Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[dellzeqq]

you're flitting from argument to argument, but, I'm going to do my best to respond. And the debate may be simple to you, but, for the nth time, cycling is not about risk, not about modal share, not about statistics, it's part (and not the biggest part) of the way we make urban form

I agree in this sense - statistics become less important when they're used by organisations with a particular agenda. The casual use of 'statistics' by the CEGB to suggest that cycling in the Netherlands is neccessarily safer than cycling here is disreputable. The CTC's graph shows a near-disdain for statistics. Like infrastructure, if it's not done well, it's not worth doing.

By 'fortunes' I mean hundreds of millions, and, then again, billions. The relatively modest amounts spend on the CS's and hire bikes seem to me to be a decent deal for the taxpayer. However it cost £140M to 'build' a network of cycle routes in London (actually most of it was signposting) that nobody much used, and that seems to me a bad deal for the taxpayer. On the other hand, To build a 'Dutch' stylee infrastructure in London would cost billions. And be entirely undesirable.

If the good burghers of Birmingham or Manchester want to pay for cycle lanes (and I have my doubts...), then I suppose that's up to them, but I certainly don't want to pay for them. And there is no 'national picture'. If you'd read the thread you'll see that I don't even think there's a single picture for South London.

Forget that billion gets spent on roads (although this government has shown a bit of willl in cutting expenditure there) think of the neccessary improvements and upgrades to public transport (Crossrail and HST2 excepted) that could be got for the same money. Think of highway improvements that creat homezones for much less money. Think of a default 20mph limit that could be had for much less money. Think also, that cycling on some major routes in to London will reach capacity within ten years without any further investment. Think also, and this is the big one, of the increase in land values, and, therefore, prosperity, that would attend a reduction in trip generation.

It's possible to have the lot - reduce car journeys, increase cycling and walking, reduce carbon emissions from buildings and increase neighbourliness and improve the prosperity and general environment of streets. Putting dopey kerbs all over the place, and making streets in to an assault course for pedestrians (and worse for wheelchair users), slicing and dicing public space which, to repeat, is one of the core missions of the CEGB, will play no part in that. It might make the local authority cyclerati happy, but few others besides.

As for the cheap and false crack against Franklin - I'm not interested.

 

[jonesy]

delllzeqq, your argument is basically one of value for money, and I largely agree with you, but that argument requires an understanding of how much things cost and what their benefits are, which comes back to statistics. If you reject the use of objective, quantitative evidence all that is left is assumption, personal bias and anecdote, as blockend's incoherent arguments demonstrate.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

That cuts both ways. I came in on the point that throwing statistics around has signally failed where bombers succeeded - and was roundly upbraided. Nobody has picked up the irony in that 'statistic'. My motives are being questioned despite a cycling history going back to the 1960s and more all-night rides than you can shake a stick at.
I assume the 'Franklin killing cycling' one was deliberately provocative to nudge campaign thinking from its self-satisfaction and torpor at just how perfect its conclusions were. Perfection is everyone's bum on a saddle who can reasonably sit on one, not the freedom for the nought point whatever percent to carry on business as usual.

Too much pragmatism, not nearly enough idealism for my taste.

Apologies for underestimating your commitment to the cause.

If you remember traffic levels in the 60's and have (recent) experience of night riding where the car, and motor transport in general, is minimal, I don't understand why you think there is something wrong with the existing infrastructure. Reduce the levels of motorised traffic to a minimum and town and country alike become bliss for cyclists and pedestrians.

If I ride my commute route at 02:00 am on a Saturday morning it is sheer bliss, if I ride it at 09:00 on a Sunday it is lovely. Mon-Fri between 06:30 and 09:30 is a completely different experience. Unpleasant and at times scary. But there is noting wrong with the infrastrucure. The route is the same, the road surface the same, the rider is the same, the only different factor is the quantity and behaviour of the other road users.

 

[dellzeqq]

Jonesy - I don't reject statistics entirely, but I think BE's accusation that 'statistics' had been used in a silly way was justified.

And I'm not saying that value for money is the be-all and end-all. If I measured the outcome in solely in numbers then, yes, statistics would be the bees knees - if compiled and used properly. And, to be fair, the examples I lit on were pretty obvious - you don't have to spend a morning beside CS7 (which, ten years ago, was thought of as a road that shouldn't be cycled on) and the path across Tooting Bec to work out that there is a huge disparity in usage. And the ginormous cost of Gro(a)ningenising London is so obviously bad value for money, besides being undesirable, that I wouldn't waste srw's talents on analysing the numbers. Cable Street, anybody?

I measure the output in stuff that goes beyond numbers. Is this street a nice place to be? Does it make people think that they are part of a community? Does it smell good? That kind of stuff.........

 

[blockend]

As for the cheap and false crack against Franklin - I'm not interested.

The linkee writer was the first I've read for a long time who questioned Franklin's role in all this, and well done him. He's held in almost saint like status among the track-standing, car cutting, alpha commuters and questions re. Franklin's role in maintaining microscopic utility cycling numbers conveniently brushed aside. The rest of your points are a mixed bag, distant aspirations, healthy realism, dreamland.

If you're saying 20mph within all city limits and no HGVs and both policed with absolute prejudice, I'm behind you all the way. How's that going to occur? What bomber-like shift in sensibilities will induce car users and commercial business to forego their convenience factors and Scanias and crawl round town or establish orbital distribution points with smaller vehicles and what effect will it have on pollution and safety? The point I'm most exercised about is what I'll call Apocalypse Soon, the won't-be-long-now fossil fuel drought that will rid the roads of motor vehicles and goes back to the 70s oil crisis at least and probably Suez before that. It shows a misunderstanding of capitalism's ability to assimilate conditions and put something different but exactly the same in its place.

I also find it difficult to 'forget the billions spent on roads'. If we're talking transport costs, adapting a few cyclists to a network in which traffic volumes and highway engineering have all but evolved them out, does not seem like a cunning plan. Of course some will survive, I remember the time when only myself, Viv Stanshall and a nutter on a racing trike might be seen cycling round Marble Arch in a day. There's no accounting for Micawberism and strong calves. At the risk of repeating myself I see no evidence what works for one place is the template for another and if there is a desire for fewer cars and a healthier population, cycling seems as good a way of any of achieving it - but won't be by telling the people to adopt primary position and provide robust hand signals.

 

[dellzeqq]

I didn't say no HGVs. HGVs are essential to cities. And HGV's in general, are driven well. As for the mixed bag - I was doing my best to respond to what you'd written. You might give that one a go.......(particularly in relation to your 'one size fits all' straw man and that strange diversion about 'sensibilities').

 

[Richard Mann]

At the risk of repeating myself I see no evidence what works for one place is the template for another and if there is a desire for fewer cars and a healthier population, cycling seems as good a way of any of achieving it - but won't be by telling the people to adopt primary position and provide robust hand signals.

Well at risk of repeating myself, there is a "third way" between the "Vehicular" and the "Dutch" models: squeezing the traffic until it slows down, and painting "blatantly sub-standard" cycle lanes. Why don't other people try it - I would identify just about everyone's objection to "blatantly sub-standard" cycle lanes (CTC, Franklin, SWOV, CROW, Hembrow, CEGB, Warrington CC, Cambridge CC etc etc etc) as definitely unhelpful. And yet it works.

"Oh but Oxford is different": up to a point. Oxford's situation came about because of insufficient road capacity for all the cars and a decision to give up building roads in the early seventies. Pretty much like south London, really, just a bit smaller and more politically tractable. Not many places have congestion quite as bad as Oxford, so the pressure to do something was/is less intense, but there's no real reason why the methods shouldn't work.

I would say that Cambridge IS different - it's smaller (so distances are shorter; too short for buses), the University is more dominant, and their parking-provision policies have a huge influence, the central roads are narrower, the surrounding meadows are mostly open to cycling. In parts it's very pleasant, but some of the main roads are pretty horrible (Catholic Church junction, anyone?).

 

[GrumpyGregry]

delllzeqq, your argument is basically one of value for money, and I largely agree with you, but that argument requires an understanding of how much things cost and what their benefits are, which comes back to statistics. If you reject the use of objective, quantitative evidence all that is left is assumption, personal bias and anecdote, as blockend's incoherent arguments demonstrate.

can you do an objective statistical measure of value that is valid across a population group?

 

[psmiffy]

why? Why is cycling so important that everybody should do it? That's what bedazzles me about almost all sides of the argument. Cycling isn't so important that the taxpayer should spend a fortune on it. It offers little to sustainability. It might (note the might) make our streets more convivial, and a little safer in the broader sense. I suspect that the 90% of people who don't cycle would simply shrug their shoulders about it all. Cycling is one of my great loves, and it's one I'm keen to share, but I don't kid myself that I'm on some kind of important mission.

Totally agree – and I must laud your not insignificant efforts to share your love of cycling with the great unwashed.

However, the initial premise is that Mr Franklin is killing UK cycling – UK cycling is not significant enough in many parts of the country to be killed – London and a couple of University towns being the exception. Myself, in common with the vast majority of cyclists outside of forums have never read or actually seen a copy of Cyclecraft - nor do I suspect have many of the decision makers and their subordinate planners - from what I glean from these pages there is a lot in it that I actually practise as an experienced cyclist – very useful to the new inexperienced “Cyclist” but more common sense than a religion. And as to some insignificant little organisation being able to somehow magically impose a foreign system or culture on the UK I would think that DZs “draw me a picture” pretty much covers it!

Cycle use is a culture – you cannot impose it – it is something that is organic –some species are less hardy– but if the circumstances in some places are right it will grow strongly – in other places it will only be the hardy species that thrive – the less hardy species can be nurtured to some extent and that is all you can ask for.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I didn't say no HGVs. HGVs are essential to cities. And HGV's in general, are driven well. As for the mixed bag - I was doing my best to respond to what you'd written. You might give that one a go.......(particularly in relation to your 'one size fits all' straw man and that strange diversion about 'sensibilities').

I'd argue differently. Good vehicles are essential for sure. HGV's? I'm not so sure. Watching a Waitrose artic trying to negotiate the streets of the 'sham and then reverse into the town centre site delivery bay is an interesting way to while away 30 minutes or so. (and causes chaos while it happens)

I live very close to a Premier Inn/Travel Lodge place, the one you pass on Bognor FNRttC opposite the station. Since the operators switched from 7 tonners for all deliveries to artics we now have HGV's reversing into the car park exit to gain access and causing chaos and no little danger.

So for me, goods vehicles that can be driven on a standard car licence good, artics and the big uns bad. In an urban context anyway.

I seem to recall that in Manhattan, or was it downtown Boston, artics and super trucks delivering to construction sites were only allowed in, under escort, at certain highly restricted times of the day. Does that still apply I wonder?

 

[marinyork]

delllzeqq, your argument is basically one of value for money, and I largely agree with you, but that argument requires an understanding of how much things cost and what their benefits are, which comes back to statistics. If you reject the use of objective, quantitative evidence all that is left is assumption, personal bias and anecdote, as blockend's incoherent arguments demonstrate.

Seems a bit weird saying that in the field you're supposedly in, there's far more to life than statistics, networks and flows for example .

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The linkee writer was the first I've read for a long time who questioned Franklin's role in all this, and well done him. He's held in almost saint like status among the track-standing, car cutting, alpha commuters and questions re. Franklin's role in maintaining microscopic utility cycling numbers conveniently brushed aside.

If these types think he is a guru why are they all such poor disciples? I doubt 1 commuter in 100 has even heard of him.

 

[blockend]

When I hear straw men mentioned I usually get my coat. It's cyber-rhetoric for changing the points to a favoured polemical branch line and has little to do with fictitious arguments. If I'm grape shotting it's because there are so many free-ranging shibboleths that a blunderbuss works better than a rifle.
If the point is utility cycling is for the fit, hippies and academics of whatever stripe, the game's been ceded far too early. I'll rest easy when old ladies in skirts and men with Woodbines are back on bikes (as they used to be) and not while it's still a branch of enlightenment politics. As an unreconstructed old pinko, I want everyone down to my self-propelled level. Or a bloody good bus service.

 

[dellzeqq]

what you're doing is attributing opinions to people who don't hold them. You're suggesting that people posting on this thread think that 'one size fits all'. Very few people, and I'm sure that this is as true of Stowie as it is of Richard Mann believe that one size fits all....

 

[Norm]

I'd argue differently. Good vehicles are essential for sure. HGV's? I'm not so sure. Watching a Waitrose artic trying to negotiate the streets of the 'sham and then reverse into the town centre site delivery bay is an interesting way to while away 30 minutes or so. (and causes chaos while it happens)

That chaos would never have happened in my day (pre'95) when we only delivered to stores at 6am.

I seem to recall that in Manhattan, or was it downtown Boston, artics and super trucks delivering to construction sites were only allowed in, under escort, at certain highly restricted times of the day. Does that still apply I wonder?

I think that was for The Big Dig, and it was a very Big Dig at that.