London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes

[ozzage]

3) Upstream Ozzage has proposed that cycling facilities are good even if they actually make cycling more dangerous provided that they appear to make cycling safer to non-cyclists. At least I think that was what he said.

And explained why it will ultimately still make things safer in real terms as well.

Much later edit: I just realised you said to "non-cyclists" That's not true, or at least not wholly. It makes them seem safer to the majority of cyclists as well!

 

[ozzage]

it is. That may not be what you want to hear, but buses move people more efficiently than bikes.

In your narrow measure, maybe. I notice you ignored everything else I wrote about buses.

 

[jonesy]

It might be an idea actually to give it a go sometime first.

Quite. The hierarchy does of course come from Dutch practice, which I thought ozzage was terribly keen for us to learn from...

 

[jonesy]

I don't really like people telling direct untruths about my position.

You'll never get rid of buses and I never said you would, but when people argue with a statement that a 40% cycling modal share wouldn't reduce the required number of buses then I can only shake my head. If people genuinely don't think that we couldn't significantly reduce load on the public transport infrastructure with a high cycling modal share then there's not much more I can add. People in the UK are often so blinkered because they don't believe, in their hearts, that cycling can take the place of public transport for a massive chunk of the population. But it can.

I'm not. You said "if we can get 30% modal share we'll need FAR fewer buses too "

Your emphasis. FAR fewer. But you haven't remotely been able to justify that position. So, I repeat my earlier question: "show us the trips". By which I mean demonstrate that a 40% modal share for cycling is actually possible in London (I note you've made your challenge even more difficult with a higher figure!), with reference to trips that are actually made in London, the journey type and trip length you propose to target etc. And don't assume that 100% of trips within cycleable distance can actually be moved to cycling either, so you'll need to show that a very much higher percentage of trips are within cycling distance, and make realistic assumptions about the distance people will cycle for everyday trips in normal clothing, as they do in Oxford, Cambridge and Copenhagen. Hint- very few are going as far as 5 miles.

 

[ozzage]

Quite. The hierarchy does of course come from Dutch practice, which I thought ozzage was terribly keen for us to learn from...

It's a load of utter rubbish pedalled by CTC and similar that they are promoting any kind of Dutch model here with their hierarchy of provision. The CTC thinks that segregation may be suitable for use alongside high-speed, dual carriageways (but not always, and thanks to the hierarchy they have plenty of chances to block it happening) and is well suited for open green spaces. They also think that such routes should be wide enough for the pedestrians and cyclists who are going to use them.

This is not the Dutch model, no matter how often people claim it to be. The hierarchy of provision is garbage and the supporting documentation to it by the CTC show very clearly where they consider segregation to sit. Nowhere, preferably.

 

[theclaud]

Not to my satisfaction you haven't.

Nor mine, I might add. Could those persuaded by Ozzage's "explanation" please identify themselves?

 

[ozzage]

Perhaps you guys might point out explicitly which bits you're having trouble understanding.

 

[dellzeqq]

Firstly not all roads will be suitable. No argument there. London is difficult, but not as difficult as it's made out to be.

great. Show us the drawing.

 

[dellzeqq]

In your narrow measure, maybe. I notice you ignored everything else I wrote about buses.

In my narrow measure. Let me tell you something. I organise cycle rides. In September I (with a good deal of help from Adrian and others) organised a cycle ride of 350 people. That's about two and a half bendy buses, four double deckers, or, if you prefer, five half full bendy buses and eight double deckers. That ride had a police escort and caused almighty traffic jams at half past twelve at night. This year we're hoping for a thousand. I confidently expect to jam up a considerable stretch of major arterial road - perhaps a mile and a half at a time. The same number of people in buses would hardly be noticed.

Now, if you don't know, feel free to ask. And show us the drawing.

 

[dellzeqq]

The hierarchy of provision is, quite simply, an unmitigated disaster. It is nothing but an excuse to spend little or no money on cycling. It's been shown to fail in reality in the UK, everywhere you look and it's time to move on.

how is it a disaster? Pedestrians are, quite rightly, given top priority. Are you saying they shouldn't be? Again....show us the drawing

And can you not get hold of the idea that some of us are against spending money on cycling. We've seen £140M go west on LCN+. I'm surprised that people aren't asking for the money back.

 

[StuartG]

In my narrow measure. Let me tell you something. I organise cycle rides. In September I (with a good deal of help from Adrian and others) organised a cycle ride of 350 people. That's about two and a half bendy buses, four double deckers, or, if you prefer, five half full bendy buses and eight double deckers.

Wrong.

Bus users will know that a high proportion are less fit Freedom Pass holders who would require tricycles (preferably battery powered), Mums with 2 or more kids/prams who would need cargo bikes and people whose girth exceeds the average cycle lane. So a bit more road needed and you would need to add an ambulance escort. Also the prospect of expecting OAPs and disabled people to shell out a few hundred quid on a bike when they travel free is a bit of a marketing challenge - the alternative of removing free travel is a political challenge even Boy George funked.

There is also the issue that makes public transport attractive is frequency - people don't like waiting. Lower the modal share of public transport and it becomes less attractive to all users. The leakage is going to be both ways - back to cars and taxis. Lowering public transport modal share is not the most well thought out transport strategy methinks.

 

[dellzeqq]

Wrong.

Bus users will know that a high proportion are less fit Freedom Pass holders who would require tricycles (preferably battery powered), Mums with 2 or more kids/prams who would need cargo bikes and people whose girth exceeds the average cycle lane. So a bit more road needed and you would need to add an ambulance escort. Also the prospect of expecting OAPs and disabled people to shell out a few hundred quid on a bike when they travel free is a bit of a marketing challenge - the alternative of removing free travel is a political challenge even Boy George funked.

There is also the issue that makes public transport attractive is frequency - people don't like waiting. Lower the modal share of public transport and it becomes less attractive to all users. The leakage is going to be both ways - back to cars and taxis. Lowering public transport modal share is not the most well thought out transport strategy methinks.

 

[jonesy]

It's a load of utter rubbish pedalled by CTC and similar that they are promoting any kind of Dutch model here with their hierarchy of provision. The CTC thinks that segregation may be suitable for use alongside high-speed, dual carriageways (but not always, and thanks to the hierarchy they have plenty of chances to block it happening) and is well suited for open green spaces. They also think that such routes should be wide enough for the pedestrians and cyclists who are going to use them.

This is not the Dutch model, no matter how often people claim it to be. The hierarchy of provision is garbage and the supporting documentation to it by the CTC show very clearly where they consider segregation to sit. Nowhere, preferably.

I suspect you haven't actually read any of the Dutch guidance... and I don't know why you are so hung up the CTC either. The hierarchy is applied in DfT's and Cycling England's cycling guidance.

But we digress. I think you were going to tell us where the cycleable trips will come from that make a 40% modal share for cycling in London a realistic proposition...?

 

[ozzage]

how is it a disaster? Pedestrians are, quite rightly, given top priority. Are you saying they shouldn't be? Again....show us the drawing

And can you not get hold of the idea that some of us are against spending money on cycling. We've seen £140M go west on LCN+. I'm surprised that people aren't asking for the money back.

It's a disaster because despite it being touted as the answer over and over again, we still have virtually nobody cycling in the UK.

I'm not sure what you mean by your comment about pedestrians. I'm all in favour of pleasant environments for pedestrians. I am one, much of the time.

I never claimed anything about you wanting money spent on infrastructure so I'm not sure where you got that from.

 

[srw]

It's a disaster because despite it being touted as the answer over and over again, we still have virtually nobody cycling in the UK.

So few, in fact, that it's impossible to sustain a lively and interesting internet forum. Or a lively and active campaigning membership organisation. Or indeed a government-run bicycle hire scheme, or a commercial magazine, or a charity that funds cycle routes. And you never see a cyclist when you're out and about on a Sunday morning, do you?