Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[Wobblers]

Completely? That seems rather unlikely to me, but do you have the research? I've yet to see a study that can show cycling infrastructure did not contribute to safety nor numbers.

I don't have access to the PubMed or Science Citation Index at the moment, but a moment's googling got me this, which is a summary of a considerable number of studies into the accident rates of segregated cycle paths. Every one shows that the accident rate is higher - sometimes very significantly so, most particularly at path/road crossings. I'd be interested in reading any papers which so contrary evidence, but so far I've not found any (admittedly on a very brief search, I have other things to do... )

 

[Wobblers]

I assume you're referring to the CTC Safety in Numbers document from earlier. As the document makes no mention of segregated infrastructure you'll have to walk me through how to reach such suggestion.

There is a very strong statistical correlation between KSI rates and cyclist numbers. It clearly holds even when cities with little or no cycling infrastructure are considered, as the CTC document shows quite clearly.

 

[Wobblers]

This is a remarkably simplistic view. Without the segregation, there would not be the numbers to produce a safety in numbers effect.

That, if you don't mind me saying, is (ahem) a remarkably simplistic view. [1]

The Netherlands already had a high modal share for cycling. Where's the evidence that building cycling infrastructure increased it? London has seen a very substantial increase in cycling over the last few years - without much infrastructure investment (looking at the period up to before the building of the cycling superhighways, cycling had, IIRC doubled in the previous 10 years). Birmingham has seen a considerable increase in the number of cyclists over the 3 years I've been here - with little new cycling infrastructure.

I have to repeat myself: where is the evidence?



[1] Sorry. Couldn't resist it. I'll be serious. Promise!

 

[Red Light]

[quote = Tommi]
I can accept the safety in numbers argument in that everything else being equal the more bicycles on the roads the safer it is. However I argue you can only get so far with the numbers without the infrastructure. And once you add infrastructure it directly contributes to safety by itself, as well as the numbers, making safety in numbers not directly comparable.[/quote]

Well if you were right you should see a bigger difference than safety in numbers alone would predict because you would get the facilities safety benefit on top of the numbers benefit. But you don't see it.

(Pretty much every country with significant, say more than 5% modal share seems to have significant separation from cars. I've yet to see examples of significant cycling without infrastructure.)

Try looking at Asia, Japan being a good example. The correlation you are seeing with the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland is a result of many other things than segregated facilities. In three of the four (I don't have the data for Switzerland), large facility building programmes resulted in no increase in cycling (see Fig 7 of http://dx.doi.org/10...441640701806612)

Originally you said cycling facilities do not increase the number of cyclists. Why bring up injury rates?

Because they fail in both the rationales put forward for their being built - increasing safety and encouraging more cycling.

 

[ufkacbln]

To me the problem with segregation is two fold.

Firstly it is slow, unwieldy and cumbersome. I could not get to work using present facilities, and a 3 mile detour is really rather silly. There is a perfectly good system in place that for commuting at 18 - 20 mph is ideal.

Secondly the argument falls flat on its face when we come to the first junction or roundabout and the farcility stops ... what do the segregated cyclists do if they don't join the road?

 

[dellzeqq]

To me the problem with segregation is two fold.

Firstly it is slow, unwieldy and cumbersome. I could not get to work using present facilities, and a 3 mile detour is really rather silly. There is a perfectly good system in place that for commuting at 18 - 20 mph is ideal.

Secondly the argument falls flat on its face when we come to the first junction or roundabout and the farcility stops ... what do the segregated cyclists do if they don't join the road?

well...........there's that crazy roundabout scheme....

I'm not against cycle paths in their entirety. Put me on a converted railway line going through green countryside, and I'm a happy man (although I'd mourn the passing of the railway). Yesterday I rode along the path from Swansea to Mumbles and if I don't know how I could be more content with life. But that's me doing the thing I love. If I'm going shopping with the Brompton or commuting on the road bike I want the streets I travel down to be happy, friendly, convivial places. I'd like to think that I contribute to that in some tiny way, but, even if I believed it was in the interest of cyclists that streets in towns were segregated (and I don't) I cannot for the life of me see how segregation makes life more pleasant for those who don't cycle - particularly pedestrians.

 

[jonesy]

permission to etch this on the forehead of WalthamforestCrapBlogQuoteWithoutPermissionBoy, Mr. Jonesy, sir?

...

Naturally!

Though I think it is also necessary to spell out the implications for cycling infrastructure/ route provision of any kind:

As mass utility cycling only exists where trip distances are short [1] and journey times competitive with other modes, then it follows that detours and delays have a disproportionate impact. Yet the segregated cycle routes provided in this country almost invariably do one, or both, either by sending people round the back streets, onto out of the way canal paths etc, or by endlessly interrupting progress with side road crossings, introducing conflicts with pedestrians etc etc. Occasionally you get a beneficial routes that provides a short cut, or overcomes a barrier like a river or railway line, which is great, and where resources can be justifiably focused, but this tends to be the exception.

No doubt someone will object that they don't want crappy segregation either, they want what they've got in Copenhagen. Which I've seen, and is great. It takes space from the car not the pedestrian (other than at bus stops), and provides continuity through junctions by signalising pretty well every single one. I'd love such a reallocation of roadspace in this country but, setting aside the political battles, and the vast cost, it still has to meet the Dellzeqq Challenge: "show us the drawing". How do you fit it into real streets in our cities, while still allowing those streets to remain viable as places people live and work, with space for pedestrians, buses, deliveries etc etc etc?

Furthermore, given that we've all the evidence from Oxford, Cambridge, London etc that cycling can increase and get a significant modal share without a fully segregated infrastructure, it has to be asked whether it is really necessary to attempt to squeeze Copenhagen infrastructure into streets where it doesn't fit. There is so much that can be done with speed reduction, on road cycle lanes, junction redesign, traffic restraint measures etc etc all of which can help make cycling time competitive against driving, instead of insisting on segregation at all costs, which inevitably results in compromises that undermine cycling's advantages.





[1] Some figures:

National Travel Survey: 80% of cycle trips are less than 5 miles.

A study of Dutch commuters found cycle to work distances of 5km on average (6km median)
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/7/1/89

Cambridge travel to work survey Average cycle to work distance 3.36km


Previously discussed here:
http://www.cyclechat...rk-survey-2009/

 

[jonesy]

As an example of where it has been got right in the UK visit, stay in, and cycle around, the city of Oxford. The off road bits work well, the shared (bike + ped) spaces/pavements work well provided as ever the cyclists give way to the peds and don't act like car drivers, and the on road cycle routes offer significant time, route priority and low traffic advantages to cyclists over motor vehicles.

There are (fortunately) very few of these in Oxford, I tend to avoid those that there are, as they have the usual loss of priority, take space from pedestrians, and are usually on only one side of the road... which ones did you think work well? There aren't really many fully off-road paths either, the only ones that spring to mind are the Thames towpath and the one across the University parks. In terms of users, by far the most important routes on on-road: Cowley Rd, Botley Rd, Abingdon Rd, Woodstock Rd etc.

 

[Banjo]

Until every road in Britain has a segregated cycle path then we are reliant on the common sense of drivers for our safety.

Personally I think that the money would be better spent on educating drivers on how to behave around cyclists .

In some cases ordinarilly decent people become monsters driving near cyclists purely out of ignorance of the effect of their actions rather than any malice.

 

[stowie]

<edit>

No doubt someone will object that they don't want crappy segregation either, they want what they've got in Copenhagen. Which I've seen, and is great. It takes space from the car not the pedestrian (other than at bus stops), and provides continuity through junctions by signalising pretty well every single one. I'd love such a reallocation of roadspace in this country but, setting aside the political battles, and the vast cost, it still has to meet the Dellzeqq Challenge: "show us the drawing". How do you fit it into real streets in our cities, while still allowing those streets to remain viable as places people live and work, with space for pedestrians, buses, deliveries etc etc etc?

<edit>

How did Copenhagen do it? Or Amsterdam? I have been to both and neither are blessed with vastly wide boulevards on all roads. Many in Copenhagen are no wider than trunk roads in London.

I have been to provincial towns in Denmark, and the car has simply been designed out of narrow roads. I think their deliveries occur late at night or very early in the morning. Certainly the bins are emptied around 4am if I remember correctly. This clearly has some downsides...

 

[Tommi]

it isn't - if you want to dispute my calculation, do so, but make it good.......

Alrighty then.. aggregating from various sources and normalising to common units I got figures for year 2009 (well, mode share for Finland is from 2005, rest from 2009):

UK		Finland 		Netherlands
trips/person    15		98		292
km/person	74		295		956
population	61,792,000	5,351,000	16,645,313
killed		104		20		185

That in turn gives us:

deaths per million population 	1.68 	3.74    11.11
million trips per death		8.91	26.17	26.27 
million km per death		43.99	78.82	86.04

Comparing cycling deaths as population ratio makes no sense as it depends on cycling rate - obviously other things being equal the higher the modal share the higher the deaths per population. Similarly distance travelled (by bicycle) is very location dependent and varies between 3km and 5km per trip. The number of trips per day per person (by any/all modes of transport) is more stable variable, varying between 2.67 and 2.99, i.e. much less.

So in 2009 cycling trips in Netherlands were about 2.9 times safer than in UK.

Sources:

1. http://www.dft.gov.u.../nts2009-03.pdf
2. http://www.dft.gov.u...5/rrcgb2009.pdf
3. http://www.hlt.fi/HT...ppuraportti.pdf
4. http://www.liikennet..._2009_netti.pdf
5. http://www.rijkswate...and/documenten/
6. http://www.cbs.nl/en...2011-029-pb.htm

 

[dellzeqq]

when 86.04 is anything like 2.9 times 43.99 I'll eat my hat.........

and your calculation of the distance travelled in the UK is incorrect. Not least because the DfT has already done it for you......

do you want to try again?

or go on to

- nobody (other than you and a couple of hundred zealots) wants it
- nobody is prepared to pay for it
- nobody is prepared to draw what they supposedly want

put it this way - if you go down to see my friend Mr. Coral and put a fiver on there being a Dutch-stylee set of cycle paths in this country in thirty years time he'll give you long odds. Very long odds.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

There are (fortunately) very few of these in Oxford, I tend to avoid those that there are, as they have the usual loss of priority, take space from pedestrians, and are usually on only one side of the road... which ones did you think work well? There aren't really many fully off-road paths either, the only ones that spring to mind are the Thames towpath and the one across the University parks. In terms of users, by far the most important routes on on-road: Cowley Rd, Botley Rd, Abingdon Rd, Woodstock Rd etc.

let me check the map..... he checks the map.

I'm refering to the northern end of woodstock road from first turn to frenchay road on the right hand pavement as you head south into the city. now i admit i only used it for a week, and for two days over a weekend since, travelling from the barcelo hotel to city centre but....

• the side roads had extra 'set back' give way lines which were observed by every driver i encountered, including some who reversed out of my way, giving me and my bike priority over cars.
• whilst the path does take space away from peds there is, with the exception one or two stupid tree and bus stop induced pinch points, ample room for both, and at the pinch points the vast majority of cyclists played nice
• whilst only on one side of the road it is bi-directional and I was passing on road cars, and the bikes mixing it with them, morning and evening weekday peak hours.

what blew me away about that stretch were the number of children cycling to school, and in some instances cycling to pre-school, with mums and dads, on that path.

 

[Tommi]

Try looking at Asia, Japan being a good example.

Not sure I'd use Japan as an example to apply to western world, too many intertwined differences. You don't happen to have other examples?

Also I couldn't quickly figure out what the infrastructure in Japan is really like; some articles say there's bicycle superhighways and whatnot, others say bicycles regularly share the pavement (originally directed there because the roads were too dangerous) and that you have roads where cars, bicycles and pedestrians mingle. I think all agreed there are no cycle lanes.

Because they fail in both the rationales put forward for their being built - increasing safety and encouraging more cycling.

So when you originally said "And the one thing that cycle facilities do no[t] do [..] is increase the numbers cycling." did you mean cycling facilities do not "increase the number of people cycling" or "make cycling safer"? I'm not commenting on the safety, but like the Mayor of London likes to state cycling rates have increased on London Cycle Superhighway routes after they were built. And I've read similar newsbites from elsewhere as well. Admittedly I haven't read any serious studies on the matter.

 

[Tommi]

when 86.04 is anything like 2.9 times 43.99 I'll eat my hat.........

That's the distance travelled row. See the trips row like I explained in the post; 26.27 / 8.91 = 2.9

and your calculation of the distance travelled in the UK is incorrect. Not least because the DfT has already done it for you......

Feel free to point out the error. I admit I may have mistyped something, but if you can't point out the real figure you're expecting to see I find the critique here not very credible.