UK and Europe · Public discussion

Hans Monderman dead- criticism from cyclists.

Started by spindrift · · Last activity · 6 posts · 582 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
21 January 2008
Last activity
22 January 2008
Original author
spindrift
Posts
6
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
582
Views / 30 days
3
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–6 of 6
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. I feel the English speaking (and possibly other) countries have far
    more interest in Monderman's shared space schemes than they should
    have. This, sadly, seems to be particularly true of cyclists in those
    countries, even though they have the most to lose.

    His schemes are not nearly as popular here, where people have
    experienced them, as they are overseas where people generally have
    not.

    We have a few Shared Space areas in Assen. Personally I avoid them as
    they offer the least pleasant cycling conditions in the city. New
    plans in he city are not for this kind of road, but for more
    traditional Dutch fully segregated paths.

    I’m not alone in finding these ideas to be a problem. Back in
    November, the Fietsersbond newsletter was critical of these schemes as
    exposing cyclists to additional danger and causing people not to
    cycle. They described them as merely an “architects dream”, say that
    they encourage bullying by drivers and bemoan that people are put of
    cycling due to them.

    Virtually all references to shared space which are written in Dutch
    include at least some critical comments. e.g. the following:

    On this page Hans acknowledges that he has been the subject of hype,
    and the feedback is from someone who lives in one of the towns where
    he lives and who doesn’t much like what has happened to it “Not
    everyone is so enthusiastic about Monderman’s ideas” “I live in Haren…
    now many residents find the situation is not so safe”:

    Or this obituary in a quality national newspaper, which also includes
    negative comments in the 4th paragraph: “But there are also criticisms
    heard. Not all drivers like cyclists on the road…”

    It is normally very rare to see cyclists riding on pavements over
    here, but that’s what you see where these schemes exist.

    In some situations these things might work. I think the initial
    success is due merely to the novelty of it all, which soon wears off
    and results in “might is right” taking over the roads.

    Last Sunday I rode to Oosterwolde, a “Shared Space” town, to take some
    photos of what a whole-hearted use of these principles results in.

    It was very like entering a typical English market town. Just after
    the town name sign I found myself leaving the (excellent) cycle path
    I’d been on for the 25 km ride to Oosterwolde and found myself on a
    road with speeding cars passing much too close. At a huge open square
    I had to accelerate rapidly to get out of the way of a van which
    emerged from a side street at considerable speed. Not pleasant at all!

    On the other hand, this is a more normal Dutch city centre, served by
    high quality segregated cycle paths:

    Guess which location has more cyclists in it.

    I’d really like to see the hyping of these ideas calm down a little so
    that we can get back to trying to promote real safe conditions for
    cyclists.

    I’m sorry to hear of the death of Hans Monderman, but let’s not make
    him a saint.

    http://www.velorution.biz/?p=1409

  2. "spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    I feel the English speaking (and possibly other) countries have far
    more interest in Monderman's shared space schemes than they should
    have. This, sadly, seems to be particularly true of cyclists in those
    countries, even though they have the most to lose.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Interesting: the gist seems to be : Shared spaces schemes out. Fully
    segregated schemes in. Cyclists off the road!

    pk

  3. spindrift apparently quoting from <http://www.velorution.biz/?p=1409>:

    Quoted message said:

    I feel the English speaking (and possibly other) countries have far
    more interest in Monderman's shared space schemes than they should
    have. This, sadly, seems to be particularly true of cyclists in those
    countries, even though they have the most to lose.

    It is normally very rare to see cyclists riding on pavements over
    here, but that’s what you see where these schemes exist.

    I'm guessing then that it /doesn't/ adhere to the Monderman philosophy,
    which removes the concept of "pavements".

    Quoted message said:

    Last Sunday I rode to Oosterwolde, a “Shared Space” town, to take some
    photos of what a whole-hearted use of these principles results in.

    Again, _not_ a typically Monderman compliant scheme, one of the defining
    characteristics of which is the absence of pedestrian barriers.

    Quoted message said:

    On the other hand, this is a more normal Dutch city centre, served by
    high quality segregated cycle paths:

    An interesting comment, the writer seems to favour fully segregated
    cycling facilities.

    Quoted message said:

    I’d really like to see the hyping of these ideas calm down a little

    Based on ignorance of what they actually are?

    Quoted message said:

    so
    that we can get back to trying to promote real safe conditions for
    cyclists.

    With segregation? I thought the evidence was that they are the most
    dangerous way to accommodate cycling.

    --
    Matt B

  4. PK said:

    "spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    news:[email hidden]...

    I feel the English speaking (and possibly other) countries have far
    more interest in Monderman's shared space schemes than they should
    have. This, sadly, seems to be particularly true of cyclists in those
    countries, even though they have the most to lose.

    Interesting: the gist seems to be : Shared spaces schemes out. Fully
    segregated schemes in. Cyclists off the road!

    pk

    That's just one comment in the piece. Maybe they mean "Given
    Monderman's failed scheme or segregated facilities I'll take
    segregated".

    The truism that increased numbers of cyclists on the roads makes the
    roads themselves safer holds firm:

    Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
    bicycling
    P L Jacobsen

    Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
    and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase
    the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective
    route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

    http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/9/3/205

    More cycling is making UK roads safer
    Oct 20th
    CTC has welcomed news that an increase in cycling has made it safer to
    cycle on UK roads.
    Basing its figures on Department for Transport statistics, CTC
    estimates that cycle use in the UK has increased by 10 per cent since
    1993, and that the rate of reported pedal casualties has decreased by
    more than 34
    per cent over the same period.

    Roger Geffen, CTC campaigns and policy manager, said:

    "The relationship between increased cycle use and reduced cycle
    casualties found in mainland Europe also holds for Britain - the more
    people that cycle, the safer it is to cycle."

    http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/22045/More-cycling-is-making-UK-roads-safer

    The more people cycle, the more aware drivers become and the safer the
    roads are for cyclists.

    http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/4188.aspx

    CYCLING MAKES ROADS SAFER!

    Recent statistics gathered throughout the UK confirm that an increase
    in cycle use leads to safer roads. Apart from the fact that drivers
    who also cycle tend to be more aware of other road users, more
    cyclists on the road ensures that even drivers who don't cycle are
    more likely to expect the presence of cyclists, motorcyclists and
    pedestrians.

    http://www.cyclingscotland.org/didyouknow.aspx

    After all, the more people who take up cycling, the safer it will be
    for all road users, not just for cyclists - hence the conference
    title:

    "Safer Cycling = More Cycling = Safer Cycling = More Cycling = Safer
    Cycling = More Cycling ....."

    http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4802

    Perception is a big problem here," says Wilson. "Unsurprisingly, many
    people think cycling is dangerous but it has been proved that the more
    cyclists there are on the road, the safer it is per cyclist. Drivers
    get used to them."

    http://motoring.independent.co.uk/features/article1088929.ece

    Cycle journeys in the capital have risen by 100 per cent since 2000
    and have met the Mayor Ken Livingstone's cycling targets five years
    early.

    http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=5944

    So a doubling in eight years.

    And the accident rate?

    In cities where cycling levels are very buoyant such as York and
    London, cycling is getting safer. Cycling in London has doubled in 5
    years, and the numbers killed have dropped by almost 50 per cent since
    the mid-90s.

    A statement from CTC said: "It is important not to take single years
    in isolation as fluctuations can happen when small numbers are
    concerned. Since the mid 90s the number of cyclists who have been
    killed or seriously injured has fallen by 37 per cent - from 3,732 to
    2,360 per year."

    http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/19243/Adult-cyclist-fatalities-up-child-cyclist-fatalities-down

    I can only think of a couple of segregated cycle lanes in Central
    London.

  5. spindrift said:
    PK said:

    "spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    I feel the English speaking (and possibly other) countries have far
    more interest in Monderman's shared space schemes than they should
    have. This, sadly, seems to be particularly true of cyclists in those
    countries, even though they have the most to lose.

    Interesting: the gist seems to be : Shared spaces schemes out. Fully
    segregated schemes in. Cyclists off the road!

    That's just one comment in the piece. Maybe they mean "Given
    Monderman's failed scheme or segregated facilities I'll take
    segregated".

    Yet they demonstrate their ignorance of Monderman schemes, so the point
    would be valueless.

    Quoted message said:

    The truism that increased numbers of cyclists on the roads makes the
    roads themselves safer holds firm:

    Another reason to support Monderman schemes then.

    --
    Matt B

  6. spindrift said:

    Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
    bicycling P L Jacobsen

    Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
    and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase
    the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective
    route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.
    http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/9/3/205

    Encouraging, but there has been a general reduction in road casualties
    over that period.

    Quoted message said:

    More cycling is making UK roads safer
    Oct 20th
    CTC has welcomed news that an increase in cycling has made it safer to
    cycle on UK roads.
    Basing its figures on Department for Transport statistics, CTC
    estimates that cycle use in the UK has increased by 10 per cent since
    1993, and that the rate of reported pedal casualties has decreased by
    more than 34 per cent over the same period.

    Roger Geffen, CTC campaigns and policy manager, said:
    "The relationship between increased cycle use and reduced cycle
    casualties found in mainland Europe also holds for Britain - the more
    people that cycle, the safer it is to cycle."

    Roger will know that the figure is useless without something to
    compare it with. The best control is pedestrians - what has happened
    to their numbers and casualty rates over the same period?

    Quoted message said:

    Cycle journeys in the capital have risen by 100 per cent since 2000
    and have met the Mayor Ken Livingstone's cycling targets five years
    early.

    Quoted message said:

    In cities where cycling levels are very buoyant such as York and
    London, cycling is getting safer. Cycling in London has doubled in 5
    years, and the numbers killed have dropped by almost 50 per cent since
    the mid-90s.

    That sounds like a real effect, but pedestrian casualties have dropped
    too so it's not as big as it looks.

    Quoted message said:

    I can only think of a couple of segregated cycle lanes in Central
    London.

    Plenty of routes through parks, some embankment.

    Colin McKenzie

    --
    No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
    the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
    walking.
    Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.