But I don't think you can generalize that the provision of pavements somewhere makes walking in the road seem dangerous everywhere. Plenty of people are perfectly happy walking in the middle of the road in the new shared space in Horsham, for instance - despite their being pavements elsewhere in town alongside roads you certainly wouldn't feel as comfortable walking on.

 

[dellzeqq]

well, Red Light, quite. Milton Keynes. Touted as bicycle central when it was built. Fat chance

We have segregation here http://www.cyclechat...vauxhall-cross/ It's horrible. Now if someone wants to get out the coloured pencils and show us how segration at Vauxhall should be done.......................

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

I disagree. The prime rationale put forward for needing segregated facilities is the roads are too dangerous for cyclists.

Bollocks.

EDIT - Or - more constructively - the prime rationale put forward for segregated facilities is that most people don't like cycling on busy roads.

If I thought the roads were dangerous, I wouldn't cycle on them. Paths alongside busier roads are a way of making cycling seem more attractive to your average punter, who has no inclination to get out of their car when the bike has little or no advantage. If you can make cycling on busy roads a bit more of a relaxed experience, we're a little bit of the way there.

 

[dellzeqq]

Re: your point about pavements. I agree, it does make walking seem dangerous on those kinds of roads - or at least, something you have to be wary about doing. But I don't think you can generalize that the provision of pavements somewhere makes walking in the road seem dangerous everywhere. Plenty of people are perfectly happy walking in the middle of the road in the new shared space in Horsham, for instance - despite their being pavements elsewhere in town alongside roads you certainly wouldn't feel as comfortable walking on.

I wasn't making a point about footpaths - I was simply saying that there wasn't really a point to be made. Sorry. If I'm pushed I think that there are any number of reasons why people in this country don't cycle, and having nice hair or uncreased trousers may score as higly as safety. It all goes back to culture......

 

[Red Light]

Do pavements alongside busy urban roads send out the message that walking is dangerous?

Watch the behaviour of pedestrians at the junctions. Standing there having to wait until a gap in the road traffic allows them to cross, scuttling across as if they have to get out of the way before a car runs them over and totally unable to use a big chunk of the public highway which has been given over as the exclusive preserve of the motorist. How many young kids are allowed out on their own or to play in the street these days as they did 50 years ago?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Watch the behaviour of pedestrians at the junctions. Standing there having to wait until a gap in the road traffic allows them to cross, scuttling across as if they have to get out of the way before a car runs them over and totally unable to use a big chunk of the public highway which has been given over as the exclusive preserve of the motorist. How many young kids are allowed out on their own or to play in the street these days as they did 50 years ago?

That tells me that walking in the middle of busy roads is seen as dangerous.

It does not, however, suggest that people have an overall impression that walking itself is seen as a dangerous activity, which is what you suggested cycle paths would do to cycling.

 

[Red Light]

Bollocks.

EDIT - Or - more constructively - the prime rationale put forward for segregated facilities is that most people don't like cycling on busy roads.

And why don't they like it? Because they think its dangerous!

Highway Code Rule 61: Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. ........Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

Not more pleasant or less stressful.

 

[Red Light]

well, Red Light, quite. Milton Keynes. Touted as bicycle central when it was built. Fat chance

We have segregation here http://www.cyclechat...vauxhall-cross/ It's horrible. Now if someone wants to get out the coloured pencils and show us how segration at Vauxhall should be done.......................

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

That I can agree with!

 

[dellzeqq]

sorry - I was interrupted.........

as some of you will know I try and get people out on cycle rides. This involves a lot of correspondence with people thinking about coming on the FNRttC - I've received 427 e-mails since the 1st of May, and sent out a smaller number, but, then again, some of my e-mails go to almost 1000 people.

Safety doesn't come in to the conversation - except at my insistence. Fair enough, you say, these people are already riding bikes, but, in answer to that I'd say that very many of them are considering riding a bike in a way that they've never done before, and some consideration of safety might be evident. What does come up time and time and time again is the question of fitness or stamina or speed. People do not believe they can cycle sixty miles. Some of these e-mail correspondences start with a statement that they need to get fit for the ride, and I sometimes simply call them up just to hear their voice, because (and I say this having organised fifty five night rides with over a thousand different participants) I can tell, just by listening to their voice and asking a few simple questions (how old are you, how much do you weigh, what kind of bike do you have) whether they are going to find it tough or not.

All of the people reading this will know that if your bike is in decent shape, and you're not suffering from any particular impediment, and you take your time, you will get to Brighton. And yet people who are in their twenties and thirties routinely say that they would never be able to do it. My wife is the MD of a company that employs a lot of young people - they simply do not believe that they are fit enough to cycle to work - and that includes one young man who is closing on 10.5 seconds for the 100 metre sprint.

Now nothing is what it appears to be. People can say that they think cycling is unsafe, or too physically demanding when what they really mean is that it is uncool, or that they don't want to arrive at work feeling sweaty or they just don't feel like it. That's fair enough - there are mornings when we just don't feel like it and vegging out on the tube seems a nicer option. I can only repeat - when those madmen from Yorkshire bombed the tube and a no. 30 bus you could not get in to a bike shop in central London for three weeks afterward, because people in their thousands were picking up cycling because they thought the tube was dangerous...........

 

[blockend]

The national position is complex. I happen to live in a cycling hotspot, at least if you count cycling as wearing team kit and a helmet and a bike priced in four figures. Hordes (yes hordes) of cyclists throng the village cafes at weekends but I know from experience that a tiny percentage use their bikes for transport.

In one sense it doesn't matter, nor is it anyone else's business why an individual chooses not to ride for utility but you would have thought people already disposed to cycling and having the health and road skills to negotiate its difficulties would choose to do so in greater numbers. It's partly geography and partly conditioning - cycling is fun and why would anyone choose to spoil it by battling it out with cars and trucks voluntarily and in isolation? Mountain biking is a close second for numbers hereabouts and a substantial minority never ride on road unless absolutely necessary, citing the danger from drivers. Again these are buff younger people by and large who make an acute distinction about what cycling is for.

I believe urban cyclists use their immediate environment as a substitute for the kind of challenging activity roadies and MTBers get elsewhere. That's fine and well but short-sighted as a model for future transport planning.