Connect2



Quoting tam <[email protected]>:
>>Also not a new fact. So why has cycling shot up in London?
>Nobody knows the definitive answer-but-I would guess its to do with on a
>bike in the London rush hour you can always move towards your destination

Also not a new fact. So why has cycling shot up in London?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Tuesday, January.
 
Paul Gannon writtificated

> Please pay attention - I have asked people for the evidence they rely
> on to assert this alleged danger of cycle tracks. All the responses
> make it clear that no one has read any of the sources. I wish they
> would!
> Please try to understand, thanks

Ok, so we go with the 'LAW' study:

"Surprisingly, bicycle facilities where no motor vehicles are allowed
showed the highest accident rate of any variable examined. On-street
facilities, such as bicycle lanes or routes, showed a very low accident
rate. The rates for both major and minor streets fell in between."

Given the small number of facilities that existed back then, I'd treat this
with some caution. Looking at Franklin's comments of the other studies
<www.bikexprt.com/research/kaplan/recom.htm> you can see a pattern emerging
- off road cycle facilities don't come off well. It's been alleged, in
this thread, that he has selectively quoted 'to the point of
misrepresentation' but no one has bothered to (been able to?) give
examples.

Given Franklin's reputation I'm more inclined to trust his writing than
yours. Sorry, but you'll need to do provide good evidence that he's wrong
rather than just fling accusations[2] and bang on about sources. You say
you've read 'em - so tell us what they really say! I'm not capable of
reading most of them critically, in part because I only speak English and
because I've just a very sketchy knowledge of statistics, the mechanics of
accident reporting etc etc. Even with the sources in front of me I'd be
relying mostly on the summaries/conclusions. I'm kinda reliant on other
people, including you, to provide informed criticism. So far that's only
come from Franklin.

[1] <www.bikexprt.com/research/kaplan/recom.htm>
 
Quoting tam <[email protected]>:
>Why not go with gut feeling?

Why go with _your_ gut feeling? Let's go with mine; enforce the traffic
laws, make sure motorists behave themselves.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Tuesday, January.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
>Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
>> So yes, the heaps of **** should be opposed, just as heaps of ****
>> should be opposed in any walk of life. But I fail to see what the
>> objection is to a competently implemented optional alternative route,
>> or a car-free leisure route.
>
>If it's effectively free (like Connect2) then go right ahead.

If it turns out with hindsight that Connect2 was a complete waste of
time, we can't just shrug and say "it was free, so we haven't wasted
any money" - the cost is that we didn't build the Black Country
Urban Park that we could have Connect2 didn't get the money. I hope
it doesn't turn out like that (I voted for Connect2 because I thought
it would be useful, at least in parts), and for all we know the other
projects wouldn't make better use of the money whatever happened, but
I think it's misleading to describe the money as even "effectively" free,
even if we either assume that all the lottery players who provided the
money were bound to lose it gambling one way or another or only start
accounting at the point where the £50 million is already committed.
 
<> The sort of famililies that surrounded me in Berlin 6 weeks ago.
> It was 8 AM in the morning-school time in Charlottenburg-I was on my way
> to
> central Berlin -choice-the river path muddy but scenic-cycle path paved
> and
> quick-in the road crammed with rush hour traffic-but-still an option.
> The kids and mothers were on their bikes- babies in their trailers it was
> cycle chaos-heaven.
> Compare that to bad tempered homicidal rush hour Britain I know which is
> the
> best system.
> We will not make it happen without mega bucks being spent on cycling but
> it
> could be possible in the UK.
> Tam

Spot on, but our other correspondents will be spluttering about
'correlation and causation'.

They can splutter and quote stats to their hearts content--for 40 years
Imperial Tobacco proved there was no scientific correlation between lung
cancer and smoking.
I have a great deal of experience of cycling on paths-roads-tracks-trails in
Europe and-later-rather than-sooner our political masters will see that
cycling could alleviate an oncoming astronomical cost-obesity--.
Plus of course something the French Germans Danes Swiss etc take for
granted- a mass public transport system with families and cycles at its
heart.
Something you could not say about our mickey mouse
clockwork---------system?.
Tam
 

>
> What you describe is what I see when cycling in Europe - an utterly
> different mindset to cycling than is found here in the UK. I've already
> stated why, in a previous post, I think this has nothing to do with cycle
> farcilities and everything to do with how cycling is viewed as a normal
> activity and not denegrated as it is in much of the UK media, which is,
> let's face it, utterly petrolhead-centric.
>
I am sure the Germans of the 70s thought the cycle was dead and gone
everyone wanted a car.
After the wall came down in 89 all the ossies wanted a Beemer.
You can still see much more powerfull cars on the Berlin roads than in the
UK eg "tuned" Porsches-mega horse power monsters.
Trucks of course are banned during daylight hours-and weekends--I mean the
"heavies".
In the 90s the cycle came roaring back into life now everybody has a bike
including almost every car driver.
It can be done-but-it takes a few hundred million to do it--that and
increasing petrol prices to £10 a gallon--
we are heading in that direction.
Paths- facilities- publicity- training -cash invested- it just pushes
cycling into the arena as a serious mass transit system I am hopeful it will
come- driven by all the wrong reasons of course.
tam
 
"tam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> What you describe is what I see when cycling in Europe - an utterly
>> different mindset to cycling than is found here in the UK. I've already
>> stated why, in a previous post, I think this has nothing to do with cycle
>> farcilities and everything to do with how cycling is viewed as a normal
>> activity and not denegrated as it is in much of the UK media, which is,
>> let's face it, utterly petrolhead-centric.
>>
> I am sure the Germans of the 70s thought the cycle was dead and gone
> everyone wanted a car.
> After the wall came down in 89 all the ossies wanted a Beemer.
> You can still see much more powerfull cars on the Berlin roads than in the
> UK eg "tuned" Porsches-mega horse power monsters.
> Trucks of course are banned during daylight hours-and weekends--I mean the
> "heavies".

Down to the provision of cycle paths, no doubt ;-)

> In the 90s the cycle came roaring back into life now everybody has a bike
> including almost every car driver.
> It can be done-but-it takes a few hundred million to do it--that and
> increasing petrol prices to £10 a gallon--
> we are heading in that direction.
> Paths- facilities- publicity- training -cash invested- it just pushes
> cycling into the arena as a serious mass transit system I am hopeful it
> will come- driven by all the wrong reasons of course.
> tam
>

I disagree that it's cycle paths that pushes cycling as a mass transit
system. We already have a mass transit system that, for the most part, can
see cyclists door to door from home to wherever they want to be - it's
called 'the roads'. Here in the UK, we simply haven't got the space to put
in a separate network of cycle farcilities that will be up to scratch in
terms of amount of network, where it goes to being as comprehensive as would
be required. Our towns and cities are, for the most part, old, already built
and the roads not wide enough, for the most part, to have a cycle lane/path
running alongside/nearby and have room for footpaths.. so what we get are
token efforts that are sub-standard, ill-thought out to the point of being
dangerous, or useless, and used as nothing more than tick-boxes on local
authority budget sheets. 'Cycle provision?' tick. Many examples of what I'm
talking about can be seen on the Warrington Cycle Campaign web site. And for
the town where it was put in right from scratch: Milton Keynes, well, it
hasn't worked to increase cycling there.

What we have in Europe is a different mindset to cycling than is here in the
UK. What is needed in the UK is a change of mindset. I cannot see how cycle
farcilites will provide anything other than an increase in the petrolhead
mindset that cycling has no place on the roads, that roads are for motor
vehicles only. After all - all those farcilities provided, use them! The
change to get us off the roads has already been attempted by the motoring
lobby, when the changes to the Highway Code were first published, the
wording as regards the use of cycle farcilites was changed to one where any
cyclist using the roads when there was a farcility nearby would have been
found effectively 'guilty' of their own demise if they were cycling on the
road. The changed wording was only stopped by a concerted effort from many
different cyclists and cycling groups writing in to MPs and the body doing
the changes to the HC, which had a positive result, in that cyclists
retained the right to cycle on the roads should they wish. This is yet
another reason why many of us who cycle have a dislike of increased
provision of 'cycling facilities' - they have been used already as an excuse
to try to get us off the roads. Now, a cyclist has a choice - use the roads
if you wish, use farcilities if you wish. The bottom line is, IMO, the more
farcilities provided, the greater the clamour to remove our choice to cycle
on the roads. That is something I will fight against. If cycling is to
become a mainstream method of transport, it has to be able to be carried out
on the existing infrastructure - and for most of us, that's on the road.
 
"tam" wrote
> Spot on, but our other correspondents will be spluttering about
> 'correlation and causation'.
>
> They can splutter and quote stats to their hearts content--for 40 years
> Imperial Tobacco proved there was no scientific correlation between lung
> cancer and smoking.
> I have a great deal of experience of cycling on paths-roads-tracks-trails
> in Europe and-later-rather than-sooner our political masters will see that
> cycling could alleviate an oncoming astronomical cost-obesity--.
> Plus of course something the French Germans Danes Swiss etc take for
> granted- a mass public transport system with families and cycles at its
> heart.
> Something you could not say about our mickey mouse
> clockwork---------system?.
> Tam
The same countries where cycle paths are plentiful and so are cyclists, are
also those where low helmet wearing correlates well with low accident rates.
Though I don't like helmets I would not claim that wearing a helmet causes
accidents. Probably all these things, no hats, paths, safe cycling, and
wide demographic cycling, correlate and are in some sense caused by a
certain "cycling culture".
If path building is done by a culture which values cycling, then they may
work. If it is done by a bike hating culture in order to get cyclists out of
the way, it will be the sort of provision shown on the Warrington site.
I started by being in favour of cycle paths, of all types, like most
cyclists do. Experience has brought me to the point where I would prefer
complete ignoral from the authorities.

Mike Sales
 
"Mark T wrote
> "Mike Sales" wrote in
:
>
>>> 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.

Yes indeed. However, the scruple is still valid if, however "safe", the
track is more "dangerous". I suppose that path advocates claiming that paths
are safer exasperates me.

Mike Sales
 
"Peter Clinch" wrote
> 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.
>
I completely agree. The problem is too complex for a simple answer, whether
it is facilities, Matt B's anarchy, stringent penalties for bad driving or
my own favourite, lath and canvas cars, as fragile as WW1 aeroplanes. Cycle
facilities as provided by a car culture like ours are bound to be
insultingly bad.

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

snipped...

> If path building is done by a culture which values cycling, then they may
> work. If it is done by a bike hating culture in order to get cyclists out
> of the way, it will be the sort of provision shown on the Warrington site.

snipped...

Couldn't have put it any better.
 
Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:

> writtificated

> > Figures and source to back up your suggestion that cycling carries a
> > similar risk to walking, please.
>
> <www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7250.xls> [1]
>
> Passenger death rates: by mode of transport: Social Trends 34
> Great Britain Rate per billion passenger kilometres
> 1993 1997 2001 2002
>
> Walk 70.1 57.6 47.7 44.8
> Bicycle 46.5 44.9 32.7 29.5

I may be misunderstanding something here but isn't that suggesting that
cycling is significantly /safer/ than walking?

cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Response to Ekul Namsob
> > > Figures and source to back up your suggestion that cycling carries a
> > > similar risk to walking, please.
> >
> > <www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7250.xls> [1]
> >
> > Passenger death rates: by mode of transport: Social Trends 34
> > Great Britain Rate per billion passenger kilometres
> > 1993 1997 2001 2002
> >
> > Walk 70.1 57.6 47.7 44.8
> > Bicycle 46.5 44.9 32.7 29.5
>
> I may be misunderstanding something here but isn't that suggesting that
> cycling is significantly /safer/ than walking?


At such low rates of death per billion km, I'd hesitate to describe the
difference as significant myself; I wouldn't consider it as a factor in
choosing my mode of transport, for instance.

Besides, according to the DfT's figures[1] over ten years to 2005,
cycling has fewer deaths per billion km than walking, but slightly more
k.s.i., and more than double the minor injuries.

Needless to say, if you measure by hours of exposure rather than
distance, the figures tend to favour walking; again, not by enough to
make me choose to walk for four hours rather than cycle for four hours.
;-) So you pays your money and takes your choice.


[1] rcgb2006v1.pdf from http://tinyurl.com/yrw2cf


--
Mark, UK
"In those parts of the world where learning and science have prevailed,
miracles have ceased; but in those parts of it as are barbarous and
ignorant, miracles are still in vogue."
 
"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:D[email protected]...
>
> "tam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>
>>> What you describe is what I see when cycling in Europe - an utterly
>>> different mindset to cycling than is found here in the UK. I've already
>>> stated why, in a previous post, I think this has nothing to do with
>>> cycle farcilities and everything to do with how cycling is viewed as a
>>> normal activity and not denegrated as it is in much of the UK media,
>>> which is, let's face it, utterly petrolhead-centric.
>>>
>> I am sure the Germans of the 70s thought the cycle was dead and gone
>> everyone wanted a car.
>> After the wall came down in 89 all the ossies wanted a Beemer.
>> You can still see much more powerfull cars on the Berlin roads than in
>> the UK eg "tuned" Porsches-mega horse power monsters.
>> Trucks of course are banned during daylight hours-and weekends--I mean
>> the "heavies".
>
> Down to the provision of cycle paths, no doubt ;-)
>
>> In the 90s the cycle came roaring back into life now everybody has a bike
>> including almost every car driver.
>> It can be done-but-it takes a few hundred million to do it--that and
>> increasing petrol prices to £10 a gallon--
>> we are heading in that direction.
>> Paths- facilities- publicity- training -cash invested- it just pushes
>> cycling into the arena as a serious mass transit system I am hopeful it
>> will come- driven by all the wrong reasons of course.
>> tam
>>
>
> I disagree that it's cycle paths that pushes cycling as a mass transit
> system. We already have a mass transit system that, for the most part, can
> see cyclists door to door from home to wherever they want to be - it's
> called 'the roads'. Here in the UK, we simply haven't got the space to put
> in a separate network of cycle farcilities that will be up to scratch in
> terms of amount of network, where it goes to being as comprehensive as
> would be required. Our towns and cities are, for the most part, old,
> already built and the roads not wide enough, for the most part, to have a
> cycle lane/path running alongside/nearby and have room for footpaths.. so
> what we get are token efforts that are sub-standard, ill-thought out to
> the point of being dangerous, or useless, and used as nothing more than
> tick-boxes on local authority budget sheets. 'Cycle provision?' tick. Many
> examples of what I'm talking about can be seen on the Warrington Cycle
> Campaign web site. And for the town where it was put in right from
> scratch: Milton Keynes, well, it hasn't worked to increase cycling there.
>
> What we have in Europe is a different mindset to cycling than is here in
> the UK. What is needed in the UK is a change of mindset. I cannot see how
> cycle farcilites will provide anything other than an increase in the
> petrolhead mindset that cycling has no place on the roads, that roads are
> for motor vehicles only. After all - all those farcilities provided, use
> them! The change to get us off the roads has already been attempted by the
> motoring lobby, when the changes to the Highway Code were first published,
> the wording as regards the use of cycle farcilites was changed to one
> where any cyclist using the roads when there was a farcility nearby would
> have been found effectively 'guilty' of their own demise if they were
> cycling on the road. The changed wording was only stopped by a concerted
> effort from many different cyclists and cycling groups writing in to MPs
> and the body doing the changes to the HC, which had a positive result, in
> that cyclists retained the right to cycle on the roads should they wish.
> This is yet another reason why many of us who cycle have a dislike of
> increased provision of 'cycling facilities' - they have been used already
> as an excuse to try to get us off the roads. Now, a cyclist has a choice -
> use the roads if you wish, use farcilities if you wish. The bottom line
> is, IMO, the more farcilities provided, the greater the clamour to remove
> our choice to cycle on the roads. That is something I will fight against.
> If cycling is to become a mainstream method of transport, it has to be
> able to be carried out on the existing infrastructure - and for most of
> us, that's on the road.
I do not share your views.
You will not get the average UK family to commence cycling on UK roads
Cycling was a minority "geek" activity in many developed European countries
in the 70s and 80s its come roaring back as a mainstream mass
participating activity-but-not in the UK--yet.
We are always last to adopt---to conservative?.
I am sure the vehicle lobby will fight tooth and nail-but-the writing is on
the wall.
100$ barrel of oil-demand from China/India will keep it rising.
No major road building schemes in the pipeline-this should be sending a loud
message.
Obesity costs will rise very steeply very quickly.
Even in the UK attitudes can rapidly change eg the new concept of "green
living" I mean new in the mass concept sense.
I do not see cycle facilities=no cycling on roads- rather I see the road
lobby losing its stranglehold over tarmac eg within a few years heavy
lorries will be banned from cities during daylight and at weekends-
continentals have had this for years.
Diesel prices will force freight on to rail to a much greater extent.
Somebody in the treasury will get their slide rule out-I do not think they
use calculators yet-and do the sums------cycle journeys are dirt cheap tax
payer wise.
tam
 
"


> 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.

That's great. And I wish I had the time, or the willpower, or the
energy, to cycle that much.

But nonetheless, I don't see why it gives you the right to decide
what's right for me, or for countless other people who have their own
reasons for getting on a bike. Something you decry as a "farcility"
and would never dream of using might well be an invaluable piece of
infrastructure for someone else.

I'm just a different type of cyclist from you. Don't assume that, just
because you don't want to use non-road routes, that everyone else
should feel the same.

Here here-----
I have come back to cycling after using boneshakers in the 60s and 70s till
I could ride motorcycles then drive cars.
I came back to cycling 10+ years ago-my trike is the only way I can move
myself over 200 yards plus-due to neuron disease.
My eyes were opened to a whole different scale of cycle provision in Holland
and now-mostly Germany.
I just do not need any other form of transport in Berlin-its utterly
fantastic!.
After 10 years of cycling in Germany I still get a thrill every time I build
my trike up and take to the streets-or paths-or river bank pedestrian/cycle
networks.
My cycling has prolonged my life- out of the 20 in the hospital with me 12+
years ago-I am the only one left-the rest died long ago- inactivity with
this disease is a killer.
I suspect cycling would be very beneficial for depression to but I have no
knowledge regarding this topic.
We can have what the Europeans have it does not cost much----------it just
requires political will.
tam
 
On Jan 18, 7:32 pm, "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com>
wrote:
> "Mike Sales" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> snipped...
>
> > If path building is done by a culture which values cycling, then they may
> > work. If it is done by a bike hating culture in order to get cyclists out
> > of the way, it will be the sort of provision shown on the Warrington site.
>
> snipped...
>
> Couldn't have put it any better.

A good point - cycle tracks depend on their quality for the
effectiveness. British traffic and cycle activist culture works
against quality. Thus the anti-track sentiment is self-fulfilling.
Paul Gannon
 
On Jan 18, 8:37 pm, Mark McNeill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Response to Ekul Namsob
>
> > > > Figures and source to back up your suggestion that cycling carries a
> > > > similar risk to walking, please.
>
> > > <www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7250.xls> [1]
>
> > > Passenger death rates: by mode of transport: Social Trends 34
> > > Great Britain                         Rate perbillion passenger kilometres
> > >       1993    1997    2001    2002
>
> > > Walk  70.1    57.6    47.7    44.8
> > > Bicycle       46.5    44.9    32.7    29.5
>
> > I may be misunderstanding something here but isn't that suggesting that
> > cycling is significantly /safer/ than walking?
>
> At such low rates of death per billion km, I'd hesitate to describe the
> difference as significant myself; I wouldn't consider it as a factor in
> choosing my mode of transport, for instance.
>
> Besides, according to the DfT's figures[1] over ten years to 2005,
> cycling has fewer deaths per billion km than walking, but slightly more
> k.s.i., and more than double the minor injuries.  
>
> Needless to say, if you measure by hours of exposure rather than
> distance, the figures tend to favour walking; again, not by enough to
> make me choose to walk for four hours rather than cycle for four hours.  
> ;-)  So you pays your money and takes your choice.
>
> [1] rcgb2006v1.pdf fromhttp://tinyurl.com/yrw2cf
>
> --
> Mark, UK
> "In those parts of the world where learning and science have prevailed,
> miracles have ceased; but in those parts of it as are barbarous and
> ignorant, miracles are still in vogue."

The per-distance figures are not a lot of use. People may not walk 10
miles to work, shop or go the cinema, but will cycle 10 miles or drive
40 miles and all in the same time (in general).

Whether the figures affect your choice or not may be intersting or may
not, but the question at issue is whether cycling is as safe (in the
UK) as walking and clearly from these figures it is not.

Another urban cyclist myth crashing into the barrier of statistical
evidence.
Paul Gannon
 
On Jan 18, 8:43 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> [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/

I don't deny this. I only deny that it is the CAUSE of high cycling
levels, as you assert. I also deny that that culture changes at the
North Sea/Channel but not between all those countries/regions whihc
have high cycling levels. I assert that what they have in common, is
not Peter's dreamed up culture, but policy decisions. (Someone else
also asserted that I denied the existence of a 'tranport culture' -
also wrong)
Paul
 
On Jan 18, 2:46 pm, Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Paul Gannon writtificated
>
> > Please pay attention - I have asked people for the evidence they rely
> > on to assert this alleged danger of cycle tracks.  All the responses
> > make it clear that no one has read any of the sources.  I wish they
> > would!
> > Please try to understand, thanks
>
> Ok, so we go with the 'LAW' study:
>
> "Surprisingly, bicycle facilities where no motor vehicles are allowed
> showed the highest accident rate of any variable examined. On-street
> facilities, such as bicycle lanes or routes, showed a very low accident
> rate. The rates for both major and minor streets fell in between."
>
> Given the small number of facilities that existed back then, I'd treat this
> with some caution.  Looking at Franklin's comments of the other studies
> <www.bikexprt.com/research/kaplan/recom.htm> you can see a pattern emerging
> - off road cycle facilities don't come off well.  It's been alleged, in
> this thread, that he has selectively quoted 'to the point of
> misrepresentation' but no one has bothered to (been able to?) give
> examples.
>
> Given Franklin's reputation I'm more inclined to trust his writing than
> yours.  Sorry, but you'll need to do provide good evidence that he's wrong
> rather than just fling accusations[2] and bang on about sources.  You say
> you've read 'em - so tell us what they really say!  I'm not capable of
> reading most of them critically, in part because I only speak English and
> because I've just a very sketchy knowledge of statistics, the mechanics of
> accident reporting etc etc. Even with the sources in front of me I'd be
> relying mostly on the summaries/conclusions.  I'm kinda reliant on other
> people, including you, to provide informed criticism.  So far that's only
> come from Franklin.
>
> [1] <www.bikexprt.com/research/kaplan/recom.htm>

please see my response to a posting of Peter Clinch which deals with
this study and the misleading (no doubt unintentional) reporting of
it,
regards
Paul
 
P Gannon writtificated:

> British [...] cycle activist culture works
> against quality.

What does this mean? My experience of cycle activists (local cycle
campaign groups) is that they encourage high quality facilities and
campaign against bad ones.
 
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