That worthless and dangerous cycling infrastructure

[Dan B]

Actually I'm trying to get people to understand what they need to do to convert the crap stuff into good stuff, so their good intentions produce some results. You're telling them to stuff their good intentions where the sun don't shine. That's not how politics works.

I would describe that as a laudable aim, but I'm honestly now unsure just what you consider "crap", because the inference from your posts on this thread is that you'll put up with almost anything. Are you actually saying you'll put up with almost anything as step 1 if you get to replace it later with something sane in step 2 - and if so, I guess the followup question is "how much later?"

 

[Red Light]

Actually I'm trying to get people to understand what they need to do to convert the crap stuff into good stuff, so their good intentions produce some results. You're telling them to stuff their good intentions where the sun don't shine. That's not how politics works.

The trouble is we all get left with a pile of pigs ears with not a silk purse amongst them.

 

[Richard Mann]

I would describe that as a laudable aim, but I'm honestly now unsure just what you consider "crap", because the inference from your posts on this thread is that you'll put up with almost anything. Are you actually saying you'll put up with almost anything as step 1 if you get to replace it later with something sane in step 2 - and if so, I guess the followup question is "how much later?"

Crap is discontinuous and too close to fast traffic. You have to achieve a basic level of comfort, otherwise people just don't bother. Just about anything else is tolerable if you get that right (which is not to say that it shouldn't be improved if you can, or ideally, done right in the first place). Then once you've got a viable product, the key is actively discouraging car-use, particularly to city centres. In bigger cities it's probably impractical without major improvements to the bus mode as well.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Probably the closest to the experiment you are trying to hypothesise was Delft where a pilot project was set up to study the effects of building a complete cycle network. Between 1982 and 1987, 29 m Guilders was spent on putting in a three tier city wide network of a city network (grid spacing ~500m), a district network (2-300m) and a neighbourhood network (~100m). When SMOV evaluated it in 1994 they said the results were:

"not very positive: bicycle use had not increased, neither had the road safety. A route network of bicycle facilities has, apparently, no added value for bicycle use or road safety"
​

Do you have a source for that quote? If I google it, I find it quoted many times, all referencing this SWOV factsheet, which does not contain that quote.

 

[Red Light]

From the same report -

That is from a section specifically about cycling to work in rush hour which makes up just 17% of journeys according to the report. To pretend its about cycling in general and why Netherlands cycling is so high is misleading.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

That is from a section specifically about cycling to work in rush hour which makes up just 17% of journeys according to the report. To pretend its about cycling in general and why Netherlands cycling is so high is misleading.

Yes, the Fietsbaraad think cycle paths are only important for people commuting to work, and not, say, for children going to school.

Whatever mate.

 

[Richard Mann]

That's your interpretation but without evidence. Mine is from the sentence that follows it:

"Accepting the cyclist as a ‘normal’ traffic participant with equal rights in the ’50s and ’60s has been a crucial factor in these cities."
​

Probably the closest to the experiment you are trying to hypothesise was Delft where a pilot project was set up to study the effects of building a complete cycle network. Between 1982 and 1987, 29 m Guilders was spent on putting in a three tier city wide network of a city network (grid spacing ~500m), a district network (2-300m) and a neighbourhood network (~100m). When SMOV evaluated it in 1994 they said the results were:

"not very positive: bicycle use had not increased, neither had the road safety. A route network of bicycle facilities has, apparently, no added value for bicycle use or road safety"

​

In contrast Groningen concentrated on land use, planning and economic policies instead and saw a big rise in cycling - over 75% of journeys are by cycle or on foot.

Delft already had a cycle network, just not a very good one. Improving it didn't make much of a difference (which I think rather supports my view that cycle networks don't need to be perfect, just tolerable to your average punter). Groningen already had a cycle network (quite a good one). Their success was from making the competitive position of the car worse (by dividing the centre into cells, and closing/diverting sections of their inner ring road, amongst many other measures) - much like Oxford, actually.

Find me a Dutch city with no cycle network and a high level of cycling and I'll take it all back.

 

[Red Light]

Do you have a source for that quote? If I google it, I find it quoted many times, all referencing this SWOV factsheet, which does not contain that quote.

Source.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

1) Door Zone: the door zone is indeed a concept invented by cycle trainers;

That isn't true. When I was learning to drive a car, 33 years ago, my instructor took a lot of trouble to emphasise that I should pass parked cars "one car door's width away". He wasn't a cycle trainer. Of course, it was unnecessary; as a motorcyclist for 3 years before that, I had already had enough experiences of swerving for car doors to learn about that.

3) Danger zone at side roads: Another invention of cycle trainers. It's not much of an issue if side roads are slow (these all have 20 limits), and radii are reasonably tight.

There are still occasions where I forget to move out, or can't because of traffic, when approaching side roads, and I can't count the number of times I've had to brake suddenly because a car was approaching the junction too fast, and even in some cases overshot the junction. That is usually when I'm in a cycle lane. Incidentally, I find probably 25% or 30% of motorists block the cycle lane when waiting to turn out of a side road, so I have to negotiate my way out of the cycle lane.

... no, I think the fact that the lane is there helps drivers to be civil. If the lane weren't there you'd probably have idiots driving too far left and not giving enough space to cyclists they're overtaking.

Your experience is very different to mine. I certainly have far more problems with motorists doing stupid things when I am in a cycle lane than when there isn't one there. See the links that I put in this post.

No - I perfectly respect your world-view as applying to your situation. I'm just refusing to accept that your world-view applies to my situation.

Which, I grant, might not be cyclists like you or other cyclists who have a high average speed, but certainly accounts for the majority of Oxford cyclists.

Cyclists like me? 18 months ago, I was nearly 15 stones in weight, and I though that 8 miles was a big bike ride! To cycle the from Parsley Hay to Ashbourne and back on the Tissington trail was an enormous expedition for me. At 54, I have bad osteo-arthritis in my left hip. 12 months ago when I started commuting by bicycle again, I was always riding cautiously at the side of the road in the gutter as I thought I should be. I experienced so many left hooks that I couldn't count them. On one occasion, in a cycle lane on a left hand bend, I was nearly crushed against a pedestrian fence by an HGV that came up behind me in Farnworth (I actually climbed up the fence to escape).

It was after that last incident that I resolved to read up about how to cycle safely, starting with the Internet, then reading CycleCraft, and looking at Gaz's videos and other stuff. These are personal experiences I'm talking about here, not theories. I don't have quite so many brown trouser moments now, just aggravation from motorists who think I should be in the gutter, especially when there is a crappy cycle lane there. I still do often feel intimidated into using cycle lanes that perhaps I ought not too, particularly over junctions, and that's when I have the remaining scary moments now.

I used to complain that there weren't enough cycle lanes, and that the cycle lanes always seemed to end just where you needed them most, and so on. Now I hate the damn things most of the time. The only places I like them are when there are separate cycle paths adjacent to fast major trunk roads and dual carriageways - like the one by the A59 near Southport.

 

[Richard Mann]

Do you have a source for that quote? If I google it, I find it quoted many times, all referencing this SWOV factsheet, which does not contain that quote.

Try http://www.eltis.org/docs/studies/DelftRVDF.pdf

Just above the map on page 6 it says "By the time the plans were drawn up around three-quarters of the proposed network was already in place"
The main conclusion was that the increase in cycling (for there was one) plateaued because the city didn't keep doing stuff. Only about 30% modal share. JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!!

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Source.

That paper is in Dutch. Where did you get your translation from? Or can you provide the original Dutch?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Try http://www.eltis.org...s/DelftRVDF.pdf

Just above the map on page 6 it says "By the time the plans were drawn up around three-quarters of the proposed network was already in place"
The main conclusion was that the increase in cycling (for there was one) plateaued because the city didn't keep doing stuff. Only about 30% modal share. JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!!

Thanks for that. It is not the same source, but it appears to be written by the same authors, at around the same time. I'll give it a read.

 

[Red Light]

Delft already had a cycle network, just not a very good one. Improving it didn't make much of a difference (which I think rather supports my view that cycle networks don't need to be perfect, just tolerable to your average punter).

You're making this all up aren't you? Why would a network be needed if you've already got one?\

From the Dutch Government's review and evaluation of the Bicycle Master Plan.

Two high-quality routes outside of the built-up area were also constructed around 1982
with government support. The results of these pilot projects corresponded well with the
experience gained in The Hague and Tilburg, i.e. a single high-quality and separate bicycle
route is apparently insufficient for stimulating more bicycle use and less car use. The
conclusion was that a complete network of bicycle routes was needed, one which would
need to include a small grid-width within the city. The 1981 report indicated a maximum
distancc of 500 m between routes.

Building on these experiences, a pilot project was set up in Delft (90,000 inhabitants) in
order to study the effects of an entire network of bicycle routes. Between 1982 and 1987, a
total of 29 million guilders was allocated for carrying out a large number of measures for
providing the city with a nearly complete network of bicycle routes consisting of three
hierarchically distinguishable subnetworks: the city network (with a grid-width of around
500 m), the district network (with a grid-width of 200-300 m) and the neighbourhood
network (with a grid-width of around 100 m).
​

 

[Richard Mann]

You're making this all up aren't you? Why would a network be needed if you've already got one?\

From the Dutch Government's review and evaluation of the Bicycle Master Plan.

Two high-quality routes outside of the built-up area were also constructed around 1982
with government support. The results of these pilot projects corresponded well with the
experience gained in The Hague and Tilburg, i.e. a single high-quality and separate bicycle
route is apparently insufficient for stimulating more bicycle use and less car use. The
conclusion was that a complete network of bicycle routes was needed, one which would
need to include a small grid-width within the city. The 1981 report indicated a maximum
distancc of 500 m between routes.

Building on these experiences, a pilot project was set up in Delft (90,000 inhabitants) in
order to study the effects of an entire network of bicycle routes. Between 1982 and 1987, a
total of 29 million guilders was allocated for carrying out a large number of measures for
providing the city with a nearly complete network of bicycle routes consisting of three
hierarchically distinguishable subnetworks: the city network (with a grid-width of around
500 m), the district network (with a grid-width of 200-300 m) and the neighbourhood
network (with a grid-width of around 100 m).
​

Perhaps you'd like to read this (from a few posts ago):

http://www.eltis.org...s/DelftRVDF.pdf

Just above the map on page 6 it says "By the time the plans were drawn up around three-quarters of the proposed network was already in place"

 

[Red Light]

Oh look........somebody's shopped us to Copenhagenize. Did you know CC is "the tiresome rants of members of cycling's secret sect who continue to oppose infrastructure for bicycles because it interferes with their testosterone thrill of 'running with the bulls"