Connect2



Quoting Danny Colyer <[email protected]>:
>Still funded by taxation, though, which I imagine was probably David's
>point.

Well, that's part of it, but frankly I think to suggest that the Lottery
Fund isn't the state spending money is daft. The money comes from a
lottery permitted by the government; the amount of money is controlled by
the government; and if the government don't like the destination or the
theatrics used to distribute the money, you can bet they'll do something
to make sure it doesn't happen again.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Olethros, January - a weekend.
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>>Why are local councils so careless in their design?
> My guess is that they don't know any better. A lot of the problem being
> that your average council traffic engineer probably doesn't ride a bike
> that often on the roads and doesn't appreciate the problems.

In my experience, a lot of the thinking starts with whether or not
there's space for a separate cycle track. If there is, and money's
available, it gets put in regardless of benefit.

> What I don't think we're in a position to say is that a separate track
> is a desirable default. They should be put in where they can be
> identified as a very helpful way to spend whatever it costs (such as a
> fast single carriageway road with poor overtaking opportunities but
> plenty of traffic and few junctions to lose right of way on linking
> places where cycles will be likely to travel to and from).

My rule of thumb is never segregate where the speed limit is below 40.
At 40 or above, start asking the questions you list.

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.
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> '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.
>
> But you've said more tracks means more (new) cyclists, so where are they?
>
>> 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.
>
> Causation, or just correlation? I don't see anything you've come up
> with necessitates assuming the former.
>
>> 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.
>
> That's just a complete assumption that doesn't take any account of a
> raft of factors, particularly cultural factors.
>
>> 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.
>
> I usually take quite good care in carefully qualifying my statements
> with words like "typically". There is a greater overall standard of
> bike-awareness in NL, and while on the one hand it surely isn't perfect,
> the fact that it *is* higher than the UK is quite a crucial factor in
> how a UK system would work (or not). You won't magically change driver
> attitude by building a lot of tracks, AFAICT.
>
>> 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?
>
> Cycling is a normal everyday thing in the NL. In the UK it is for
> Special People, or to put it another way, geeks. Geeks are much better
> represented in the male half of the population. Or, in other words, it
> is almost entirely due to the difference in cycling culture: general
> transportation against special interest sport/leisure. Note how the
> perfectly ordinary thing of driving in the UK has a far more even gender
> balance, because it's normal rather than something out of the ordinary.
> In NL cycling is completely ordinary, in the UK it is not.
>
>> And, again, please account for why this cultural explanation applies
>> to such diverse countries as those I listed?
>
> I am not sufficiently well versed in the day to day life of them all to
> try, but that doesn't mean the effect is not there. I cannot account
> for the cultural difference that explains why the Scots' diet is the
> unhealthiest in the developed world, and I've lived here for 18 years.
> Can you account for it? If you can't, does that make it a myth?
>
>> 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.
>
> So again I ask, would you expect the same levels of driver deference to
> cyclists in NL as in the UK in a random case? If you can't, wouldn't
> that make for a difference in the interaction of cars and bikes at right
> of way conflicts?
>
Here we are again cyclists arguing against cycle path provision.
I wish more people with extensive ie years of experience cycling in Europe
would post on this topic.
I have spent months commuting-touring-cycling in France Germany Switzerland
even the Canaries.
Its very obvious to me that
1 We are one of the richest nations-but-cyclist facilities paths etc are
almost zero in supply this is reflected in our national journeys by bike
figure of a shamefull 1.5%.
2 British car drivers-of which I am one are much less aware of cyclists on
the road-I put that down to the fact that in Europe where its rather flat ie
all along northern Europe most car drivers cycle extensively at some point
in their lives.
Even in vertical Switzerland motorists are very carefull when getting close
to cycles.
Cycle path provision and facility supply are absolute musts for moving
ordinary punters on to cycle commuting-or cycle anything.
Tam
 
> Cycle path provision and facility supply are absolute musts for moving
> ordinary punters on to cycle commuting-or cycle anything.

I'd be more general and say that the perception that cycling is both
stress-free and safe is the absolute must. Cycle paths and the like may
help this, but are not top of the list, and whilst the designing of these
facilities is off such a poor standard it's not a surprise that many
(most?) experienced cyclists would rather they were not there at all.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> As I said above, I will respond to some of the papers cited on
> Franklin's website, but I appeal once again, is there anyone who has
> actually seen and carefully assessed for themselves any primary
> evidence on the issue of the alleged danger of segregated tracks? And
> if so, please cite the details.
> Paul Gannon

It might be worth looking at some of John Foresters work[1]
John argues that bike tracks increase the danger to cyclists at
junctions, and also do not give cyclists the skills we need when we move
onto proper roads.

I can't find any direct stats. on accident rates per mile cycled on
tracks vs. roads, but he go into other accident stats., which he claims
show roads are safer.

I am getting tired now so will read some more of this tommorow.

e.g. [2]

> Conclusions
>
> 1. Bikeways of practical, street-level design have not been shown to either reduce the accident rate at the same travel speed or to allow increased speed at the same accident rate, in comparison with cycling on the roadway with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles.
> 2. The arguments of bikeway advocates have been shown to be without scientific basis.
> 3. Acquiring competence in cycling on the roadway with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles has been shown to be by far the most effective means of reducing accidents to cyclists.
> 4. Most people, from early ages, can learn in reasonable time to ride competently and lawfully on the roadway with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles.

[3] quotes about various papers he has written, and commented upon
others work.

> Effect of Bikelane System Design Upon Cyclists' Traffic Errors
>
> This measures cyclists' behavior in cities with different types of bike-lane system. The differences demonstrate that bike-lane system design affects the types of errors that cyclists (and motorists) make, that bike-lane systems delay or prevent cyclists from learning how to ride properly, and that good club cyclists have learned to ride properly despite the systems' errors.

> Report on Portland's Blue Bike Lanes
>
> At ten bike-laned intersections which apparently were unusually dangerous, Portland OR painted the bike lane blue where motorists crossed it. The object was to persuade motorists to yield to cyclists, even though that was the opposite of normal traffic law. This installation was investigated by the Highway Safety Research Center of the University of North Carolina. Their report demonstrates that they know nothing at all about proper traffic operation, at least when the think of cyclists.



[1]
http://www.johnforester.com/
[2]
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Facilities/TransQuart01.htm
[3]
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/facilities.htm
 
In article <[email protected]>, tam wrote:
>>
>2 British car drivers-of which I am one are much less aware of cyclists on
>the road

I wonder what we could do to improve that? Oh yes, encourage cyclists
onto off-road paths so drivers see even less of them, that'll help
raise awareness of cyclists on the road. </sarcasm>
 
[email protected] wrote:

> My experience
> of cycling in the Netherlands was that it transformed the 'cycling
> experience', making it so very much more pleasant than cycling on the
> roads.

I find it a lot nicer too, but not particularly because I'm not on the
roads (often you /are/ on the roads,
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/pix/ddbb3-3.jpg or
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/pix/ddbb5-1.jpg and Look! No
fietspad, and there are plenty of narrow city lanes with shared traffic
too), but because drivers treat me with considerably greater deference,
including giving way to me coming off a fietspad /when they have clearly
marked right of way/. I can't really see *that* being common in the UK
no matter /what/ the quality of the tracks was.

There have certainly been times cycling in NL (and I've done much less
than you, about two weeks worth) where it's been a bit of pain having to
use the fietspad and the road next to it would have been quicker and
more convenient, and I don't really want that.

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/
 
tam wrote:

> Here we are again cyclists arguing against cycle path provision.
> I wish more people with extensive ie years of experience cycling in Europe
> would post on this topic.
> I have spent months commuting-touring-cycling in France Germany Switzerland
> even the Canaries.
> Its very obvious to me that
> 1 We are one of the richest nations-but-cyclist facilities paths etc are
> almost zero in supply this is reflected in our national journeys by bike
> figure of a shamefull 1.5%.

Again this rather assumes correlation and causation are both there
together, but that isn't a safe conclusion. i.e., cycle paths get made
when you have lots of cyclists is another way, it isn't necessarily so
that you get lost of cyclists by putting in tracks. if the basic reason
is (as I suspect it is) that people are too attached to their cars in
the UK and see cycling as something for other people (and cycle tracks
won't remove the cold or the wet or add to the status of the vehicle)
then all the tracks you can dream about won't actually change things much.

> 2 British car drivers-of which I am one are much less aware of cyclists on
> the road-I put that down to the fact that in Europe where its rather flat ie
> all along northern Europe most car drivers cycle extensively at some point
> in their lives.

This is true, but isn't necessarily much to do with whether or not there
are cycle tracks.

> Cycle path provision and facility supply are absolute musts for moving
> ordinary punters on to cycle commuting-or cycle anything.

So how come cycling has been historically very popular in Cambridge
without much of it? How come cycling has shot up by a huge amount in
London without much of it? And there are good answers to each, but they
demonstrate that "facilities" are just one factor, and not necessarily a
dominant one.

It's a happy and common assumption that tracks generate cyclists, but I
don't see clear evidence beyond people saying "it's clear".

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/
 
Quoting tam <[email protected]>:
>Here we are again cyclists arguing against cycle path provision.

But it never occurs to you to wonder why?

>1 We are one of the richest nations-but-cyclist facilities paths etc are
>almost zero in supply this is reflected in our national journeys by bike
>figure of a shamefull 1.5%.

Correlation still does not imply causation.

>2 British car drivers-of which I am one are much less aware of cyclists on
>the road-I put that down to the fact that in Europe where its rather flat ie
>all along northern Europe most car drivers cycle extensively at some point
>in their lives.

Congratulations - you've just listed a reason why fewer people might cycle
here which has nothing to do with path provision.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Monday, January.
 
Mark T <pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
> MJ Ray writted:
> > Please address messages to the group rather than individuals.
>
> It was a question to Paul.

So send an email.

> Your brief comments were interesting, but IMO
> absolutely did not show that Franklin had misrepresented the results of the
> studies.

At least in the LAW one, it's very selective quoting bordering on
misrepresentation. I wonder whether the less publicly-verifiable ones are
similarly resummarised.

Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
 
On Jan 16, 10:25 pm, David Damerell <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Quoting   <[email protected]>:
>
> >Second, I must admit to an big error.  I did not make it clear that
> >when I refer to segregated tracks I am talking about 'high-quality
> >continental-style cycle tracks'.
>
> And so it's of these that the best you can say is that you don't suppose
> there is evidence that they are _more_ dangerous?
>
> Robbed of the weasel words, that means even you are conceding that there
> is not the slightest evidence that they do any good. So why waste money on
> them?
>
> >overall picture.  The key point is that there is a clear correlation
> >between tracks (ie high-quality, continental-style) and better safety,
> >more cyclists and a better age and gender profile of cyclists.)
>
> And correlation still does not imply causation. "Gender profile"? Are you
> suggesting you need a penis to ride a bicycle on the road?
> --
> David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
> Today is Second Olethros, January - a weekend.

My error. It never occurred to me that anyone would think I was
making such a suggestion by reporting some good reliable
internationally reliable statistics. (And anyway, you missed the bit
about the age profile - unless you imagine that older men don't have
penises.)

Now, there's nothing wrong with a good bit of penis obsession - can be
very pleasant - but one should not try and reduce the whole discussion
to that one (little) thing.

Do you need to be a certain sort of person to cycle on the roads?
Yes. What sort of person? Now that's an interesting question that,
if we were to have a sensible discussion, we could begin to address,
but your comment shows how diffiuclt that would be.

So, I think it probably far more productive to keep on plugging away
at the most important question of all - 'how do we get more women and
older people cycling?' and the obvious starting point ) is to look at
places where they have achieved that and think seriously about what is
different there.

Paul Gannon
 
On Jan 17, 8:05 am, [email protected] (Alan Braggins) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, tam wrote:
>
> >2 British car drivers-of which I am one  are much less aware of cyclists on
> >the road
>
> I wonder what we could do to improve that? Oh yes, encourage cyclists
> onto off-road paths so drivers see even less of them, that'll help
> raise awareness of cyclists on the road. </sarcasm>

But, as Tam and others have pointed out (correctly from my experience)
you do get a better approach from motor drivers in other countries
which do have such facilities, so your argument is clearly counter-
evidential.
Paul Gannonbbb
 
[email protected] wrote:

> But, as Tam and others have pointed out (correctly from my experience)
> you do get a better approach from motor drivers in other countries
> which do have such facilities, so your argument is clearly counter-
> evidential.

Once again, you are assuming causation from correlation, although there
is no particularly obvious reason, at least to me, why you can viably do
that.

Is the better approach because people are on the tracks? Are there more
of them /because/ of the tracks? Or are there tracks because there are
more people? It's not clear, so you should stop assuming it is.

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/
 
In news:b46a475d-e8fa-46fa-a8c4-5b0b087ec96c@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
[email protected] <[email protected]> tweaked the
Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> On Jan 17, 8:05 am, [email protected] (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, tam
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2 British car drivers-of which I am one are much less aware of
>>> cyclists on the road
>>
>> I wonder what we could do to improve that? Oh yes, encourage cyclists
>> onto off-road paths so drivers see even less of them, that'll help
>> raise awareness of cyclists on the road. </sarcasm>
>
> But, as Tam and others have pointed out (correctly from my experience)
> you do get a better approach from motor drivers in other countries
> which do have such facilities, so your argument is clearly counter-
> evidential.

Or could it be that you get a better approach from motorists in other
countries because they are not taught from an early age that anyone on a
bicycle is a form of vermin? France is fairly low in such things, yet I
have never encountered any hostility from motons while cycling there.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the
diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which
interest dictates and credulity encourages.
 
[email protected] wrote in news:6de724a6-a004-4ddb-8f83-
[email protected]:

> I think it probably far more productive to keep on plugging away
> at the most important question of all - 'how do we get more women and
> older people cycling?' and the obvious starting point ) is to look at
> places where they have achieved that and think seriously about what is
> different there.

Even more obvious: ask 'em why they aren't cycling. IME it normally comes
down to the perception of danger. This is one of the things cycle tracks
etc can help with even if, taken as a whole, they haven't added to safety.
 
>> > Please address messages to the group rather than individuals.
>>
>> It was a question to Paul.
>
> So send an email.

Please stop being a twit.

>> Your brief comments were interesting, but IMO
>> absolutely did not show that Franklin had misrepresented the results
>> of the studies.
>
> At least in the LAW one, it's very selective quoting bordering on
> misrepresentation. I wonder whether the less publicly-verifiable ones
> are similarly resummarised.

Could you give a little more detail? So far the criticism of Franklin's
work has been too general and unspecific.

(I'm assuming you were referring to this one):
<www.bikexprt.com/research/kaplan/recom.htm>
 
[email protected] wrote:

> So, I think it probably far more productive to keep on plugging away
> at the most important question of all - 'how do we get more women and
> older people cycling?' and the obvious starting point ) is to look at
> places where they have achieved that and think seriously about what is
> different there.

What is obviously different is that they are cycling there because they
never stopped cycling as yound adults, where in the UK cycling quite
typically stops for transportation purposes as soon as the person (or at
least of their friends) can afford a car. After this point cycling is
generally seen as a sporting recreation, and men are far keener when it
comes to sporting recreations than women.

So what you need to do is get past the perception that the clear way to
get about for an adult is by car, including accounting for the high
status of a car and the low status of a bike, and you also need to get
over the way the UK cycle trade markets the great majority of its wares
at sporting cyclists (this is improving over the case as it was even 5
years ago, but compare almsot any UK cycle shop with a dutch one and
it's very clear the bikes available are being sold for different
purposes to a different market).

Note how the above is a coherent explanation that never once needs to
rely on the existence or not of separate cycle tracks. You continue to
assume "if we build it, they will come", but that's not a safe
assumption. You continue to assume that there is no difference in the
cycling culture, but a look inside a random cycle shop in NL and then
one in the UK will very soon dispel any possible doubts, again
irrespective of how many cycle tracks past the door.

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/
 
Mark T wrote:

> Even more obvious: ask 'em why they aren't cycling. IME it normally comes
> down to the perception of danger. This is one of the things cycle tracks
> etc can help with even if, taken as a whole, they haven't added to safety.

IME saftey is just one of the make-do reasons trotted out, where the
real reason underpinning it is simply that people in the UK are not in
the habit of cycling and they are in the habit of driving. People need
a really good reason to change habitual behaviour, and "less dangerous
than I thought" doesn't really cut the mustard. You need something like
"obviously quicker and cheaper".

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/
 
Quoting <[email protected]>:
>On Jan 16, 10:25=A0pm, David Damerell <[email protected]>
>>Robbed of the weasel words, that means even you are conceding that there
>>is not the slightest evidence that they do any good. So why waste money on
>>them?

I notice you haven't answered this question.

>>>overall picture. =A0The key point is that there is a clear correlation
>>>between tracks (ie high-quality, continental-style) and better safety,
>>>more cyclists and a better age and gender profile of cyclists.)
>>And correlation still does not imply causation. "Gender profile"? Are you
>>suggesting you need a penis to ride a bicycle on the road?
>My error. It never occurred to me that anyone would think I was
>making such a suggestion by reporting some good reliable
>internationally reliable statistics.

"Reliable" twice, no less.

Of course you aren't making such a suggestion - except inasmuch as it is
the logical but ridiculous conclusion from what you are trying to imply.
Of course, if the conclusion's ridiculous...

>(And anyway, you missed the bit about the age profile

Well, no; I just picked the sillyest bit.

>Now, there's nothing wrong with a good bit of penis obsession - can be
>very pleasant - but one should not try and reduce the whole discussion
>to that one (little) thing.

Maybe you should answer the question you dodged, above, then?

>So, I think it probably far more productive to keep on plugging away
>at the most important question of all - 'how do we get more women and
>older people cycling?' and the obvious starting point ) is to look at
>places where they have achieved that and think seriously about what is
>different there.

And assume that correlation is causation, which saves us from doing any
actual thinking.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Monday, January.
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote in news:5v90sbF1kscfoU1
@mid.individual.net:

> you also need to get
> over the way the UK cycle trade markets the great majority of its wares
> at sporting cyclists

It's a chicken-and-egg situation. I've worked in a large bike shop which
had an excellent range of modern town bikes. Great bikes but they didn't
sell - they hardly got looked at. The non-sports bikes that sold were ones
that looked like mountain bikes, or that were wheely cheap.

Thinking about it a little more, the cycle trade will happily target non-
sporting cyclists if it made financial sense to do so. It's not really
chicken and egg at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Connect2 phone voting
Replies
37
Views
785
UK and Europe
Danny Colyer
D
M
Sustrans Connect2 projects, vote early vote often!
Replies
7
Views
482
UK and Europe
MJ Ray
M
Top Bottom Back