Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[stowie]

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.

Taking the stats based upon number of trips - as opposed to km travelled - will give the x2.9 figure. And the km travelled figure is irrelevant in this stat, just the total number of trips.

Whether the total distance traveled, or number of trips, or hours spent traveling are the best stats to use is debatable. Depends on what is being measured (and each is used to justify a point normally). Interestingly, the oft quoted statistic about airline travel being so much more safe than car travel is true in terms of km / fatality, but if one takes the fatalities per trip then car travel and air travel come out roughly equal. Cycling also looks quite different depending upon which stats are used. On one, cycling looks to be much safer than walking, and about the same as car use, on another cycling looks way more dangerous than anything other than motorcycling (which looks horrific whichever way the stats are cut).

I am sure that cycle infrastructure aka the Netherlands isn't going to arrive on our shores anytime soon. The political will isn't there. I guess my question is does this matter - can we achieve Danish or Dutch (or German) levels of cycling without it? I am with you to a great extent in that I think the whole utility of urban roads needs to be revisited - I just think that cycling friendly streets would naturally fall out from this. But although I think re-working streets to humanise them for pedestrians and living is more likely to happen than implementation of cycle infrastructure, I am sadly pessimistic that either is very likely.

 

[Red Light]

[quote = Tommi]
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. [/quote]

What's wrong with Japan. High levels of cycling and virtually no cycling infrastructure? Or when you said you didn't know of anywhere that had that were you restricting yourself to European counties?

The Japanese do cycle on the pavement more as rolling pedestrians than cyclists. But away from the main arterial roads they cycle on the roads and are all over the place on them.

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.

They do not increase the numbers cycling. Nor do they make cycling safer. I really can't see why you are having such trouble understanding it.

As for Boris Blueways, you have to differentiate between real increases in cycling and re-routing of the existing cyclists where an apparent increases is from cyclists switching from other routes such as back streets. I haven't seen any studies and if they are being done, they are far too new for there to be any results out yet.

 

[Red Light]

[quote = stowie]
I am sure that cycle infrastructure aka the Netherlands isn't going to arrive on our shores anytime soon. The political will isn't there. I guess my question is does this matter - can we achieve Danish or Dutch (or German) levels of cycling without it?[/quote]

Don't see why not. Cambridge manages it with very few cycle facilities until recently. And London is growing fast.

 

[Wobblers]

Taking the stats based upon number of trips - as opposed to km travelled - will give the x2.9 figure. And the km travelled figure is irrelevant in this stat, just the total number of trips.

Whether the total distance traveled, or number of trips, or hours spent traveling are the best stats to use is debatable. Depends on what is being measured (and each is used to justify a point normally). Interestingly, the oft quoted statistic about airline travel being so much more safe than car travel is true in terms of km / fatality, but if one takes the fatalities per trip then car travel and air travel come out roughly equal. Cycling also looks quite different depending upon which stats are used. On one, cycling looks to be much safer than walking, and about the same as car use, on another cycling looks way more dangerous than anything other than motorcycling (which looks horrific whichever way the stats are cut).

All you've managed to establish is that the average cycling trip in the UK is longer than that in the Netherlands. That's not relevant.

KSI figures per kilometre travelled is universally accepted as the most valid method of comparing safety statistics by the experts in the field. You need to explain why you think that they are all wrong and you are right.

Furthermore, this fails to demonstrate any safety benefits for segregation.

 

[Tommi]

KSI figures per kilometre travelled is universally accepted as the most valid method of comparing safety statistics by the experts in the field. You need to explain why you think that they are all wrong and you are right.

According to http://ec.europa.eu/...of%20RED_v2.pdf vehicle kilometres is used because it is considered generally available. Number of trips is not. Turns out number of trips are available only for UK, FI and NL (+ 6 other EU countries) so I actually got lucky when starting to collect this.

Intuitively I find it easier to compare "how likely am I going to survive my commute to work and back" since the number of trips per week is going to be 10 to very high level of accuracy regardless of where I live. But for international studies that is unfortunately not an option.

Furthermore, this fails to demonstrate any safety benefits for segregation.

It was not intended as such. I merely responded to the "NL is not twice as safe as UK" comment.

 

[bof]

You have to be very careful about intepreting Dutch cycling stats. Some years ago I looked into them further for a specific purpose and it was very clear that the proportion of self-inflicted accidents - cycling into lamposts etc.- is much higher. I can't remember by how much but was substantial and may account for most if not all of the gap from the curve alluded to above This is probably a case of segregation and high cycling rates breeding complacency.

FWIW when I lived there around 30 years ago "useless" cycle paths were fairly rare. Most urban paths were alongside the main arteries out of town or were a useful short cut and most rural paths were along the equivalent of A&B roads in the country - where I do believe they help account for the low rate of rural cycling ksi's - and make cycling along main roads much more pleasant. When I cycle there now it strikes me that many more recent paths seem to be there for the sake of it and segragation seems to have become a goal in itself rather than a selective means to an end.

It is also important to realise in the Netherlands that respecting cycle paths is drummed into drivers when they learn and parking on them, for instance is almost a taboo - which I assume is why in general they share the same priority of the road they run alongside with respect to minor roads unlike in UK where priority is almost always given to the car. Despite this, bikes are required to have on-wheel sideways reflectors to reduce the worst cycling hazard which was (is?, I dunno now) cyclists on paths being broadsided at night by cars on sideroads that cross the cycle paths.

 

[dellzeqq]

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


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.

and I reckon that the chances of my getting clattered in the first mile are the same as the chances of my getting clattered in the last mile

the correct figure for the UK is 3.1bn miles. The death per mile ratio is about 1.6.

now, since you're clearly not going to get to grips with the interesting stuff, try this....

the figures for London are way better than the figures for the rest of the country. The deaths in London are of a particular, addressable nature. Why would anybody spend a billion in London when getting rid of rogue drivers via the JCT contract would more than halve the death count? And why would anybody spend a billion in London when LCN+, which cost us £140M isn't used?

Bof - of course you're right. I'm not interpreting them. I'm simply knocking lumps of the shallow assumptions made by people like Hembrow and WalthamForestCrapCycleBoy. For what it's worth - even if the figure was 2.9, which it isn't, I'd be completely opposed to the introduction of segregation in my part of the world. I can't speak for any other part of the UK, but if somebody suggested sticking in seperate cycle paths down the side of Brixton Road or Streatham High Road I'd fight it tooth and nail.

 

[stowie]

and I reckon that the chances of my getting clattered in the first mile are the same as the chances of my getting clattered in the last mile

the correct figure for the UK is 3.1bn miles. The death per mile ratio is about 1.6.

now, since you're clearly not going to get to grips with the interesting stuff, try this....

the figures for London are way better than the figures for the rest of the country. The deaths in London are of a particular, addressable nature. Why would anybody spend a billion in London when getting rid of rogue drivers via the JCT contract would more than halve the death count? And why would anybody spend a billion in London when LCN+, which cost us £140M isn't used?

Bof - of course you're right. I'm not interpreting them. I'm simply knocking lumps of the shallow assumptions made by people like Hembrow and WalthamForestCrapCycleBoy. For what it's worth - even if the figure was 2.9, which it isn't, I'd be completely opposed to the introduction of segregation in my part of the world. I can't speak for any other part of the UK, but if somebody suggested sticking in seperate cycle paths down the side of Brixton Road or Streatham High Road I'd fight it tooth and nail.

What are the figures for London and the rest of the UK? Is this because traffic in London is so much more slow moving and that the real dangerous roads are fast A roads? What about cycle deaths in an urban area - say Manchester? Or Birmingham? The only thing that strike me when these discussions are had is that the data on cycling isn't exactly comprehensive (just compare it with car travel data!)

Your JCT contract idea is interesting. I assume that local government is one of the biggest customers for the construction industry - and the Olympics doubly so. It would have been rather good to see these contracts go to haulage firms able to prove their safety record and having the latest safety devices (even just the full complement of mirrors would be jolly). I don't know if this is a requirement or not - but I suspect TfL et al would be promoting the scheme if it was.

I would also really hit the illegal motorist hard. In London I think 10% of drivers are illegal - in areas this is very much higher. They are disproportionately likely to be involved in serious accidents and hit-and-runs. There is the technology (ANPR) to instantly find these criminals. Taking them off the road would have universal support.

Both measures aren't cycling related per-se. I suspect both would find widespread support, and have the added benefit of taking some of the biggest rogue elements off the road.

I do think that the overwhelming majority of roads can be made much more cycling friendly without having to segregate. I also think segregation on multi-lane urban highways should be considered to aid permeability, but that this segregation cannot be anywhere near the standard we currently "enjoy". I would say very few roads need this treatment, but the ones that do currently pose a significant barrier to utility cycling.

 

[dellzeqq]

Your JCT contract idea is interesting. I assume that local government is one of the biggest customers for the construction industry - and the Olympics doubly so. It would have been rather good to see these contracts go to haulage firms able to prove their safety record and having the latest safety devices (even just the full complement of mirrors would be jolly). I don't know if this is a requirement or not - but I suspect TfL et al would be promoting the scheme if it was..

JCT contracts cover almost all construction work. Designers are supposed to design out risk, and to bring residual risk to the attention of contractors. Contractors are supposed to think through risks and minimise them.

Now the CDM regulations have been successful to a degree, in reducing injuries on site, but the HSE washes its hands of injuries off site. And, in London, construction traffic kills a lot of people. That's addressable, and you've put your finger on some of the measures that could be taken - but, with all these things, risk attends attitude, and the record of some of the haulage companies that attend building sites is a disgrace. Thames Materials springs to mind.

The LCC's Tom Bogdanovich and I did try to impress on CML, the transport planners for the Olympics, that they should insist on a few precautions - the full complement of mirrors being an example, and checking for driving convictions being another. We were told to go away. It's worth bearing in mind that the number of pedestrians killed by lorries is higher than the number of cyclists - this ongoing tragedy is not something we own.

As for accident statistics in London - I can only refer you to Olaf's blog. The last ten years have seen deaths run at about sixteen a year, although the trend, in so far as one can detect a trend, is downwards - giving credence to the safety in numbers theory. Now, that's sixteen too many, but Olaf's (redfalo from these very pages) http://cycling-intel...ists-in-london/ and https://spreadsheets...bXc&hl=de#gid=2 https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc...bEZ1NVctVTBVeFRqTmNVbGZnbXc&hl=de&pli=1#gid=0 shows that the deaths are skewed towards lorries - so if you wanted to reduce casualties you'd go there first - as the LCC is doing.

To go back to the Netherlands thing (as if I care!) - the population of London is about eight million. Cycling mileage in London is way, way higher than the average in the UK. I'm not going to bother working it out, but it seems to me that London, mile for mile, is probably as good a bet as the Netherlands.

I couldn't agree more about illegal motorists in general, but we've got to be a bit careful here - cars do not kill a great number of cyclists in London, and car traffic is declining on the main cycle routes. You can string 'em up, if you want to Stowie, and I'll play a blowtorch over their toes, but, if we're going down the statistics route, that may not where the real rewards are. Fun, though. We could make a mint on the video.

And, at the risk of being completely boring, and recognising, Stowie, that this is not what you're saying at all, what the Hembrows of this world simply cannot get their heads around is that cycling is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Do we, as cyclists, make our home town a better place? I'd like to think that the answer is yes, but cutting up public space with rinkydink little bits of kerb might turn that in to a no. Been across Southwark Bridge recently?

 

[Red Light]

As for accident statistics in London - I can only refer you to Olaf's blog. The last ten years have seen deaths run at about sixteen a year, although the trend, in so far as one can detect a trend, is downwards - giving credence to the safety in numbers theory. Now, that's sixteen too many, but Olaf's blog ( <a href='http://cycling-intelligence.com/2011/04/06/will-2011-become-a-black-year-for-cyclists-in-london/' target='_blank' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://cycling-intel...ists-in-london/</a> and <a href='https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AuEtgCUuVBDUdHZqbEZ1NVctVTBVeFRqTmNVbGZnbXc&hl=de#gid=2' target='_blank' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>https://spreadsheets...bXc&hl=de#gid=2</a> ) shows that the deaths are skewed towards lorries - so if you wanted to reduce casualties you'd go there first - as the LCC is doing.

To go back to the Netherlands thing (as if I care!) - the population of London is about eight million. Cycling mileage in London is way, way higher than the average in the UK. I'm not going to bother working it out, but it seems to me that London, mile for mile, is probably as good a bet as the Netherlands.

For London there are well over half a million cycle journey's a day, say 160 million a year and 16 deaths. That's one death per 10 million journeys which is going to take me about 14,000 years to clock up.

In relation to Holland they clock up IIRC, 14 million journeys a day with 180 deaths p.a., so again it comes back to about 2.5 times safer than London which can all be explained by safety in numbers.

The Boris Bike stats are well ahead of the UK national average with 15 minor injuries in over 3 million journeys. And that' for largely inexperienced cyclists with no helmets.

 

[Tommi]

and I reckon that the chances of my getting clattered in the first mile are the same as the chances of my getting clattered in the last mile

In reality, no. Given statistic that's averaged out into number of killed per year, yes. Not sure what you're getting at.

the correct figure for the UK is 3.1bn miles. The death per mile ratio is about 1.6.

Oh, I see, mode share and population estimate isn't agreeing with DfT vehicle miles estimate. Sorry, thanks for getting it through to me. Guess I'll need to account for mode share error margins for myself. Don't worry, I won't bother you.

 

[Tommi]

What's wrong with Japan. High levels of cycling and virtually no cycling infrastructure? Or when you said you didn't know of anywhere that had that were you restricting yourself to European counties?

The Japanese do cycle on the pavement more as rolling pedestrians than cyclists. But away from the main arterial roads they cycle on the roads and are all over the place on them.

I really had no knowledge of Japan, I stand enlightened.

The reason I'm reluctant in using Japan as a model for western world is because in my limited understanding the Japanese culture and values are very different from any western country. So on surface I feel the relative success of Japan's no-infrastructure cycling policy is very much tied into the society and not easily repeatable (I'm sure I've read about other things western world would like to replicate, work ethics, loyalty, or somesuch, with not much luck.) I don't think "just do like the Japanese" would do any better cycling campaign than "just do like the Dutch" is.

With western countries I'd expect there to be more common ground and policies perhaps more tractable and easily applicable to other countries.

They do not increase the numbers cycling. Nor do they make cycling safer. I really can't see why you are having such trouble understanding it.

As for Boris Blueways, you have to differentiate between real increases in cycling and re-routing of the existing cyclists where an apparent increases is from cyclists switching from other routes such as back streets. I haven't seen any studies and if they are being done, they are far too new for there to be any results out yet.

I was only having trouble following an argument that jumps between cycling numbers and cycling safety using both interchangeably.

True about real increase vs. re-routing. I've no argument there.

 

[dellzeqq]

In reality, no. Given statistic that's averaged out into number of killed per year, yes. Not sure what you're getting at.

don't get snippy! I mean simply that if you cycle from Streatham to Islington your chances of getting killed in the first mile are about the same as your chances of getting killed in the last mile. And, therefore, if your trip was from (say) Streatham to Brixton, your chances of getting killed would be a great deal less.

no chance of addressing the major (and slightly more intellectually demanding) problems, then?

here's the thing. It's not going to happen for you. Sorry (well, actually, I'm not, sorry, but there you go...). So get over it, and, if you care enough, work out what might make cities and towns more pleasant. Or take the bus.

 

[John the Monkey]

The reason I'm reluctant in using Japan as a model for western world is because in my limited understanding the Japanese culture and values are very different from any western country.

In respect of road use, I wonder if that's as true of Dutch & Danish attitudes, tbh? (Or French, or Belgian, for that matter). No real point to make, just the observation that our (UK) road culture is so unremittingly hostile to non-motorised road users (to the point that mainstream personalities feel able to airly joke about running into cyclists in their cars &c) that it may be as different from continental attitudes as the Asian attitudes are in other respects.

 

[Red Light]

The reason I'm reluctant in using Japan as a model for western world is because in my limited understanding the Japanese culture and values are very different from any western country. So on surface I feel the relative success of Japan's no-infrastructure cycling policy is very much tied into the society and not easily repeatable

I suspect the relative success in other countries is also down mainly to societal issues. But those are difficult to replicate so people try to grasp instead at tangible things like infrastructure even if there is no evidence for it. Their simplistic logical fallacy goes along the lines of "The Dutch cycle a lot; they have lots of segregated cycle tracks; the cycle tracks must be the reason they cycle a lot."