A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old May 25th 04, 10:35 AM
Simon Brooke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes

in message , David Arditti
') wrote:

The people who might not like it, in some places, might be a few
cyclists who like to cycle very fast (20+ mph) in towns. But should
they be allowed to do this anyway - consider the poor pedestrians?


Two points: first, one group of people who typically cycle fast are
utility cyclists: they're getting to their jobs and getting about their
business and they don't want to waste time. If their journeys are
slowed, then the economics of choosing a cycle are reduced.

But if we are encouraging cycling either to reduce congestion or to
reduce pollution then utility cyclists are _the_ class we want to
encourage. A person who drives to work, drives home, and then goes for
a cycle in the evening reduces neither.

Second, a cyclist moving at the same speed as the rest of the traffic is
_much_ safer than one travelling slower than the traffic, particularly
when changing lanes.

There is a very widespread call for motor speeds to be limited to 20
in towns. We need to be consistent. We shouldn't make roads policy for
speeding drivers, and we shouldn't make cycling policy for fast
cyclists.


I disagree most strongly, for the reasons stated above.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

The trouble with Simon is that he only opens his mouth to change feet.
;; of me, by a 'friend'

Ads
  #62  
Old May 25th 04, 10:44 AM
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes

David Arditti wrote:

snip

Effective networks of cycle tracks encourage a much larger section of the
population to cycle than we generally see on two wheels in the UK.


The real problem comes right on the first word the "effective". I
think the CTC's opposition is reasonable because it realises that we
don't have a setup where it's either mechanically or politically
feasible to re-engineer our roads to accommodate the sort of schemes you
can see in the NL, and even if you could the crucial element of motorist
awareness and deference to bikes I noted would still be absent.

inevitably spill over onto all the other roads, creating the critical mass
on those roads which makes cycling there safer and changes the perception
and behaviour of drivers. The road conditions in Holland that Peter has
experienced and commented upon are a consequence of this mechanism.


I don't think so. The NL had a large cycling population in place before
personal motor transport became widespread, and unlike the UK it has
never lost it. Bikes didn't become popular because of the fietspads for
the simple reason the bikes predate them. So you're making something of
an assumptive leap in saying they would generate cycle traffic in huge
waves, even assuming we could put in something of comparable quality
(and experience to date suggests we can't). Stevenage and MK do have
purpose built segregated paths, but I haven't read any reports saying
you can't see through the clouds of bikes in either town.

I only know one thing for certain, as it is based on official figures.
Studying the cycling statistics of various countries shows a very clear
three-way correlation between the provision of quality segregated
infrastructure, high levels of cycling, and high levels of safety. I suggest
that this cannot be co-incidental.


I would point out that it was high levels of cycling that lead to the
infrastructure being built in the first place, not the other way around.
I have no idea whether their creation did wonders for the safety of
cycling in those places or not: do you have figures?

one kind of wonders why all the cyclists in Denmark and The Netherlands have
not been wiped out by now, since they have both continued to built more
segregated tracks since then.


Because cycling was pretty safe to begin with, and something being dumb
is hardly a precedent for not doing it any more. Just look at the
"farcilities" that the UK imposes on its cyclists. Despite everybody
knowing that a narrow lane painted down the gutter doesn't really help
anyone, they're still being put in. I'm afraid the above argument
relies on "common sense", which is certainly not common and isn't
necessarily sensible.

People who hold this view need to explain why these localised studies, if
correct, seem so out of kilter with the overall national statistics of
cycling deaths and injuries. Why is it so safe in Denmark and The
Netherlands in reality?


I've given you a possible answer, and that is the motorists show a great
deal more awareness of and deference to cycles. With that as a common
attitude it's not surprising to find fewer collisions between the two.

I suggest the problem is that the "micro-studies" do not represent the
large-scale, long-term realities of the changes produced by the cycle
engineering "styles" of various states and regions. The Dutch/Danish
patterns of design do introduce their own issues at junctions, but other
changes occur in the overall environment due to the increased cycling
generated by an attractive cycling environment so that the overall result is
danger reduction on the large stale, averaged over all roads, the "treated"
and the "normal".


Again, the high levels of cycling were there before the engineering.
The paths didn't create the cycling culture, it was the other way around.

As Patrick Herring says,

separate lanes will get many more cycling and we just might end up
like Holland and Denmark.


In a nutshell.


I have yet to see any figures produced that show Stevenage and MK have
vastly greater cycling uptake than anywhere else in the UK, though I'm
willing to be proven wrong if you have the figures. If all it took was
purpose built segregated bike tracks then those places should show such
a thing. And even if they do I don't really see how you're going to get
comparable quality across the UK as a whole, either technically or
through basic political will.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  #63  
Old May 25th 04, 11:16 AM
Just zis Guy, you know?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes

Simon Brooke wrote:

Evidence? Edinburgh spent large sums and the number of utility
cyclists apparently dropped.


Cite, please? I don't disbelieve you but would like to be able to
quote this.


The link is on my PC at home, but you may well be able to find it by
Googling. There was a big report (PDF) which contained that and other data,
IIRC, and I think it was prepared by Strathclyde Uni. But ICBW.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!


  #64  
Old May 25th 04, 12:09 PM
Helen Deborah Vecht
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes

Round here, (Queensbury, Brent, but close to Barnet, Harrow and London
NW9 frontiers) cycling is very much a minority activity. Cyclists are
seldom given the road space they need let alone any (un)common courtesy.
Car ownership & use are high and few kids walk to school.

The Local Authorities valiantly try to buck the traffic trend and are
met with hostility.

I wish we could do something to change the culture but the local
residents have not cycled as kids. The girls and women never ride bikes.
Cars are seen as liberation...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.
  #65  
Old May 25th 04, 12:31 PM
David Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes

On Tue, 25 May 2004 09:01:28 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
wrote this:-

Guardbridge to St. Andrews. No turns off a few miles where the only
alternative is a single carriageway A road with lots of bends, so you
end up causing a procession which isn't any fun for anyone. A good
example of the sort of place a cycle track works well.


Except for the golf balls. When asked about this the official of
Fife Council claimed that all cyclists should wear helmets.

I agree that the cycle path you describe is good, but Fife Council
spoilt their copybook by the cycle track through Guardbridge, which
is a good example of a farcility.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
  #66  
Old May 25th 04, 12:36 PM
David Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes

On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:36:58 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" wrote this:-

Evidence? Edinburgh spent large sums and the number of utility
cyclists apparently dropped.


I find this difficult to believe, but am amenable to convincing. The
North Edinburgh path network, for all its faults, seems to have
encouraged a fair number of people to try cycling.

I'm not convinced that the red paint in other parts of the city has
been that effective.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
  #68  
Old May 25th 04, 01:03 PM
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes

David Hansen wrote:

Except for the golf balls. When asked about this the official of
Fife Council claimed that all cyclists should wear helmets.


CTC day last year we were shown around St. A's and the cycling stuff
they'd done there. The chap giving the tour (can't remember his name,
I'm afraid) seemed to show a good grasp of Clues. He took us round the
tour on an old 10 speed while not wearing a helmet, a good sign, I think!

I agree that the cycle path you describe is good, but Fife Council
spoilt their copybook by the cycle track through Guardbridge, which
is a good example of a farcility.


Complete cock-up, isn't it? Change a couple of hundred meters of not
busy carriageway for crossing the road twice and going round a scheme
involving several very sharp and blind corners. Once was enough to
convince me it had been the Work of Fools so I just use the road there.

Fife's first try at the Tayport - Tay Bridge was pretty hopeless. To
get onto it you had to go up a steep rise surfaced in loose gravel. My
pal thought he'd have a go and /just/ made it on his Brom, I then had a
go on the Streetmachine. Didn't quite get up, so put on the brakes...
and slid backwards anyway before toppling over! I was Not Impressed.
Later on there was rutted mud and grass and then a slalom round some
farm gates. But seeing they'd been working on it I tried it again a
couple of weeks ago, and now it's very good with a good surface the
whole way and easy to get on and off it. Hopefully Guardbridge will see
similar upgeading, though in that case you could achieve everything
required by just taking out any attempt at cycle paths.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  #69  
Old May 25th 04, 01:28 PM
David Arditti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes

Guy wrote:
The major deterrent to more cycling is laziness. Bulding new roads
spreads out the congestion; building cycle paths does not amke people
less lazy.

So the British just happen to be the laziest nation in Europe, hence low
cycling levels? I doubt it. I would have thought it was pretty generally
accepted that the reason more people do not cycle is the environment.
Virtually every household has a bike but few people cycle regularly. Many
British people on holiday cycle in continental cities when they would not
dream of cycling at home. If we created the right environment in British
cities we would get high levels of cycling. A part of that is to create the
motor traffic-free cycle routes that most people who don't currently cycle
say are what it would take to get them cycling. You might say they are lying
- that they are just lazy, and wouldn't cycle anyway. But evidence of the
few places in the UK where it has been well-done suggests to me this is
wrong.
Effective networks of cycle tracks encourage a much larger section of the
population to cycle than we generally see on two wheels in the UK.


Evidence? Edinburgh spent large sums and the number of utility
cyclists apparently dropped.

The evidence is very clear. The OECD international study published in 1998
"Safety of Vulnerable Road Users" (doc. no DSTI/DOT/RTR/RS7(98)1/FINAL)
shows how the age and gender profiles of cyclists vary from country to
country. This evidence was summarised in my & Paul Gannon's article in the
October 2002 London Cyclist. It shows how those developed countries with
high cycling levels, which are universally those with well-developed cycle
networks, all have an almost equal distribution of men and women on bikes
and a smooth linear decline of cycling with increasing age. Those places
with low cycling levels (like the UK) have a very large imbalance between
men and women cycling and fewer children and old people cycling. It becomes
obvious studying this that the only way we can substantially increase
cycling in the UK is to increase the uptake in the under-represented groups:
women, children and older people, and therefore we have to address their
concerns about the safety and pleasantness of the cycling environment,
rather than make policy for the group who already cycle here (the young men
between ages 20 and 30).

What I am advocating primarily are urban on-road but segregated cycle tracks
on the Dutch pattern. There are none of these in Edinburgh (so far as I am
aware) and few in the UK, so discussions of UK cities (including Stevenage &
Milton Keynes) are of limited relevance to my argument.
There is a long-term high
user base in these countries.

No, usage in 1950 was similar in the UK. The divergence has occurred since
then and corresponded to a divergence in planning policy. In other places,
some Italian towns and cities particularly, in recent years a high level of
usage has been built up through appropriate planning measures where there
was not a high level of cycling before.


My friend Arnold is Dutch and rides 15 miles per day in the
UK; his view is that the cycle paths here are a disaster because we
lack the Dutch laws of presumed fault, and we lack Dutch levels of
cycling so the drivers for the most part aren't properly aware of
cyclists, and we lack Dutch planners who know how to deal with
junctions fractionally better than we do, and we lack the Dutch
commitment to putting bikes first.

He is right that there are various elements to it. There are attitudinal
changes needed that take a long time. But it is possible to get the details
of the engineering right with the right expertise and sufficient money
immediately. The knowledge exists, and we should be using it.

John Hearns wrote:
Speed limits don't apply to bicycles

Well perhaps they should, but actually, I don't think speed as such is a big
issue.

I will agree that we need leisure routes too, eg. along the Thames and
the Waterlink Way etc. in London, which will probably get used by
beginning commuters.
But there's no way people in (say) SE London will commute up to the West
End if they cannot use the Old Kent Road.


I don't advocate preventing cyclists from using any route they want (and in
Holland they are allowed to use all roads other than those of motorway
standard, just like here, and they do). But also, I don't accept the
equation between cycle tracks or paths and "leisure use", or indeed
"beginning commuters". If they are well enough done they are "universal
use", for leisure and commuting, and suitable for all cyclists of almost all
levels of experience and fitness.

I regularly cycle a journey of about 13 miles, Edgware to the City. I need
to do it quite quickly. The quickest way in the middle section is to use the
largely segregated Somers Town cycle route in Camden. I also use some
sections of segregated track in Islington. These are actually beneficial to
the faster cyclist since they allow one to avoid the congestion and larger
number of controlled junctions on the main roads, as well as being obviously
more pleasant to use for beginners. In the outer-London parts of my journey,
where there are no cycle facilities at all, I see few other cyclists, and
they are all fast. In south Camden, where cycle facilities are present, the
jump in cycling levels is very striking, and also the sudden spread of types
of cyclist, fast, slow, young and old, male and female.

My experiences suggest to me that cycling uptake is a tremendously localised
phenomenon (on a scale of 1-2 miles) and depends in a very detailed way on
the quality of the environment (and not much on social factors such as race
or class). This is because people like John and I will always be a small
minority. Most people only want to cycle a couple of miles. I agree that we
should not do anything that gets unnecessarily in the way of those who do
want to cycle further and faster, and I believe good design would not do
that.

David Arditti

  #70  
Old May 25th 04, 02:05 PM
David Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes

On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:03:30 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
wrote this:-

Except for the golf balls. When asked about this the official of
Fife Council claimed that all cyclists should wear helmets.


CTC day last year we were shown around St. A's and the cycling stuff
they'd done there. The chap giving the tour (can't remember his name,
I'm afraid) seemed to show a good grasp of Clues. He took us round the
tour on an old 10 speed while not wearing a helmet, a good sign, I think!


The official I am talking about managed to upset almost everyone and
her contract was not renewed.

the cycle track through Guardbridge


Complete cock-up, isn't it?


Yes.

Hopefully Guardbridge will see
similar upgeading, though in that case you could achieve everything
required by just taking out any attempt at cycle paths.


That would be ideal, but would reduce their "km of cycle facility"
figure.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
if you wanted maximum braking, where would you sit? wle Techniques 133 November 18th 15 03:10 AM
buying my first road bike Tanya Quinn General 28 June 17th 10 10:42 AM
Trips for Kids 13th Annual Bike Swap & Sale Marilyn Price Marketplace 0 June 1st 04 04:52 AM
Convert Hybrid to Touring bike Willy Smallboy Techniques 23 March 26th 04 02:03 PM
FAQ Just zis Guy, you know? UK 27 September 5th 03 10:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.