P
On Jan 15, 11:10 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On the demand side - I have a newspaper clipping from a Belgian
> > newspaper, dated in 1991, reporting a demonstration of 10,000 cyclists
> > in one province (equivalent of a small UK county)
>
> a /remarkably/ small one!
> But demand is not the same thing as efficacy.
>
> > tracks. The Dutch Cyclists Union has an item about the cycle track in
> > central Hague and showing that Dutch cyclists wanted more of the
> > same. Even John Franklin reports that he discussed the issue with
> > Dutch cycle traffic engineers and he was told that the reason they
> > continued with implementing cycle tracks was because of public
> > demand.
>
> But again this is in a wholly different context. The oft cited problem
> of right of way conflicts from a fietspad is a considerably less
> dangerous point in NL because the drivers are more aware of bikes and
> treat them with much greater deference. You can't just say "it works
> there, so it'll work here"; if that was really the case then gun crime
> in Switzerland would be worse than it is in the US, but it just utterly
> misses important cultural factors.
>
> > On the supply side - I have Dutch sources from the 1970s and 1980s
> > which show that it was policy to implement cycle tracks in order to
> > prevent decline in cycling.
>
> Again, this is no indication of efficacy, and is in a different cultural
> climate.
>
> > So, you have to ignore all the historical evidence to get to your
> > viewpoint - which necessarily has to rely on cultural attitudes being
> > 'lost' without any attempt at explanation.
>
> It's simply a matter of saying what you see and experience. An
> explanation is another matter, but absence of an explanation does not
> mean you can't see what you can see or that it isn't there. Facts like
> cycling is far more popular in Cambridge than MK and Stevenage despite
> the latter two having specially designed and implemented separate cycle
> tracks and Cambridge not, or that Dutch motorists will give way to me
> /even when they have specific right of way/ far, far, far more often
> than a UK driver would be likely to. This isn't "ignoring historical
> evidence", it is simply stating immediately available empirical evidence.
>
> > but it is not coincidence that the only people who think that tracks
> > have nothing to do with high cycling levels in places which implement
> > them are people who are already opposed to them.
>
> Or perhaps they look at facts like a major expansion of track networks
> in NL and Germany after your clippings didn't actually boost numbers of
> cyclists to speak of?
>
> > And in place of this, it is necessary to invent cultural explanations
> > which, as I said, must be dubious if they are invoked to explain
> > countries as diverse as those I listed. These 'cultural' explanations
> > depend on a false idea of 'Europe' as one place, different from the
> > UK.
>
> So, do you think you'll get just as much deference from a typical UK
> driver as a typical NL driver in any given road situation? The cultural
> differences are very simple to spot simply by going to the places and
> riding. There is no requirement for a contrived explanation, it's very
> easy to experience first hand as something that simply *is*.
>
> > This is cycle policy formed in the ideological prism of the ideas
> > that led to the creation of the U Komplete Idiots Party (aka UKIP).
>
> Sorry Paul, but that's bollocks, and you're drifting quite thoroughly
> off the track and resorting to just the same sort of "proof by
> statement" that you're saying is terrible in others.
>
> 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/
'You say: 'Or perhaps they look at facts like a major expansion of
track networks
in NL and Germany after your clippings didn't actually boost numbers
of
cyclists to speak of? ' (this is the critical point)
Population depends on birth rate and death rate. Cycling population
on the rate of new cyclists and ex-cyclists per year. It is obvious
to all (?) that segregated tracks are common in countries where the
rate of decline in cycling has not matched that of countries where
they haven't been implemented. This is due in part to the age profile
of cyclists in those countries (ie many more older cyclists in NL,
Denmark, etc). Therefore, segregated tracks clearly have had an
effect on overall cycling levels. They may not have boosted levels,
but they certainly prevented the decline that we witnessed here.
Having lived in the Hague for 3 years and Brussels for 3 years I have
plenty of personal awareness of the cultural differences - and
similarities - and also of the attitudes of people who cycle. The
reason why people who cycle in these countries want such facilities is
precisley because the idyllic 'car-driver giving way voluntarily to
cyclist' you describe is not a fully accurate depiction of what
happens day by day. Like all ordinary people they don't want to have
to cycle mixed up with cars. That's also why the gender balance of
cyclists is so different there than in the UK. What's your 'cultural'
explanation for that wierd fact?
And, again, please account for why this cultural explanation applies
to such diverse countries as those I listed? That is why my
conclusion is not 'Bow Locks' but an reasonable assessment of the
cultural context in which British attitudes to Europe are developed
and exchanged. Your 'cultural' explanation makes sense in the British
context, but would leave anyone from these countries utterly confused
and perplexed as to what unites them but not other countries.
Paul Gannon
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On the demand side - I have a newspaper clipping from a Belgian
> > newspaper, dated in 1991, reporting a demonstration of 10,000 cyclists
> > in one province (equivalent of a small UK county)
>
> a /remarkably/ small one!
> But demand is not the same thing as efficacy.
>
> > tracks. The Dutch Cyclists Union has an item about the cycle track in
> > central Hague and showing that Dutch cyclists wanted more of the
> > same. Even John Franklin reports that he discussed the issue with
> > Dutch cycle traffic engineers and he was told that the reason they
> > continued with implementing cycle tracks was because of public
> > demand.
>
> But again this is in a wholly different context. The oft cited problem
> of right of way conflicts from a fietspad is a considerably less
> dangerous point in NL because the drivers are more aware of bikes and
> treat them with much greater deference. You can't just say "it works
> there, so it'll work here"; if that was really the case then gun crime
> in Switzerland would be worse than it is in the US, but it just utterly
> misses important cultural factors.
>
> > On the supply side - I have Dutch sources from the 1970s and 1980s
> > which show that it was policy to implement cycle tracks in order to
> > prevent decline in cycling.
>
> Again, this is no indication of efficacy, and is in a different cultural
> climate.
>
> > So, you have to ignore all the historical evidence to get to your
> > viewpoint - which necessarily has to rely on cultural attitudes being
> > 'lost' without any attempt at explanation.
>
> It's simply a matter of saying what you see and experience. An
> explanation is another matter, but absence of an explanation does not
> mean you can't see what you can see or that it isn't there. Facts like
> cycling is far more popular in Cambridge than MK and Stevenage despite
> the latter two having specially designed and implemented separate cycle
> tracks and Cambridge not, or that Dutch motorists will give way to me
> /even when they have specific right of way/ far, far, far more often
> than a UK driver would be likely to. This isn't "ignoring historical
> evidence", it is simply stating immediately available empirical evidence.
>
> > but it is not coincidence that the only people who think that tracks
> > have nothing to do with high cycling levels in places which implement
> > them are people who are already opposed to them.
>
> Or perhaps they look at facts like a major expansion of track networks
> in NL and Germany after your clippings didn't actually boost numbers of
> cyclists to speak of?
>
> > And in place of this, it is necessary to invent cultural explanations
> > which, as I said, must be dubious if they are invoked to explain
> > countries as diverse as those I listed. These 'cultural' explanations
> > depend on a false idea of 'Europe' as one place, different from the
> > UK.
>
> So, do you think you'll get just as much deference from a typical UK
> driver as a typical NL driver in any given road situation? The cultural
> differences are very simple to spot simply by going to the places and
> riding. There is no requirement for a contrived explanation, it's very
> easy to experience first hand as something that simply *is*.
>
> > This is cycle policy formed in the ideological prism of the ideas
> > that led to the creation of the U Komplete Idiots Party (aka UKIP).
>
> Sorry Paul, but that's bollocks, and you're drifting quite thoroughly
> off the track and resorting to just the same sort of "proof by
> statement" that you're saying is terrible in others.
>
> 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/
'You say: 'Or perhaps they look at facts like a major expansion of
track networks
in NL and Germany after your clippings didn't actually boost numbers
of
cyclists to speak of? ' (this is the critical point)
Population depends on birth rate and death rate. Cycling population
on the rate of new cyclists and ex-cyclists per year. It is obvious
to all (?) that segregated tracks are common in countries where the
rate of decline in cycling has not matched that of countries where
they haven't been implemented. This is due in part to the age profile
of cyclists in those countries (ie many more older cyclists in NL,
Denmark, etc). Therefore, segregated tracks clearly have had an
effect on overall cycling levels. They may not have boosted levels,
but they certainly prevented the decline that we witnessed here.
Having lived in the Hague for 3 years and Brussels for 3 years I have
plenty of personal awareness of the cultural differences - and
similarities - and also of the attitudes of people who cycle. The
reason why people who cycle in these countries want such facilities is
precisley because the idyllic 'car-driver giving way voluntarily to
cyclist' you describe is not a fully accurate depiction of what
happens day by day. Like all ordinary people they don't want to have
to cycle mixed up with cars. That's also why the gender balance of
cyclists is so different there than in the UK. What's your 'cultural'
explanation for that wierd fact?
And, again, please account for why this cultural explanation applies
to such diverse countries as those I listed? That is why my
conclusion is not 'Bow Locks' but an reasonable assessment of the
cultural context in which British attitudes to Europe are developed
and exchanged. Your 'cultural' explanation makes sense in the British
context, but would leave anyone from these countries utterly confused
and perplexed as to what unites them but not other countries.
Paul Gannon