Well interestingly neither Cambridge nor Central London have relied on cycle facilities, segregated or not, to do it and London does it despite a superb public transport alternative not seen anywhere else in the country. Both have made use of the car in the city centre unattractive with limited parking and other measures to restrict car use (e.g. road closures that restrict cars to a few roads in the centre in Cambridge, congestion charging in London). Bit like the Netherlands really.
Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling
- Thread starter downfader
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Well interestingly neither Cambridge nor Central London have relied on cycle facilities, segregated or not, to do it and London does it despite a superb public transport alternative not seen anywhere else in the country. Both have made use of the car in the city centre unattractive with limited parking and other measures to restrict car use (e.g. road closures that restrict cars to a few roads in the centre in Cambridge, congestion charging in London). Bit like the Netherlands really.
What Cambridge, London and other UK cities with significant cycling numbers have in common is an extensive, inhabited centre. That has been an increasingly unusual phenomenon in the last 40 years. Road cycling and low motor vehicle transit speeds are a sensible option in such places. They are not a model for other cities with different infrastructures.
Richard Mann
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Oxford
Well it depends. The main problem is that the quantity of traffic demands space, which results in speed. So you have to hack down the traffic volumes using whatever tools are to hand (and a few lycra warriors are next-to-irrelevant). In big cities (eg with lots of nice 2 lanes each way roads), you really have to start with buses for mid-distance trips, and bikes for local shopping/education/work. Add 20mph limits and traffic lights at the main junctions, and re-engineer in due course. But I wouldn't bother with segregated cycle tracks: buses are easier to get you going, because they are more tolerant of the dodgy bits.
Did I mention that Oxford has lots of buses?
If you thought it didn't apply why did you ask "How do we apply the model of Cambridge or Central London to Birmingham or Middlesbrough?" then?
But you are wrong about both Cambridge and London. The bulk of the cycling is not people from the inhabited centre cycling around in it. Its journeys into and out of the city centre by commuters and suburban inhabitants, hence the Boris Blueways and the tidal flow problem that the Boris Bikes had to deal with.
My starting point is the question 'why are utility cycling numbers so low?' 'What difference has 40 years of campaigning made to those numbers?' 'What changes in thinking are being adopted to increase numbers?' 'How is best practice in a successful utility cycling area transferable to another'.
My perception from cycling forums is those questions are not addressed in a joined-up approach but dealt with in a tribal (and judging from delzegg's contribution an increasingly personal) way.
That shift is already underway and far faster and much cheaper than any facility building programme could be. 20mph zones are springing up everywhere at the moment and there are intentions to have them across London. Soon we will have the No Entry Except Cycles" signing to allow contraflow cycling on one way streets which will help further. Again another measure the Dutch have instituted that encourages cycling and isn't a segregated facility.
You could also ask "What difference has 40 years of cycle facility building made to those numbers?".
I take it your model is limited exclusively to cities? You have no problem with cycleways alongside trunk roads connecting towns as in the Dutch model?
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
Yes, that would be useful. Just as a starting point, I can think of three types:
- actual town and city centres, where there is a high density of "destinations", usually a lot of pedestrians, and very little space available;
- long distance routes, often served by motorways, but including some big A roads that haven't been bypassed by motorways;
- roads that connect suburban conurbations and towns with cities, but which often pass through smaller town centres.
Good, we are agreed on that, at least.
But nowhere near as expensive to implement.
We are talking particularly about category 3 above, here. I think an issue with these roads is that a lot of traffic uses the A road when there is a perfectly good motorway, which might be a slightly longer route, but is much more appropriate.
I doubt this. I often see the same vehicles several times on the one journey, even though their top speed is well in excess of the 30mph speed limit, and my average speed in about 15mph.
I don't think anyone here is saying that the status quo is good. The argument is about the nature of the solution. I do agree with some earlier comments about not trying to come up with a one-size-fits-all solution.
What I am certain of, is that the cycle lanes on my route, apart from being sub-standard themselves, are useless with all the cars parked in them, and if parking were banned on the road, there would be plenty of width available to the extent that there would really be no need for a cycle lane.
My figures on commercial vehicle journey times are a guess based on potential cycle commuting distances and the speed cordon that would need to be imposed to encourage road cycling in safety. If you accept that anywhere within 12 miles of a city centre is cycle-able, it would require a series of low speed zones incorporating inner and outer ring roads and suburban areas beyond them. In many places, the West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Tyneside (among others) it would create a network of interlocking 'no-speed' 20mph areas for safe cycling covering many miles.
While I'd personally welcome such an initiative I do believe the consequences of it would be extensive and seem to be underestimated by those promoting the idea. To repeat, if that is seen as a caricature of the reality required for cycling safety, you have to accept varying degrees of risk from motor vehicles and almost certainly sufficient risk to deter a majority of the population from embarking on utility cycling.
A more realistic proposal is 20mph areas in cities, along with other private car deterrents, connecting with cycle tracks beyond. To return to the original point, I don't believe Franklin's model is viable as a way of a large number of cyclists interacting with motor vehicles moving at a speed factor higher than x 2 and the evidence is most of the population agree. That some of us take those risks and have done for decades, is not an ethical or practical model for safe cycling.
A perceived risk, not a real* risk. And given the way people keep on banging on about the risk and how we need to armour up and segregate ourselves off to reduce it, its no wonder that the majority of people think its not for them. The Dutch don't see** or promote it that way. They see it as a perfectly normal everyday activity despite having a population almost a quarter of ours and cyclist deaths almost double.
* "real" as in much greater than the risk of other everyday activities we do without worrying about the dangers.
** when my children stayed with a Dutch family when they were 12-14, they asked about helmets before going out for a bike ride and got an incredulous "why do you want one of them, we're only cycling" in much the same way as we would react if someone asked us about a helmet to walk down the shops.
I do actually except for a few very fast quasi-motorways. The examples I've seen are uniformly poor quality, badly maintained, inconvenient and not cleared or gritted in winter. But getting people to cycle inter-town is a minority requirement at present. Cycling numbers are going to start to rise by tackling towns and cities. Once people are doing short journeys its far easier for them to think about longer journeys.
Remember the $15Bn cost of the Dutch network with a fraction of the road length we have which scales to about £60-70Bn for the UK in today's money.
But if you want to campaign for Dutch quality cycle paths alongside major trunk routes I won't oppose you.
Do you think a typical Dutch person's cycling mileage is similar to ours or is this damned lies and statistics? If the cycling death rate is only double given the cycling mileage they undertake it's a remarkably safe way of getting about. Not sure why you elided this into a helmet debate. I don't wear one nor do I insist my children do.
Yes, the Dutch benefit from the Safety in Numbers effect which means their death rate is lower than ours by the amount the SiN effect would predict.
As for helmets I was referring to the way cycling in promoted in general in this country. And generally the two messages people hear over all others are cycle helmets and cycle facilities are essential because cycling with traffic is so "dangerous". The Dutch promotion is all about convenience, enjoyment, flexibility and ease.
stowie
Legendary Member
How do you predict the reduction in death rates due to Safety in Numbers? Could the reduction in death rate not be due to other factors?
- Status