Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[blockend]

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.

SiN is only one effect of separating cyclists from the danger of motor vehicles. If there wasn't an extensive Dutch cycle track network nowhere near the per capita mileages would be ridden. It's disingenuous to suggest numbers alone account for the safety record divorced from the trackways on which cycling happens.

It's reasonable to argue topographic differences between the UK and Netherlands for implementing cycle tracks but their positive effect on number cycling and mileages ridden when the Dutch model is applied is self-evident.

 

[Red Light]

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?

It could be other effects but you don't need more than Safety in Numbers to explain the difference in death rates between the UK and Netherlands. Basically the death and injury rate goes as the numbers cycling to the power of -0.6. Double cycling and the number of deaths and injuries goes up 32% so the death and injury rate goes down by 66%. The scientific basis for it is given by Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling

 

[dellzeqq]

whatever the purpose for inter-urban cycle routes, it's going to be hard to make the case in anything other than a few cases - those being the 'motorways by stealth' so beloved of the DfT until quite recently.

There's generally a superior option running parallel to the trunk road - often the 'old' road that was superseded by the trunk road (I'm thinking of the 'old A9', the B4100, the 'old A130' or the 'old A3'. Cycle paths have been put alongside some new trunk roads - I'm thinking of stretches of the A23 and A3, but they're not used - why would they be given that most of us would rather do without the noise and fumes.

I'd not argue against a cycle path beside that A14 across the Orwell, though. I just wonder whether the numbers using it would repay the investment in my or anybody else's lifetime. I'd have thought that people arguing for 'facilities' would be better employed sticking to towns and cities, especially since the Sustrans network has supposedly done the job in the countryside (the last is a joke, by the way, in case you're wondering).

 

[blockend]

I just wonder whether the numbers using it would repay the investment in my or anybody else's lifetime.

I'd debate the point further but wouldn't wish my conclusions to be perceived as 'bitterness'.

 

[dellzeqq]

I'd debate the point further but wouldn't wish my conclusions to be perceived as 'bitterness'.

then take a look back at your posts and count the number of times you question the motives and capabilities of the people that disagree with you.

 

[blockend]

then take a look back at your posts and count the number of times you question the motives and capabilities of the people that disagree with you.

Well that cuts both ways but I'd prefer to stick to the issue, which is the ongoing misrepresentation of cycling and its role as transport. And the misrepresentation of those who question campaigning fashions.
One current example is the wilful ignorance of the role cycle tracks play in Dutch cycling numbers. To pretend those numbers were arrived at coincidentally and their safety effect could be translated onto a typical British trunk road or bypass is bizarre. Safety and the perception of safety are indivisible. London's cycling growth was substantially a result of the misplaced perception of risk about travelling on public transport.

As things stand the perception of safety is countered with statistics, or more graphically, smart people on the inside dismissing the fears of stupid people on the outside. It won't work.

 

[dellzeqq]

words like wilful and misrepresentation............

and, once again, you've missed the point about the bomb-dodging generation. Yes, they were worried for their safety. So, did they take to LCN+? No - they went straight down the main roads.

 

[blockend]

This thread has been given over to attacks on posters because they dare to question the logic behind currently received campaign wisdoms, with little attempt to engage with those points or the rationale behind them. That is misrepresentation and its language consists of words like segregationist and gutter.

As WilliamNB noted, there has been no-one promoting the idea of exclusively segregating cyclists or anything close, including the original link to Mr Colostomy, unlike the dominant theme of insisting all cyclists should be on the road, whatever road, whether they feel safe to ride there or not.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I do see your point, thugh I think you also may be simplifying things too much here. There are some people in this discussion who believe segregation (in towns and cities) is wrong.

It isn't a right or wrong, black or white, issue.

Many of those in the 'anti' camp are saying segregation of public space is undesirable because it is uncivilised. Others are saying 'great idea in principle now show me (the drawing of) how it is going to work on the ground in reality and who is going to pay for it?'

 

[Dan B]

If you accept that anywhere within 12 miles of a city centre is cycle-able

12 miles? For someone who's new to cycling? That's a 1 hour+ journey each way. I'd have suggested dividing that number by three.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

This thread has been given over to attacks on posters because they dare to question the logic behind currently received campaign wisdoms, with little attempt to engage with those points or the rationale behind them. That is misrepresentation and its language consists of words like segregationist and gutter.

As WilliamNB noted, there has been no-one promoting the idea of exclusively segregating cyclists or anything close, including the original link to Mr Colostomy, unlike the dominant theme of insisting all cyclists should be on the road, whatever road, whether they feel safe to ride there or not.

The dominant theme is our insistance that all cyclists should be allowed, and encouraged, to ride safely on the road if they choose to do so, that motor vehicles should be used in a way that is harmonious with that goal, and that the roads already exist and are paid for, whereas we are a little short on drawings showing how alternative-to-the-road theory would turn into practice or be funded.

 

[Red Light]

This thread has been given over to attacks on posters because they dare to question the logic behind currently received campaign wisdoms, with little attempt to engage with those points or the rationale behind them. That is misrepresentation and its language consists of words like segregationist and gutter.

I think the attacks are not on the posters but on the (lack of) evidence they use to assert their solution. If you want to persuade us that it works show us the evidence rather than doing proof by assertion. Simply observing the Netherlands has cycle tracks and lots of people cycle there and assuming that the first causes the second is not good enough. On that basis I could claim with equal veracity that cycling could be increased by adopting the clog as our national shoe. There is plenty of evidence that cycle tracks did not increase the levels of cycling in the Netherlands.

In Dublin, they tried building a 200 mile "strategic cycle network" to encourage cycling and cycling levels fell. They have now, like London, introduced a bike hire scheme that makes cycling appear accessible to ordinary people and cycling levels have shot up across the board. Your solution is not new; it has been tried for over 80 years now and has failed every time its been tried.

 

[Red Light]

It isn't a right or wrong, black or white, issue.

Many of those in the 'anti' camp are saying segregation of public space is undesirable because it is uncivilised. Others are saying 'great idea in principle now show me (the drawing of) how it is going to work on the ground in reality and who is going to pay for it?'

And I say by cycling on the road motorists come to expect cyclists to be there and learn how to interact with them. Moving cyclists out of sight and mind for motorists negates that process which means as soon as you come to the end of your cycle track, as you inevitably must do you, are thrown into a more hostile road environment where you are the unexpected interloper.

 

[blockend]

The dominant theme is our insistance that all cyclists should be allowed, and encouraged, to ride safely on the road if they choose to do so, that motor vehicles should be used in a way that is harmonious with that goal, and that the roads already exist and are paid for, whereas we are a little short on drawings showing how alternative-to-the-road theory would turn into practice or be funded.

That simple, indeed admirable statement conceals a lot of what-ifs. Of course cyclists should be allowed on all roads but many are dangerous to cyclists in the real world. I was discussing the death of a mutual acquaintance with a cycling friend at the weekend. The friend is a high mileage roadie with decades of experience yet we both agreed the road on which the fatality occurred is inappropriate for riding a bicycle (though in much stronger language).

The person who died was exercising a perfect legal right and doing something he loved. However if you extrapolate that right into advice on whether a cyclist should be on the road concerned, you'd be neglectful in advising they should as its record for cycling fatalities is appalling. So is the answer to remove its status as a trunk route on which the national speed limits apply and make it 30mph with the consequences it entails for commercial movement, or implement a quality cycle track alongside and improve the places where one currently exists?

Such instances aren't rare and don't succumb to easy solutions that protect the rights of the cyclist and the reality of moving goods and people around the country. Drawings for a solution aren't the problem, overcoming engrained thought processes and institutional resistance might be.

 

[blockend]

Simply observing the Netherlands has cycle tracks and lots of people cycle there and assuming that the first causes the second is not good enough. On that basis I could claim with equal veracity that cycling could be increased by adopting the clog as our national shoe. There is plenty of evidence that cycle tracks did not increase the levels of cycling in the Netherlands.

I'd be very interested in any objective evidence that cycle tracks have no bearing on the number of cyclists in Holland. To state that the highest per capita bicycle use in a western country and its adoption among almost all ages and classes with bicycles overwhelmingly suited to utility riding coincidentally happens to have the most efficient cycle network, requires compelling counter-intuitive evidence.