On Jan 14, 8:43 am, Peter Clinch <
[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > In fact, Tony is well aware that there is no solid evidence that
> > segregated tracks are more dangerous than road cycling.
>
> It rather depends on one's definition of "solid", but John Franklin's
> page on infrastructure will give you a few starts on the matter.
>
> My beef with Tony's arguments aren't that there's nothing in them at
> all, but that he appeared to me to be applying what evidence there was
> far more liberally than was reasonable. An overall drop in safety for a
> parallel network is /not/ the same as "any parallel track is necessarily
> worse".
>
> > well aware that those countries which have extensive provision of
> > cycling tracks are also those countries which have higher levels of
> > cycling, better safety and, absolutely critically, a much better age
> > and gender cyclist profile.
>
> They correlate, yes, but is it causal? I'm not aware of evidence that
> it is. ISTM that countries that had a vibrant cycling culture happened
> to go in for parallel tracks in a big way. Look at UK cases where these
> are provided like the MK Redways and there wasn't any great cycling
> renaissance, but there /are/ islands of cycling in the UK and they don't
> necessarily have big parallel track networks. What they do have is a
> history of a cycling culture. And then you can look at places like
> London which has neither a large segregated track network or a great
> history of cycling, where cycling has become remarkably popular for
> economic reasons.
>
> So on the one hand you accuse Tony of trying to stretch the evidence too
> thinly, where I'd agree, but then you turn around and stretch it right
> back just as badly the other way...
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Thaks for some reasonably expressed arguments. I have studied
Franklin's material closely, which cites other sources. Having then
looked at those other sources, it is clear to me at least that the
evidence is wholly unconvincing regarding the assertion that
segregated tracks are less safe. I repeat, that is from looking at
the primary studies, not at Franklin's representation of them.
Having been involved in promoting segregated tracks I'm genuinely
interested in whether any evidence does exist on this matter. The
conclusion I have drawn is that there is no such evidence and the
matter is inconclusive. You will note the reluctance of those who
claim this to come up with the actual primary evidence.
Re the continental countries, you are right that there is no proof of
causal link. It's a matter of interpretation. From my researches
cycling levels were comparable before WWII in the UK and other North-
European countries, so unless you mean by 'cycling culture' some
indefinable spiritual attraction or similar, rather than numbers, I
don't buy the culture argument.
I am more impressed by the argument that post-WWII policies have had
an effect in what has happened, rather than references to
insubstantial cultural factors. It is difficult to see what common
cultural factors unite countries so diverse as the Netherlands,
Denmark, Norway, Finland, parts of Switzerland and parts of Germany
(though I accept it's easy in a country that tends to see all them
Europeans as the same and different from us in the UK, but that is
cultural ignorance, not fact). What does appear in common is the
pursuit of policies aimed at preventing/reducing the shift away from
cycling that was common in European countries after WWII.
So, you are right that there is no proven scientific causal factor,
but there is the clear political fact that policies aimed at something
have achieved it. Different policies in the UK had a different
effect.
Paul Gannon
