not going to happen. Neither LCC or Sustrans has the stomach for counting cyclists.
The LCC "Go Dutch" campaign
- Thread starter style over speed
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
stowie
Legendary Member
This may be a bit OT, but does anyone actually count the number of people who cycle?
I am not talking about modal share or no. of cyclists on a given road at a given period. I am talking about seeing how many people in a given area cycle (say at least once a week) on road? I guess it wouldn't be too difficult to do with sample group and polling techniques.
Back on topic, I don't really want to engage in another segregation debate where we all collectively stick our fingers in our ears and shout at each other, but I think that the LCC seem to having an effect in raising the issue of cycling in London into mainstream media. In my years of membership of the LCC I have never seen them quite so energised in terms of communicating to members and also on campaigns.
Richard Mann
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Oxford
Exactly - I suggest we forget the segregation debate, and just treat "Go Dutch" as a call for TfL to do lots of stuff: "we should be able to cycle everywhere like the Dutch do". The Dutch are perfectly happy in practice to do lanes if that's all they've got politics/money/space for, and that's what we'll probably mostly get, because that's the most cost-effective.
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
I think it depends on your measure of effectiveness.
It's certainly effective if your measure is how many boxes get ticked on forms.
In many circumstances, it may be effective if your measure is how many people start cycling as a result of a perception of increased safety. In my decision to come back to cycle commuting, I certainly was influenced by the increased number of cycle lanes since I stopped doing it 15 years earlier.
If your measure is actual improved safety, then I suspect there are very few places where it is effective. 15 months after starting back, I now wish most of the cycle lanes weren't there on my route. This is because I have learned a lot in that time, much of it from personal experience.
It does seem a bit strange to say "forget the segregation debate" in a post that goes on to say that a very weak form of segregation is "what we'll probably mostly get".
Having said that, I think I would accept the negative results of having more paint on the roads, if it were coupled with presumed (or even strict) liability laws and an education campaign aimed at drivers.
Of course, it's all academic for me because nothing is going to happen about this in my neck of the woods.
we'd love to do that, but the LCC is clearly going for it. Hence my crack about suicide notes. It brings to mind the 1983 Labour Manifesto
totallyfixed
Veteran
- Location
- The only county without a McDonalds
Going Dutch? Is this a joke? You can substitute Dutch for German, Danish and a host of other countries in Europe. In case it hasn't been obvious to anyone yet, it's not possible to "go Dutch" until the transport culture changes in this country, and you can't effect a culture change without a change in the law. Until cyclists become a protected species, as the law dictates among many of our European partners, I don't see a way forward. I lived over the water for 10 years and not once did I have a close encounter with a car that I can recall. As a for instance, the "left hook" [or right everywhere else in Europe] simply doesn't exist. Hit a cyclist and at the very least it's bye, bye licence.
The effect of changing the law is massive and would at a stroke both protect cyclists and change our society into a much safer one. It would do more to put bums on saddles than any namby ideas of conjuring up millions to build protected cycleways that are a practical impossibility. I am sick of the British mentality that says we are different from other countries and know better. I actually made some of these points to a big wig at a conference years ago, and his reply was, "yes but they cycle more over there don't they", I give up.
The effect of changing the law is massive and would at a stroke both protect cyclists and change our society into a much safer one. It would do more to put bums on saddles than any namby ideas of conjuring up millions to build protected cycleways that are a practical impossibility. I am sick of the British mentality that says we are different from other countries and know better. I actually made some of these points to a big wig at a conference years ago, and his reply was, "yes but they cycle more over there don't they", I give up.
I think you wrong Totallyfixed.
Law happens when there is a majority (of people and/or the media) are already in favour of something. It is not to convince but to coerce the minority into accepting the wish of the majority.
Hence it took many decades to get, say, drink driving and smoking in public places laws into place. Law is a lagging indicator.
We are still stuck at the stage of the majority of the people and the media actually not wanting to protect and promote cycling. Anyone who has had to moderate a cycling thread on a non-cycling forum has a nose for how far we have to travel. And whilst cycling is increasing slowly IMHO hostility is growing faster.
Law happens when there is a majority (of people and/or the media) are already in favour of something. It is not to convince but to coerce the minority into accepting the wish of the majority.
Hence it took many decades to get, say, drink driving and smoking in public places laws into place. Law is a lagging indicator.
We are still stuck at the stage of the majority of the people and the media actually not wanting to protect and promote cycling. Anyone who has had to moderate a cycling thread on a non-cycling forum has a nose for how far we have to travel. And whilst cycling is increasing slowly IMHO hostility is growing faster.
her_welshness
Well-Known Member
I was at the LCC AGM when they explained more about this 'Go Dutch' scheme.
To be honest I am pretty ambivalent about it.
1. It is very gimmicky, and members are confused whether it means total segregation and/or share the road.
2. It does not offer local borough campaigners (like myself) any guidelines on how we promote it - except for a concertina piece of paper.
3. Some people argued at the AGM that we should not be comparing ourselves to the Dutch. Fair point I guess as their laws are very different from our own as are other European countries.
4. One person argued that if we are 'Go Dutch' then we should campaign for legal practices such as driver are fully liable. They rather sneered at this.
At the end of the day most of us are just going to ignore it and do our own campaigning. It makes life easier
To be honest I am pretty ambivalent about it.
1. It is very gimmicky, and members are confused whether it means total segregation and/or share the road.
2. It does not offer local borough campaigners (like myself) any guidelines on how we promote it - except for a concertina piece of paper.
3. Some people argued at the AGM that we should not be comparing ourselves to the Dutch. Fair point I guess as their laws are very different from our own as are other European countries.
4. One person argued that if we are 'Go Dutch' then we should campaign for legal practices such as driver are fully liable. They rather sneered at this.
At the end of the day most of us are just going to ignore it and do our own campaigning. It makes life easier
Richard Mann
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Oxford
The measure of effectiveness is pretty much irrelevant if one costs 100x the other. As far as safety goes, it's much of a muchness (excluding big junctions). In terms of bums on saddles, both lanes and tracks are positive; tracks probably more so, but not 100x better.
Who knows, maybe they have the money, but quite likely they don't. But doing something vaguely sensible to main roads, preferably a lot, would be a big step forward, and it deserves support rather than quibbling.
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
Not if the one is 200x more effective than the other.
In any case, who said anything about tracks? I do not believe that making a change in the law to introduce presumed liability would be 100x more expensive than painting a load of lanes on the road, then maintaining and policing them; it would probably cost less, in fact. I also do not believe that an education campaign aimed at motorists would be 100x more expensive; that also would probably cost less, especially given that we already pay for the BBC. I do believe that both would be far more effective, however.
Of course, I am assuming that, by "cost", we mean money. If by "cost", we mean political will, then that is a different matter entirely.
I think Her Welshness has summed it up. It's a document that, (besides setting aside the segregation thing which is a blind alley), is so diffuse that it's pretty meaningless. It's not exactly a toolkit that can be adopted by borough organisations. And it is completely at odds with the 'grid' analysis they produced three or four years ago, not to mention the long-forgotten (and wildly expensive) LCN+ thing.
Happily most LCC borough organisations (with the exception of Camden) are made up of smart items - I reckon that the Lambeth lot have more campaigning knowledge than the entirety of CTC Towers. They'll continue pushing on a case by case basis.
Happily most LCC borough organisations (with the exception of Camden) are made up of smart items - I reckon that the Lambeth lot have more campaigning knowledge than the entirety of CTC Towers. They'll continue pushing on a case by case basis.
stowie
Legendary Member
Go Dutch (whatever that means) or not, I feel a difference with LCC now.
The "Tour Du Danger" which started out as an idea on two blogs and grew was helped by LCC local organisations from promotion when the idea started to get bigger to marshalling and organisation on the ride. I don't think they were initially involved, and this shows a certain flexibility to be able to jump onto an idea and help it. I was impressed. I think the Blackfriars flashrides are another example.
And now the mayor has announced a review of all CSH junctions with priority on Bow. I don't think the fact that the cycle event the other week got so much publicity on local TV and newspapers is unrelated to this decision.
The "Going Dutch" thing was voted in by members, and I think will evolve, or not, as time goes on.
The "Tour Du Danger" which started out as an idea on two blogs and grew was helped by LCC local organisations from promotion when the idea started to get bigger to marshalling and organisation on the ride. I don't think they were initially involved, and this shows a certain flexibility to be able to jump onto an idea and help it. I was impressed. I think the Blackfriars flashrides are another example.
And now the mayor has announced a review of all CSH junctions with priority on Bow. I don't think the fact that the cycle event the other week got so much publicity on local TV and newspapers is unrelated to this decision.
The "Going Dutch" thing was voted in by members, and I think will evolve, or not, as time goes on.
OP
OP
style over speed
riding a f**king bike
great little film, about turning city centres back to human scale streets. Removing through motor traffic is the key.
from this
to this
this could be applied to any of countless British town centres, blighted by corrupt urban planning… this really should be a UK campaign not just a London one.
Richard Mann
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Oxford
Without wanting to state the bleeding obvious, there are lots of places in the UK that have removed traffic from major city centre roads: this sort of history is hardly specific to the Dutch.
What's different is that they've provided for cycling as part of the process, whereas we've generally left nasty big roads round the centre, making it almost impossible to cycle in safety.
It's the treatment of big junctions that's the crux. The Dutch tend to provide a signalled bike crossing alongside a straight pedestrian crossing, and kinda ignore the implications for pedestrian/cyclist conflicts. This tends to reduce the vehicular capacity of the junction, so they make junctions bigger to compensate. Which is why we'll have to be quite smart about reconfiguring gyratories and roundabouts if we're to achieve the same in London.
Richard
What's different is that they've provided for cycling as part of the process, whereas we've generally left nasty big roads round the centre, making it almost impossible to cycle in safety.
It's the treatment of big junctions that's the crux. The Dutch tend to provide a signalled bike crossing alongside a straight pedestrian crossing, and kinda ignore the implications for pedestrian/cyclist conflicts. This tends to reduce the vehicular capacity of the junction, so they make junctions bigger to compensate. Which is why we'll have to be quite smart about reconfiguring gyratories and roundabouts if we're to achieve the same in London.
Richard
I'm new to cycling and it seems to me that the sentiments expressed in this blog typified by Delzzeq when he says "I suspect that this is a putsch by a bunch of self-publicising self-gratification artists, and that sense will prevail..." - is what is wrong.
For years it seems to me London cyclists have been divided over whether to segregate or not segregate but how much has this in-fighting actually helped in practical terms? How far, for example, has London come since the 80s or 90s if you are a cyclist?
Not very far is the answer -only about 2% of the population cycle in a city that is largely flat - and the reason for this is that it is mostly down to people like Delzzeq who want to keep it the way that it is.
This is not good enough and I for one think the Go Dutch Campaign is a fantastic idea. It is about reaching the latent majority who do actually want to get out on their bikes but consider the idea of cycling in London too dangerous. For me it is about changing the mentality and normalising cycling and for that you have to start somewhere. Picking holes in the idea on a blog from your bedroom is a blind cul-de-sac.
For years it seems to me London cyclists have been divided over whether to segregate or not segregate but how much has this in-fighting actually helped in practical terms? How far, for example, has London come since the 80s or 90s if you are a cyclist?
Not very far is the answer -only about 2% of the population cycle in a city that is largely flat - and the reason for this is that it is mostly down to people like Delzzeq who want to keep it the way that it is.
This is not good enough and I for one think the Go Dutch Campaign is a fantastic idea. It is about reaching the latent majority who do actually want to get out on their bikes but consider the idea of cycling in London too dangerous. For me it is about changing the mentality and normalising cycling and for that you have to start somewhere. Picking holes in the idea on a blog from your bedroom is a blind cul-de-sac.
