Vote for Sustrans?

[Cab]

No, I'm trying to make the point that Just because Franklin has managed to show with statistics that accidents are more frequent on cycle paths than roads, it doesn't necessarily mean we should not consider cycle paths as a good thing. It might well be that accidents happen on these paths because novice cyclists are far more likely to be using them, also that people feel safer , so pay less attention.

(cut)

You're responding to his conclusions, not his argument. Go read his argument, start with his letter to sustrans.

 

[bonj2]

My reaction too. In any case, it's a small sample and does not prove a causal link. For instance, if cycle paths encourage more novices then it would be no surprise if accidents increased.

Perhaps one person once died on a cycle path, and since no-one ever uses them, that's an infinite death rate?

 

[Fnaar]

I mostly ride on roads but I have occasional cycle-pathic tendencies

 

[simon l& and a half]

I really don't see what the argument is about. Sure there are cycling officers in local authorities up and down the country inserting silly bits into S.106 agreements that require developers to pay for 25 metres of irrelevant cycle path. Sure, there are local authorities slapping themselves on the back for providing slightly longer lengths of irrelevant cycle path. And, let's be fair, there are bits of cycle lane that are OK. Nuttycyclist will have my guts for garters when I confess that I use one myself.

But the penny has dropped. TfL have spent £140million on LCN+. It's nice, it looks good on the map, and, lo and behold, it's not well used compared with (say) the Embankment or the bus lanes on the A3, the A12 and the A23. People have mentioned dual carriageways - the silly path beside the A316 is ignored and elderly ladies with baskets on their handlebars now mix it in the slow lane.

So now we're into junction re-design and bike hire on the Parisian model, which is far more sensible. Home zones will restrict car traffic through residential areas and offer cyclists a competitive advantage. But the notion that there will, one day, be a segregated network of paths or lanes for bicycles has gone the way of all flesh in London, and hasn't figured in the 'demonstration town' programme. There's some outposts of segregationist insanity (Portsmouth springs to mind) but they are outposts.

And, here's the rub. No great harm has been done. There's justifiable resentment from pedestrians on mixed use paths which are embarrassing (particularly for those of us who campaigned for mixed use paths across Tooting Common), but organisations like the Ramblers and the CTC agree that mixed use is an idea that should be used with great care, and not to the detriment of walkers. Other than that - what's the problem? Lewisham Council trumpets its cycle path alonside Southend Road, and it occurs to me that, having cycled down Southend Road for thirty five years I've never spotted the wretched thing - so where's the harm?

I've only twice been told by a motorist to 'get on the cycle path'. Once in Milton Keynes (no thanks, I'm on my way somewhere) and once by a London cabbie, for whom special allowances have to be made. Twice in almost four decades is not bad. Daniel Cadden was a one-off, and it was a convenient case to win (I'm going to take a bit of the credit for that) but it was a campaigning platform which dovetailed neatly with the campaign on the Highway Code rather than a desperate fight to preserve our rights on the road.

The real worry is this. We're on the verge of winning in cities. Sustrans and the LCC will have to think of something else to do. (In fairness there is a voice within the LCC that recognises this). We need strong cycling organisations, not cycling organisations wedded to an outdated model - cycling organisations that can point to a connection between development and trip generation, for example. Sustrans on-road routes (think of NCN1) are an inspiration - they take you through wonderful countryside on quiet roads, but their attempt to break into cities is going nowhere - however much lottery money they scoop up, creating a path across Wanstead Flats isn't going to hit the 'interesting' button. If they stick to what they're good at they'll do us all a favour. And those of us who might find Sustrans' ol' time religion meetings and the sneakiness a bit irritating should bear in mind that those routes laid down ten or more years ago have given a great deal of pleasure to a great number of people.

 

[BentMikey]

Good post Simon!!! I don't think anyone would deny the good bits that Sustrans has done, and that's why the organisation seems to me to be such a controversial subject.

 

[simon l& and a half]

oh - the John Franklin bashing is unworthy. His book is about reducing risk, not pretending that risk doesn't exist. Looking at inexperienced cyclists allowing themselves to be squeezed between parked cars and overtaking traffic, one can't help but think that 'Cyclecraft' should be given out with every new bike sold. And those of us who have met him will think Brock's description of him is crass.

 

[Brock]

oh - the John Franklin bashing is unworthy. His book is about reducing risk, not pretending that risk doesn't exist. Looking at inexperienced cyclists allowing themselves to be squeezed between parked cars and overtaking traffic, one can't help but think that 'Cyclecraft' should be given out with every new bike sold. And those of us who have met him will think Brock's description of him is crass.

Excellent previous post Simon, at last a bit of sense.
Sorry if my 'bashing' of Franklin was crass. I have a copy of Cyclecraft and it is indeed just about perfect. It's not him or his excellent book I had problems with.

So.. Any other reasons I shouldn't vote for Sustrans instead of Sherwood Forest?

 

[snorri]

How many of the cyclist deaths in London that we hear about with frightening regularlity are because the traffic was speeding?

I have no idea, up until now I thought we were discussing things from a nationwide viewpoint.

Do you believe Sustrans are wasting money creating links and and routes, where they should be spending it on a campaign to lobby government to limit the speed of cars? Would that really further our interests?

They are not wasting money, but a little campaigning would help things along, I believe.

 

[KitsuneAndy]

JF quotes 6 people dying on MK's redways vs 1 on the road in a decade. Even after taking into account cycling levels the death rate was apparently still higher on the paths than on the road.

But the data is useless in the form it's given in those reports. It's manipulated to make a point. The raw data would be more useful.

For example, as quoted earlier in this thread, about 90% of the accidents in one of the reports involved mopeds.

Did any of the deaths involve mopeds? If so, was it the existance of the cycle path that caused the death? Or the fact that a moped was using it? Was the moped allowed to be there? etc etc

I just honestly cannot believe that across the UK more cyclists are killed on traffic free routes than on roads. I don't see how it could happen without some outside factor (such as the mopeds quoted above).

 

[Monst]

I've ridden Sustrans route on the Coast to Coast....Never again..I'm going via the road if I do the route again. It's not funny having bricks chucked at you. see C C report, http://www.rdfcc.org.uk/members.html