Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[summerdays]

And don't forget all those children. In surveys of local schools about 40% of children wanted to cycle but only 4% did, the reason being parental veto due to lack of routes away from vehicles. Pretty much all the children surveyed had had Bikeability training.

I've carried out those surveys in my son's primary school - yes lots did want to cycle to school - however 70% are too young to do the Level 2 Bikeability training - so it isn't right to say that Bikeability has no effect on encouraging children to cycle to school. The problem is whether their parents have had any training as they are the generation who have abandoned their bikes in their teens - hopefully this generation won't.

 

[OldGreyBeard]

I've carried out those surveys in my son's primary school - yes lots did want to cycle to school - however 70% are too young to do the Level 2 Bikeability training - so it isn't right to say that Bikeability has no effect on encouraging children to cycle to school. The problem is whether their parents have had any training as they are the generation who have abandoned their bikes in their teens - hopefully this generation won't.

I didn't say that Bikeability had no effect. In fact it has had a very positive effect in that it has increased the numbers who want to cycle. The problem is that that desire cannot be met due to the nature of many of the routes. I'm talking about year 7 and upwards here.

I don't think its because the parents don't cycle due to their generation. Some of them are like me "older" parents who cycled to school themselves. It's more that they observe the roads and find them alarming when they are driving or walking and come to the conclusion that cycling on them isn't suitable for children.

The big effect is that the children cycle on the pavements thereby creating a sort of cycleway network by default.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

The perceived poor safety record of separate cycle facilities comes up pretty frequently in discussion with other cycle-people, but John Franklin has mentioned that road side paths have a "poor safety record," in Principles of Cycle Planning, and also the list of certain research articles on the Cyclecraft page. In the case of the cycle infrastructure we have in the UK, I expect this to be true, in Denmark I expect it is not the case, and in The Netherlands it most certainly is not.

Hasn't quite answered my question, which was specifically about the "Myth that Dutch/Danish style cycle facilities are dangerous", but I can see how there might be an implied assertion about those Dutch and Danish facilities.

I haven't time to do an exhaustive literature search to check out your assertion about cherry-picking, so I'll have to await your alternative reference list, augmenting the list in the Cyclecraft pages with the missing references. You may be right; I don't know.

However, part of your (implied) argument seems to be that the transferring of research, or even impressions, between contexts is not valid. So, taking a diagram from the Principles of Cycle Planning, which is based on a UK style of provision:

I think the Dutch/Danish equivalent (and certainly what is needed) might be:

So a pertinent question for me is, if this second design were implemented in the UK, could I stop worrying about the principles espoused in Cyclecraft? Well, that would imply that I could trust UK motorists to respect my clearly marked priority, and I'm afraid the answer is absolutely no. The cultural and legal contexts are completely different. For one thing, there is no presumed liability here, which might influence the culture if there were. For another, a large proportion of British motorists do not have any respect for the rules of the road in any case.

 

[stowie]

Hasn't quite answered my question, which was specifically about the "Myth that Dutch/Danish style cycle facilities are dangerous", but I can see how there might be an implied assertion about those Dutch and Danish facilities.

I haven't time to do an exhaustive literature search to check out your assertion about cherry-picking, so I'll have to await your alternative reference list, augmenting the list in the Cyclecraft pages with the missing references. You may be right; I don't know.

However, part of your (implied) argument seems to be that the transferring of research, or even impressions, between contexts is not valid. So, taking a diagram from the Principles of Cycle Planning, which is based on a UK style of provision:
[attachment=3828:CycleLanes1.png]
I think the Dutch/Danish equivalent (and certainly what is needed) might be:
[attachment=3829:CycleLanes2.png]
So a pertinent question for me is, if this second design were implemented in the UK, could I stop worrying about the principles espoused in Cyclecraft? Well, that would imply that I could trust UK motorists to respect my clearly marked priority, and I'm afraid the answer is absolutely no. The cultural and legal contexts are completely different. For one thing, there is no presumed liability here, which might influence the culture if there were. For another, a large proportion of British motorists do not have any respect for the rules of the road in any case.

But no reason for not implementing something as sensible as cyclepaths having priority over side roads. I don't think the attitude of motorists in Copenhagen is any better than the UK. Their standard of driving isn't magically higher than ours. As you say it is a question of legal and cultural norms - both can be changed. Culturally things can change quickly with the correct nudges in the right direction.

When I see cyclists in Copenhagen, they still approach side roads with some caution, but expect traffic to yield. Somewhat like we do with sideroads into main streets - carry on but be aware that there is potential danger.

 

[Mr_colostomy]

However, part of your (implied) argument seems to be that the transferring of research, or even impressions, between contexts is not valid. So, taking a diagram from the Principles of Cycle Planning, which is based on a UK style of provision:
[attachment=3828:CycleLanes1.png]
I think the Dutch/Danish equivalent (and certainly what is needed) might be:
[attachment=3829:CycleLanes2.png]
So a pertinent question for me is, if this second design were implemented in the UK, could I stop worrying about the principles espoused in Cyclecraft? Well, that would imply that I could trust UK motorists to respect my clearly marked priority, and I'm afraid the answer is absolutely no. The cultural and legal contexts are completely different. For one thing, there is no presumed liability here, which might influence the culture if there were. For another, a large proportion of British motorists do not have any respect for the rules of the road in any case.

Indeed, the legality of the sort of priority over side roads you show in the second image isn't clearly defined in the UK, which is part of the big issue with our segregated tracks, they have you giving way to every minor road, with the result being that people rightly don't use them. Legal changes are needed in order to implement what the Dutch do, and a stricter liability law for motorists is a part of that process I would like to see.

Something which puzzled me when I initially saw the first image is that it appears in the article to be depicting a UK street, but the "Mouth" of the minor road is unusually narrow. It is common here in the UK to have wide mergings between major and minor roads which facilitates motorists taking corners at relatively high speeds. Part of the process of "Dutchifying" our roads would be to make the entrances to minor roads more like the one shown on the image, by building out the pavements to force motorists to slow almost to a stop in order to turn into the street. In a scenario such as that, a motorist would have to come to almost a complete stop to make that turn, and the issue of an idiot in a car hitting you at the intersection becomes much less of an issue.

As for the cultural aspect, a benefit of more cycling is that those who don't cycle are more likely to have someone in their life, such as a family member for instance, who cycles, and tend to see them as an actual person rather than as the demonised hate-figure that all too many British motorists seem to see cyclists as. It would be interesting to see some proper research into this factor

 

[OldGreyBeard]

Pity the poor pedestrian who has to watch out for cars all the time! Perhaps they should wear HiVis....

 

[dellzeqq]

In my view Sustrans have done more to increase cycling than almost any other organisation. If it wasn't for the route pioneered by Sustrans locally I don't think we would have had our very modest cycling renaissance. Build it and they will come.

I come back to my main point: How do you get more schoolchildren cycling? I don't think this is possible to any great degree using on road cycling in most towns & cities. Their parents will simply not let them do it.

The Yorkshire Bombers gave the biggest boost to cycling this country has ever seen, although that was part of the unheralded bus lane revolution. Ken Livingstone wasn't particularly interested in cycling when he put in bus lanes, but, whatever his intentions, it worked. So - if we consider organisations it's

1. TfL
2. Al Quaeda
nowhere - the rest

so
1. Show me the drawing
2. How much will it cost?
3. How do you propose to persuade people to spend the money?

 

[dellzeqq]

Indeed, the legality of the sort of priority over side roads you show in the second image isn't clearly defined in the UK, which is part of the big issue with our segregated tracks, they have you giving way to every minor road, with the result being that people rightly don't use them. Legal changes are needed in order to implement what the Dutch do, and a stricter liability law for motorists is a part of that process I would like to see.

this is, frankly, ridiculous. You can cut and past stuff from brochures all you want, but as long as they show the wide boulevards of Groningen rather than the tight streetgrid of our major cities, with all their overlapping uses, it's completely beside the point. And, for what it's worth, the diagrams are indicative of the barbarism, the complete disdain for public space that segregation exemplifies.

Once again.
1. Show me the drawing
2. Tell me how much it's going to cost
3. Tell me how you're going to persuade people that it's worth having, and worth the money

 

[stowie]

I'm sorry, but that won't do. We've seen diagrams of perfect junctions, but what we haven't seen, despite two months of asking is a drawing showing how it might work in practice in anything approaching the centre of a UK city. And that is because it is fiendishly difficult, if not impossible, to design cycle paths that don't cut up public space (a consideration that is beyond the comprehension of segregationists) and cut across other people's way of life.

And, yes, it would be cheaper than all kinds of things, up to and including putting a man on the moon, but until someone produces a city-wide scheme and puts a price to it, nobody is going to take it seriously. Judging by the nonsense that is Cable Street E1 we are looking at a million pounds a mile. If it were possible (and it's not) to segregate all of the TfL road network that would be getting on for £400 million. Given that £140 millon has already been sunk in to LCN+ which has been disdained by cyclists of all abilities and none as they swarm up London's principal radial routes, (to such an extent that cyclists outnumber private cars on three bridges over the Thames) I don't think the Mayor is going to be sticking his hand in our pockets for segregation any time soon.

And, yes, there are all kinds of arguments for segregation, not least in David Hembrow's blog, but very few people are buying them. Sadly they look at David Hembrow's videos and conclude that Groningen is an awful place.

So, here's the bottom line. It's not going to happen.

LCN is a disaster, but not solely because people prefer main routes. If the "quiet" routes were as convenient and easy then people use them. Part of the LCN in E17 is busy with cyclists because it cuts out a tortuous and fairly unpleasant main road, has cycle lights which aid crossing a major road and is blocked to any through traffic.

I use LCN because I don't like cycling with little one on the back and filtering through the mess that is the major road system. LCN fails because

1) The route is badly signposted - back streets are fine if you know where you are going, but completely confusing if not and you have no help. Some on my route are actually labelled backwards.

2) LCN routes are often also rat-runs. I haven't seen many cases where routes have been amended to accomodate LCN. Where they have utilised road closures these were already in place to control traffic. Since the roads are back streets they are narrower and normally double parked with no space to overtake considerately. So cars overtake inconsiderately. And many are on a "short cut" so are hardly amenable to holding back behind slower vehicles.

3) LCN routes typically end at a major road where the route has no priority to get the cyclist across or onto the road. So one is in a worse situation than if one hadn't used it.

4) The whole thing is being cut up by local councils as quickly as it could be implemented anyway. LCN route is defined and marked and before the ink is dry on the TfL maps the route is defunct because the council has converted it into one way streets to aid double parking, or changed the road layout with absolutely no regard to cycling. I have, on more than one occasion, been down a LCN which ended by going back to the main road I had just come from. The council had altered the layout to prevent cars rat-running, clearly forgetting that the LCN routes are designed precisely to allow cyclists to cut through.

£140M for LCN does seem extra-ordinary. I can only assume it paid for one hell of a launch party.

 

[dellzeqq]

I'm hearing that it cost £200 million!

It's what was asked for by cyclists, represented by the LCC. Of course, you're completely right - it's not perfect in the sense that it doesn't allow you to smoothly ride from A to B. It is, I suppose, as good as it's ever going to get in London, given the constraints.

But, as a member of the LCC Council said to me three or four years ago 'One of these days people are going to wake up and say they want their money back'. And he was right. While TfL and the LCC were doing their very best, and spending money like there was no tomorrow, the main radial routes were beginning to take off.

What did it for me was

1. the discovery of a DfT document which said that seperate provision should be provided on roads with 10,000 vehicle movements a day. Then I looked at all the roads chosen by cyclists in Lambeth. They were all in excess of 10,000 a day. Some were close on 40,000 vm/d. These pesky cyclists had simply failed to recognise that they were supposed to be somewhere else.
2. Going on an LCC ride with Susie, my wife, when she was new to cycling. After taking 40 minutes to get from Clapham Common to Kennington, supposedly en route to London Bridge, she'd had enough. 'We'd have been there by now if we went the right way' - and off she went, down Kennington Road.

 

[OldGreyBeard]

The Yorkshire Bombers gave the biggest boost to cycling this country has ever seen, although that was part of the unheralded bus lane revolution. Ken Livingstone wasn't particularly interested in cycling when he put in bus lanes, but, whatever his intentions, it worked. So - if we consider organisations it's

1. TfL
2. Al Quaeda
nowhere - the rest

so
1. Show me the drawing
2. How much will it cost?
3. How do you propose to persuade people to spend the money?

Why don't you tell us what you would do to increase cycling?

 

[Red Light]

Children, oldies, fatties, Dolly Daydream on her Shopper and all manner of or'nery folk are notable by their absence in Franklin's big push.

I was delighted to see today a young lady on a sit up and beg bike with basket cycling down Piccadilly in London wearing a summer frock and no helmet and riding in the primary position.

 

[dellzeqq]

Why don't you tell us what you would do to increase cycling?

why don't you check out the link at the bottom of my posts. And read the thread!

Now, is there any chance of an answer to my question?

 

[stowie]

I was delighted to see today a young lady on a sit up and beg bike with basket cycling down Piccadilly in London wearing a summer frock and no helmet and riding in the primary position.

I saw a bloke the other week cycling with a trailer with a washing machine in it. I am struggling to understand what we conclude from either anecdote.

BTW I did give the cyclist a big grin has he laboured past me with the washing machine bouncing in the trailer. He started to go downhill and pick up speed - I couldn't , and didn't want to, see the results of him trying to stop at the junction at the bottom of the incline. Good effort though.

 

[OldGreyBeard]

why don't you check out the link at the bottom of my posts. And read the thread!

Now, is there any chance of an answer to my question?

I somehow feel that no one could answer your questions to your satisfaction. Not even the number one cycleway designer in the Netherlands whoever he or she is.