Connect2



Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> 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".

I guess the traffic is less scary where you live. A decent study asking
ex-cyclists why they stopped would be illuminating. I'm guessing that
stolen bikes and safety would be the two main concerns.
 
Mark T wrote:

> I guess the traffic is less scary where you live. A decent study asking
> ex-cyclists why they stopped would be illuminating. I'm guessing that
> stolen bikes and safety would be the two main concerns.

Agreed, though why someone stops who is/was a regular adult cyclist is
not necessarily the same as why people just stop cycling when cars
become available in their peer group (including "parental taxi
services"). For the latter I think the main one is "I just didn't have
to do it any more".

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.

Isn't there a moral problem here? Should prospective cyclists be encouraged
to use the more dangerous cycling option, even if it agrees with their
mistaken perception?

Mike Sales
 
Mike Sales wrote:

> Isn't there a moral problem here? Should prospective cyclists be encouraged
> to use the more dangerous cycling option, even if it agrees with their
> mistaken perception?

It's not really that simple...

For example, if the actually low basic risk of cycling is made
/slightly/ higher, is it actually a problem if the extra health
engendered by the cycling outweighs the overall health reduction of more
accidents? Of course, that does presuppose that cycling rates will
increase, which I'm less sure of than Paul, but it illustrates there's
more to public health issues of road traffic than simple accident rates.

For me, the biggest problem with segregated facilities as a major policy
to follow is I suspect that their effect isn't actually /that/ big in
terms of safety(either negative or positive) or generation of new riders
but they still cost a lot (especially if you're retrofitting the much
vaunted "high quality" sort to places originally designed without such
things), and I'd frankly sooner spend the money on something else.

Back up there ^^^ somewhere people complained that they could think of
much better things to spend the 50 million lottery grant on for cycling,
but that missed the point that there wasn't the luxury of choice. You
either had Connect2, or you had nothing. At the overall policy level
that's not the case, and segregated "high quality" tracks need more
evidence than "someone says John Franklin's negative remarks aren't
really fair" before we get carried with pushing for lots of them.

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/
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
> [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.

There is a direct correlation between the number of cyclists, and the
accident rate per unit distance. (See the top right of www.cyclehelmets.org)

The more cyclists there are, the better drivers treat them, and thus the
fewer accidents there are. Drivers are also more likely to cycle themselves.
 
Martin Dann wrote:

> There is a direct correlation between the number of cyclists, and the
> accident rate per unit distance.

> The more cyclists there are, the better drivers treat them, and thus the
> fewer accidents there are. Drivers are also more likely to cycle
> themselves.

Jolly good. So does that mean cycle tracks are a good thing or a bad
thing, or neither, or you're not really sure? Note carefully that the
above statements don't mention them at all.

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/
 
"Mike Sales" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> 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.
>
> Isn't there a moral problem here? Should prospective cyclists be
> encouraged to use the more dangerous cycling option, even if it agrees
> with their mistaken perception?

As Pete pointed out, it's more a case of 'less safe' than 'more
dangerous' - cycling is perceived to be dangerous, but carries a similar
risk to walking.
 
Dave Larrington <[email protected]> wrote:

> In news:b46a475d-e8fa-46fa-a8c4-5b0b087ec96c@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
> [email protected] <[email protected]> tweaked the
> Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> > 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?

I was taught from an early age how to ride a bicycle. I was certainly
not taught that cyclists are a form of vermin. I don't believe that
people tend to read the works of Parris and Clarkson from an early age
so I'm really not sure what you are referring to here.

I do honestly believe that we need far more widespread [1] cycle
education here. As far as I'm aware, the local authority where I teach
offers none and nor did the last two (that was in 1998-2000, so things
may well have changed since).

Now, the last time we had this debate, I came to the conclusion that,
although cycle tracks can be dangerous where they intersect with roads,
good quality tracks can be helpful in getting people out of their cars
and onto bikes. This /must/ however be combined with education and the
tracks /must/ be of good quality.

On my last trip to the swimming pool, I took the opportunity to map for
OpenStreetMap the cycleway that links the outskirts of Preston with the
leisure centre. The access to the track was perhaps 18" wide, there were
several reasonably accessible (to mainstream cycles) gates and the route
was a good three inches underwater in parts. It is far from ideal but it
remains useful in that, right now, cyclists round here are vastly
outnumbered by heavy traffic for most of the day.

Those who use tracks generally have to access them using a road. Once
again, education is vital so that motorists are taught that cyclists can
choose whether to use a track or not, just as motorists can choose
whether to use Preston's abundant network of motorways, and cyclists are
taught that they have the right to use a road or bridleway but do not
have the right to use a footpath. Cyclists and motorists need also to be
taught how to interact at junctions.

> France is fairly low in such things, yet I have never encountered any
> hostility from motons while cycling there.

Agreed. I would even include the two times that I have accidentally
cycled the wrong way around French roundabouts.

Cheers,
Luke

[1] I originally wrote 'far better' but I don't think the standard is
the problem so much as the availability.

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Isn't cycling also rather popular in many of Europe's hillier parts?
Certainly, I saw a lot of cyclists in Bavaria, Austria and northern
Italy during last summer's holiday. I've no idea how many were on
holiday, obviously.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:

> [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.

I've thrown out the relevant copy of the Lancashire Evening Post, but
IIRC Monday's edition included the news that car journeys had reduced by
something like 15% after a one year project by TravelSmart. Googling
gives me
<http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/news/press_releases/y/m/release.
asp?id=200711&r=PR07/0635> which is from November.

"The evaluation of the project has shown that local people increased
their walking by up to 45 per cent, cycling by 75 per cent and public
transport use by 10 per cent - resulting in a 13 per cent reduction in
car driver trips.

Residents switched an average of around 76 car trips per person per year
to other forms of transport."

South Ribble is separated from Preston, where most of the shops are, by
a rather sizeable hill. I'm intrigued to find out how much success they
can have in Preston, which is obviously not separated from Preston by a
rather sizeable hill.

Cheers,
Luke
--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 

>
> 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.
>
Do not know about Cambridge-but-can certainly suggest factors in London.
Congestion charges-road congestion-lack of parking-no flexibility of
journey-by road vehicle.
Cost of vehicle transport vs bike-speed of bike over 4 wheels.
I am sure London is a statistical abberation UK wise concerning cycling as a
mass transport system-for now-in 5 years it could be different.
One thing I am certain of-as reflected in this newsgroup- is the aggression
and bad feeling between London cyclists and vehicle drivers.
I have seen little- if any-of it on my cycle powered trips/journeys in
Europe.
My main point is that I am convinced that cycle paths and facilities raises
the base of cycling above that of a specialised activity to a mass
participating activity as routine as the punter deciding to cycle-take the
bus-take the train-walk[gulp]-or take his car.

Tam
 
Here we are again cyclists arguing against cycle path provision.
>
> But it never occurs to you to wonder why?
>>> I t appears to me-with little knowledge of the history-that the bulk of
>>> activist UK cyclists are against them historically.

>>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.
>>>I just want the same choice I get in Europe-we can afford it and it would
>>>encorage what I see in Europe-hundreds-not ones and twos-of young
>>>families cycling.
>
>>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.

>>>We must raise the profile of cycling above that of Christmas toys for
>>>kids-that needs off road provision en mass.
tam
 
"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> 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.
>

Aye. As I have said before, I found cycling in the Parisian rush hour, on
Parisian city roads, a doddle. Far less hassle than cycling in Norwich or
many an East Anglian market town. In the Parisian rush hour I was given far
more room by motorists than when I cycle around my local town centre. That's
down to attitude of those behind the wheel of the motors.
 
"tam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here we are again cyclists arguing against cycle path provision.

Because for the large part, they are unnecessary, put where they aren't
needed, are below design standards, badly signposted, stop suddenly and
deposit the cyclist on a footpath (where it's illegal to cycle), encourage
law-breaking by the painting of white outline bikes on footpaths so that all
of a sudden a footpath becomes a 'shared-use' farcility, and thus encourages
the mistaken belief that it's okay to cycle on footpaths, thus encouraging
bad feeling towards cyclists by non-cyclists, encourages the myth that
cyclists have no place on the roads, encourages the myth that 'the roads'
are 'too dangerous' to cycle upon (which for the most part, they aren't),
hence they do precious little to encourage cycling IMO. Indeed, I'd argue
they actively discourage cycling as the segregation of cyclists from other
road transport promotes the idea that cyclists do not belong on the roads,
that the roads are so dangerous that cyclists need to be separated from
motor traffic. Even with the sad demise of a well-known cyclist this week,
the benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks, and even though it sometimes
doesn't feel like it, the vast majority of motorists aren't out to get us.
In the great scheme of things, cycling is a remarkably safe activity. And
it's healthy. And it's fun.

I'm a middle-aged woman (I'm in my fiftieth year). As a kid I couldn't wait
to pass my cycling proficiency test as it was then my parents would allow me
to cycle on the roads! Cycling on the footpath was for little kids. I spent
many, many years away from being on a bike. When I did get back on one, it
never occurred to me that I now required special 'facilities' upon which to
cycle. When I first got back on a bike a few years ago. I couldn't cycle the
gentle five miles into my nearest town without getting off several times to
catch my breath, so I was hardly some superfit athlete (still not, sadly,
just a bit fitter now). I cycle miles. I cycle alone. I cycle rural roads. I
cycle urban roads. I cycle dual carriageways. I cycle little narrow, leafy
country lanes. I cycle for pleasure. I cycle for utility - to go and get
some shopping in, run some errands. I cycle for fitness. I cycle in the UK
and I've cycled in Europe. The reaction I get from non-cyclists to my level
of cycling is utter astonishment. Astonishment in that from their stance of
ignorance about cycling, they assume that 'it's too dangerous out there'
that it takes all day (literally) to cycle 10 miles and that an average
person would find it utterly exhausting to cycle any more than a mile
without requiring hospitalisation due to the effort. All of this is based
upon ignorance and the utter garbage spouted in the media about cycling and
cyclists by the likes of Clarkson, Parris and their ilk.

The difference between cycling here in the UK and on mainland Europe is, in
my experience, down to the difference in attitude of drivers to cyclists and
of the other populations to cycling. Cycling is seen as *normal*. Cycling is
seen as a legitimate mode of transport. It isn't here in the UK and that's
got naff all to do with the provision of cycle paths.
 
"tam" <[email protected]> wrote

[snip]

> One thing I am certain of-as reflected in this newsgroup- is the
> aggression and bad feeling between London cyclists and vehicle
> drivers.

[snip]

Cyclists ARE vehicle drivers

Perhaps if you contrast cyclists and vehicle drivers you
subconsciously do not believe you are a vehicle driver

Perhaps, if you do not believe you are a vehicle driver, you do not
believe that you belong on the roads

Perhaps if you do not believe you belong on the roads you somehow
pass that message on to the other road users

I don't notice the bad feeling between London's cyclists and other
road users. The only exception to this is at ASLs, whose sole
purpose is to give the more aggressive cyclists and motorists an
excuse to enjoy themselves by shouting at each other.

Jeremy Parker
 
tam wrote:
> Here we are again cyclists arguing against cycle path provision.

Here we are again with you not actually appearing to realise why it
needs arguing about. In short, because it isn't actually clear if it's
/actually any good/.

It is actually useful to find out if things will help before doing them.

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:

> I am sure London is a statistical abberation UK wise concerning cycling as a
> mass transport system-for now-in 5 years it could be different.

London can afford to be a statistical abberation because it has such a
large proportion of the population in and around it. The Greater London
area (i.e., inside the M25) has considerably more folk in it than the
whole of Scotland.

> My main point is that I am convinced that cycle paths and facilities raises
> the base of cycling above that of a specialised activity to a mass
> participating activity as routine as the punter deciding to cycle-take the
> bus-take the train-walk[gulp]-or take his car.

It is /an/ approach to doing that, but we don't actually have proof it
will work. Look again at the dedicated path network built into MK and
how cycling isn't hugely more popular there than somewhere without such
a dedicated network (even though cycle ownership /is/ high).
And you've also got other approaches to doing it. Would Paris Velib be
working if cycling was considered a "specialised activity"? Is Paris
renowned for its amazing network of bike paths? There are clearly other
ways to get cycling upped in the public consciousness than build
separate path networks. They /may/ be cheaper and /may/ be more
effective, so isn't it worth a bit of debate rather than forge ahead on
the basis of a few people being convinced by their gut feeling?

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/
 
On Jan 17, 12:46 pm, David Damerell <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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.

1 - I think you mean the question re why waste money on tracks. Well
because, contrary to what you think, tracks are very effective. I
gave details of what we experienced in Camden in a previous posting.
But much more conclusi ve is the spending by other countries which
they have seen having the expected effect. You seem to think that all
these countries are full of fools who are unable to predict and then
assess. This is why the 'no causation' slogan is just a slogan,
namely because they have assessed their spending and found it
worthwhile. So spending on good tracks is not a waste of money -
indeed in terms of bang per buck it is one of the most effective
transport spends there is.

2 - You may think worrying about gender and age profile of cycling is
silly, but to my mind it is in fact the central issue.
Paul
 
[email protected] wrote:

> 1 - I think you mean the question re why waste money on tracks. Well
> because, contrary to what you think, tracks are very effective. I
> gave details of what we experienced in Camden in a previous posting.
> But much more conclusi ve is the spending by other countries which
> they have seen having the expected effect.

This latter one is a very dubious factoid. Plenty of money has been
spent on tracks across the world which hasn't clearly boosted cycling
numbers.

> You seem to think that all
> these countries are full of fools who are unable to predict and then
> assess. This is why the 'no causation' slogan is just a slogan,
> namely because they have assessed their spending and found it
> worthwhile.

Again, a rather dubious factoid. Very much depends who you're asking,
AFAICT. And the correlation is not causation is more than just a
slogan, because there are other ways to boost cycling that aren't
related to tracks. Bring in a congestion charge on cars, start a velib
scheme, for example.

> So spending on good tracks is not a waste of money -
> indeed in terms of bang per buck it is one of the most effective
> transport spends there is.

So far the proof we have presented for this pretty much boils down to
"Paul Gannon says it is". You keep asking for citations proving that
tracks are particularly dangerous on the one hand, and then you go
spouting what looks like opinions and not substantiating them. "I have
press clippings" is not a citation, by the way.

> 2 - You may think worrying about gender and age profile of cycling is
> silly, but to my mind it is in fact the central issue.

But it's not necessarily related to tracks. In fact it's probably more
to do with cycling culture, however much you want to pretend it doesn't
change across the North Sea.

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]>:
>1 - I think you mean the question re why waste money on tracks. Well
>because, contrary to what you think, tracks are very effective. I

Not for safety. Even after claiming that everyone but you can't read
research, the best you can do is to suggest that there is no evidence that
well-designed tracks are any more dangerous than the roads. Not really a
ringing endorsement.

>But much more conclusi ve is the spending by other countries which
>they have seen having the expected effect. You seem to think that all
>these countries are full of fools who are unable to predict and then
>assess.

Nice way of putting it, but in fact, a moment's glance at the UK will show
that the idea that cycle track provision is done entirely incompetently is
not at all implausible.

>2 - You may think worrying about gender and age profile of cycling is
>silly,

I don't; I think assuming that cycle tracks will change it is silly.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Tuesday, January.
 
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