Connect2

[Mark T]

Paul Gannon writtificated

> 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.

What statistical evidence? You haven't bloody presented any! All you seem
to do is make assertions and back them up with sweet FA.

One reason you might consider per mile being favourable to cyclists and per
hour favourable to walkers is fairly obvious:

If we consider the areas of highest risk to be road junctions, and a half
hour walk to cover 10 junctions. Cycling the same route would take 10
minutes - 10 areas of higher risk in a third of the time.

I'm not saying that this accounts for the difference, just pointing out one
reason why your dismissal of the data is ill thought out.

 

[Mike Sales]

"tam" wrote
> "wafflycat" wrote
>>
>> "tam" wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 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.

I do. I fear that we are being pushed off the roads and marginalised.
Wafflycat puts it well.

> 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.

I think that you will find that cycling has always been more popular in
Netherlands etc. than in Britain. My mother has just told me that her
father, a cycle shop owner, told her in the 40s that cycling was much more
popular there. In spite of cycle path building it has declined since then.
Roaring back?

> 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.

There is a good case for more cycling being the answer to these problems.

> I do not see cycle facilities=no cycling on roads-

In the British context that is what is happening. See Wafflycat's post about
compulsion to use the dangerous, inadequate ghettos.


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.

If you are right, and I hope so, then there will be more room on the roads.

Mike Sales

 

[Mike Sales]

<paultbgannon> wrote
"wafflycat" wrote:
> "Mike Sales" wrote
> 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.

For this to make any sense at all most British cyclists would have to be
"activists", and also responsible for the design of the farcilities. Myself,
though I write the occassional message in this group, I am not an activist.
I wish I had the energy. I would imagine that most of the cyclists I see on
the roads and pavements think that more cycle facilities would be a good
thing. It is true however, that I have been surprised by how many club
cyclists dislike cycle facilities, perhaps because they are competent, high
mileage cyclists with empirical experience of the dangers, and who have
learned to use the roads properly. Your point about traffic may be right.
The reluctance of road engineers here to take road space from motors does
mean that the room for separate provision is inadequate for even a half way
decent cycle facility. Until we have a transport culture which allows them
to remove space from cars for bikes that will not change.
All the cycle lanes and roadside paths I see have dangerous and
inconvenient features, and, as is my right, I ignore them. As a result I am
told by drivers to get on the path. It is clear that they know what cycle
paths are for! Cycle facilities make cycling worse for me, and I think that
deterring existing cyclists is the wrong way to try and increase cycling
numbers.
I note you do not address my point about correlation, though I do not
splutter.

Mike Sales

 

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 11:23 am, Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Paul Gannon writtificated
>
> > 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.
>
> What statistical evidence?  You haven't bloody presented any!  All youseem
> to do is make assertions and back them up with sweet FA.
>
> One reason you might consider per mile being favourable to cyclists and per
> hour favourable to walkers is fairly obvious:
>
> If we consider the areas of highest risk to be road junctions, and a half
> hour walk to cover 10 junctions.  Cycling the same route would take 10
> minutes - 10 areas of higher risk in a third of the time.
>
> I'm not saying that this accounts for the difference, just pointing out one
> reason why your dismissal of the data is ill thought out.

Please read more carefully. I'm not challenging the data but the
presentation.

It's exactly the same data, but considered as 'accidents per unit of
time' as opposed to 'accidents per unit of distance'. The object is
to compare someone walking one mile to work in 20 minutes with someone
cycling 4 miles to work in the same time'. To compare someone walking
4 days in a row walking one mile each day with a cyclist doing 4 miles
in one trip is to multiply the accident figures for pedestrians by 4.
Doing this you can indeed get the apparent statistical 'fact' that
walking is as dangerous as cycling, but in doing so you distort the
statistics because you count the accidents that pedestrians experience
in 4 days with those experienced by cyclists in 1 day.

It's also absolutely vital to get hold of the fact that we aren't
seeking statistics to 'favour' one group or another, but to understand
what is happening out there. And it is also essential to use one
measure for both groups! Also your bit about junctions is not
relevant because we need to understand risk in defined time periods or
we cannot judge anything - indeed to judge comparative risk at
junctions per journey we need to use the time comparison or we would
be utterly confused about what we are trying to measure!

This doesn't, of course, mean that both time and distance aren't valid
measurements. It's how you use them - whethert for enlightenment or
to bolster an ideology. The distance statistic may, for example, be
useful in comparing cycle/motor vehicle accidents in, say, London
where traffic speeds are not easily related to time due to the large
amount of time spent motionless by MVs. But in comparing cyclists and
pedestrians, I can't see any use at all - and your abuse is not really
very informative as it doesn't explain anything about why using the
distance comparison is informative in your view.
best regards
Paul

 

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 11:15 am, Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:
> 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.

What this means is that cyclist lobby groups tend to share the
ideology that off-road faciltiies are for in-experienced cyclists
(indeed the claim was made by one person on this site recently that
experienced cyclists would prefer not to use them). Thus they
approach design of such facilties in a way that is thought to be
appropriate for in-experienced and meek cyclists rather than in the
continental fashion which sees quality cycle networks as appropriate
for all cyclists including the 'experienced'. I hope this answers
your question.

On a related point, I am an experienced cyclist (though not
necessarily a very skilled one) and I prefer Dutch/continental style
networks to road cycling. I know other experiencd cyclists who
agree. So, it is clear that not all experienced cyclists chose to
prefer road cycling. So please do not spread this falsehood.
Hwyl fawr
Paul

 

[Mark T]

Paul Gannon writtificated:

> they [cycle lobby groups]
> approach design of such facilties in a way that is thought to be
> appropriate for in-experienced and meek cyclists

I guess we're not in the same lobby group.

 

[Mark T]

> It's exactly the same data, but considered as 'accidents per unit of
> time' as opposed to 'accidents per unit of distance'. The object is
> to compare someone walking one mile to work in 20 minutes with someone
> cycling 4 miles to work in the same time'. To compare someone walking
> 4 days in a row walking one mile each day with a cyclist doing 4 miles
> in one trip is to multiply the accident figures for pedestrians by 4.
> Doing this you can indeed get the apparent statistical 'fact' that
> walking is as dangerous as cycling, but in doing so you distort the
> statistics because you count the accidents that pedestrians experience
> in 4 days with those experienced by cyclists in 1 day.

You might be comparing a 1 mile walk with a 4 mile cycle, but I was
comparing walking to the shops to cycling to the shops, or walking into
town with cycling into town - i.e. comparing cycling there with walking
there.

If we assume cyclists trundle at 12mph and walkers stroll at 4mph then we
can prolly use the time data to show cycling to again be in the same ball
park as walking.

I'm not sure how this counts as abuse of statistics but I'm sure you'll
find a way.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> No doubt Peter Clinch and others will dismiss this with their comfort
> slogan about correlation and causation. No doubt Peter and others
> will consider that these Dutchies are ignorant of the truth and
> misunderstand the situation, failing to realise that really it was all
> due to something else!!!!

You know, you might make your case far more effectively if you didn't
include snarky remarks like that every time you post.


-dan

 

[Clive George]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:d04378c7-68bf-43f2-b027-45f6ce4cd570@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

>What this means is that cyclist lobby groups tend to share the
>ideology that off-road faciltiies are for in-experienced cyclists
>(indeed the claim was made by one person on this site recently that
>experienced cyclists would prefer not to use them). Thus they
>approach design of such facilties in a way that is thought to be
>appropriate for in-experienced and meek cyclists rather than in the
>continental fashion which sees quality cycle networks as appropriate
>for all cyclists including the 'experienced'. I hope this answers
>your question.

I think you'll find it's not the cyclist lobby groups pushing for this, but
instead it's forced upon the designers by other constraints including
budget. The client (ie council asking for suitable design of a track) will
say the main target is inexperienced cyclists, so there's no need to make
them good enough for others. This will result in lower standards in areas
such as sight lines and design of junctions, since the expected speeds are
much lower.

Just in case the above isn't clear : It's not cyclists asking for the
low-standard tracks, it's the authorities. And it's not an attempt to make
things easier for the inexperienced cyclists, but instead it's a recognition
that they can't/don't want to afford (space, money, whatever) to do
something suitable for all.

Or put another way, pretty much all youre deductions above are wrong. Sorry.

clive

 

[wafflycat]

"Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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

This is something I cannot fathom - the assumption that those of us who
cycle and are passionate about it apparently don't drive cars. Which is a
load of tosh. Like many of the regular posters to urc, I walk, I cycle and I
drive. Don't ride a horse though I love being out on my bike. I
thoroughly enjoy driving too. Walking isn't bad either

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote

[snip]

> Also not a new fact. So why has cycling shot up in London?

Being somewhat sceptical about anything Transport for London (TfL)
says about cycling, I've been asking myself that question for some
years. I would say:

- it's not just the cost of the congestion charge that matters, it
is that the charge has been deliberately made inconvenient to pay.
TfL says that it would take a rise of several pounds in the charge to
compensate for a reduced hassle factor. Actually, I would say that
the congestion charge has encouraged motorcycling more than cycling.
The streets of London are filled with incompetent novice
motorcyclists.

- the very good, free, and widely available bike maps that became
available at the end of 2001 probably helped

- the strikes and threats of more strikes reduced the attractiveness
of tube, train and bus travel. A few years ago, when the London
Cycling Campaign was looking for nominations for cycling person of
the year, I suggested Bob Crow, leader of the RMT union. My
suggestion did not meet with favour.

- there were a few spectacular problems with the tubes. A motor
fell off a train on the Central Line, putting the line out of action
for months. A faulty set of points at Camden Town had the same
affect, a little later, on the Northern Line.

- the 7/7 bombings may not have been that big a factor. Cycling had
already risen to the peak that they held after the bombings in the
spring, just before.

- whether the Tour de France and the London Freewheel events have
helped, I don't know, but they were a good thing anyway. The London
Freewheel was a total shambles in its organization, and ought, by
rights, to have been a disaster, but it wasn't; it was a great
success. It achieved that without pissing off all the non cyclists.
Given that last year was the first event, it should be quite
something after it has had a few years to grow

Jeremy Parker

 

[Jeremy Parker]

<[email protected]> wrote

[snip]

>>What this means is that cyclist lobby groups tend to share the
ideology that off-road faciltiies are for in-experienced cyclists
(indeed the claim was made by one person on this site recently that
experienced cyclists would prefer not to use them). Thus they
approach design of such facilties in a way that is thought to be
appropriate for in-experienced and meek cyclists rather than in the
continental fashion which sees quality cycle networks as appropriate
for all cyclists including the 'experienced'. I hope this answers
your question.<<

[snip]

I can't help thinking of the multilingual Dutch cycling author Rob
Van der Plas here. He probably has written more books than Richard
Ballantine. His English language book, "The Bicycle Commuting Book"
is pretty good, and makes much the same suggestions as do John
Franklin, in "Cyclecraft", John Allen, in "Street Smarts", and John
Forester in"Effective Cycling".

Rob Van der Plas wrote an article, "Some call it paradise:
Bicycling in Holland", and promptly emigrated to California

Jeremy Parker

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote

[snip]

> I think you'll find it's not the cyclist lobby groups pushing for
> this, but instead it's forced upon the designers by other
> constraints including budget. The client (ie council asking for
> suitable design of a track) will say the main target is
> inexperienced cyclists, so there's no need to make them good enough
> for others. This will result in lower standards in areas such as
> sight lines and design of junctions, since the expected speeds are
> much lower.

[snip]

In London standards are set (except where they are just "guidelines")
by the LCDS -London Cycling Design Standards. As with any standard,
what is quoted as minimum is, in practice, a maximum. After all, if
the minimum is adequate, as it must be, or the standards would not
permit it, anything better is just gold plating

The design speed for London's bike paths is half that quoted in the
Dutch or US standards

The clearance to cars needed, shows a distance one third that shown
in the Highway Code.

The same picture showing clearance needed to a car, shows a pavement
with a bollard on the other side. It the cyclist is not bolt
upright, as shown in the picture, but leaning over to go round a
curve, the cyclist could be, using the numbers quoted in the LCDS,
actually hitting the bollard.

The current edition of the LCDS is the second. There was some
criticism of the first edition. Actually there was some criticism of
the second, as well. As a result TfL is planning a third attempt to
get things right, this year.

Those who think that the problems with London's facilities could be
solved by building with higher quality will, if they can define what
that higher quality might be, have an opportunity to comment to TfL.
It might be an idea for them to make the same comments here on this
thread, so we can discuss them

Jeremy Parker

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote

[snip]

> 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.

Well, I live in London, and I regard cycling as a normal activity.

So I just do it. No problem.

Actually, I think a few in the UK media have had an epiphany
recently. We might even get through to Matthew Parris's boss. There
are signs of a lessening in petrol-centricity. Since the media all
copy each other, the change might come quite quickly.

Jeremy Parker

 

[David Martin]

On Jan 19, 8:25 am, [email protected] wrote:

> 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).

But they are relevant at real distances. If I live 2 miles from work I
could walk or cycle or drive. Per distance is the obvious measure to
use. I can't see me riding 10 miles just to take the same time as
walking 2.

...d

 

[Jeremy Parker]

<[email protected]> wrote

[snip]
>
> The report was written by a member of LCC who attended the
> conference.
> Not by me. Notes [in square brackets] have been added by me.
>
> The next speaker [after introductory remarks by the Ambassador] at
> the
> conference was Ms Ria Hilhorst, the cycling coordinator for the
> Municipality of Amsterdam.

[snip]

The aim of the plan was to reduce the
> number of parking spaces for cars and making them more expensive.

[snip]

Cycling becomes appealing when it is easier and faster
> to go by bike

[snip]

Yup, it works in London, too.

I note that almost all over the world traffic engineers assume that
cycling is four times as fast as walking. There's one exception,
though, the Netherlands, where cycling is only three times as fast.
[1] What is it that causes this mysterious slowdown? Are Dutch bikes
really such clunkers?

There may be a clue from the demand, before the last Dutch Cycle
Master Plan, by Dutch cyclists, that cycle journey times to town
centres be reduced by 20% [2]. The cyclists would not have made this
demand unless they had thought that poor design of Dutch facilities
was making journey times **at least** 25% longer than necessary

Nothing ever came of the Dutch complaint of course, except for some
rather mysterious comments in the Dutch design standards about
distances. [3]

Jeremy Parker

[1] Dutch Directorate-General for Passenger Transport "The Dutch
Bicycle Master Plan" Mar 1999, p107

[2] CTC "More Bikes, Policy into Best Practice" 1995? p49

[3] CROW "Sign up for the bike, Design manual for a cycle-friendly
infrastructure" 1993, p26

 

[tam]

> 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.
>
You will not JC to test drive them unless they have a 200bhp engine.
Anyway we do not need to reinvent the wheel--------its all been done 10---15
years ago by our more enlightened continental cousins.
Just get the politicos to spend a few hundred million pushing up the profile
of cycling- get the celebs cycling.
Get British Management on their bikes-a few pop stars on pedals.
Our continental neighbours love their cars Italy France Germany are car
mental----but love their bikes to---we sadly have been left standing at the
starting post with our measly 1.5% journeys by bike.
I am very hopefull the soon to be seen 150$ barrel of oil will nudge things
along--I see gas is already up 17%.
tam

 

[tam]

">> 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.
>
> What statistical evidence? You haven't bloody presented any! All you
> seem
> to do is make assertions and back them up with sweet FA.
>
> One reason you might consider per mile being favourable to cyclists and
> per
> hour favourable to walkers is fairly obvious:
>
> If we consider the areas of highest risk to be road junctions, and a half
> hour walk to cover 10 junctions. Cycling the same route would take 10
> minutes - 10 areas of higher risk in a third of the time.
>
> I'm not saying that this accounts for the difference, just pointing out
> one
> reason why your dismissal of the data is ill thought out.

Stats--stats--stats--stats-------.
1.5% of journeys by bike is THE stat.
In many cities in Europe the following takes place.
Your average punter wants to go to the cinema--its 5 miles away how should I
go--car its boring- petrols low--I must park it etc--bus--an option- perhaps
underground and overground options in the city--.
I will go by bike--instant travel--most cyclists do not wear a single item
of "bike gear"--we are off --20 minutes later enter the cinema.
In Holland 27 trips out of 100 end up like this.
We surely can get the bike figure up to 15%--but--not on UK roads alone.
tam

 

[tam]

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

I certainly belong on the roads on my trike--cycling in rush hour on tram
lines on a trike being chased by a Trabi is a regular experience for me.

Quite happy to ride in the road.

You will not get the masses to commence cycling on UK roads.
tam

 

[tam]

>>
..
>>
>> We are being told by Paul and Tam that there aren't any downsides to
>> infrastructure spending, but the sad fact of the matter is it needs us
>> to have our cake and eat it too, which we can't have. And even that is
>> with the spectacularly gargantuan "if" of such things turning out to be
>> of the "high quality" Paul promises us will presage the second coming
>> (Christ on a bike... on a high quality cycle track no less! ;-))
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> It might be, but there should be some debate about it if there's only so
>> much spending to go around. I want money to go on cycling where it's
>> most effective. I think it entirely likely that isn't a major public
>> commitment to a nationwide system of tracks like we see in NL. The
>> justification we've had in this thread for such a commitment to
>> segregated tracks is an announcement that there are some press
>> clippings, a report we don't have access to, some hearsay from Camden, a
>> gut feeling, and an assurance that tracks aren't as dangerous as some
>> people make them out to be. That's not actually very much to go on to
>> turn British town planning on its head and spend lord knows what.
>>
>> 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/
>
> Apologies for a long posting. The following excerpts are from a
> report on a conference held in London, organised by the Dutch Embassy,
> on cycling in 2006.
>
> It will be noted that the speakers do not claim that cycle networks
> alone are sufficient (training for example is considered a valuable
> PART of what is required), but all accpet their role in stumulating
> cycle levels and safety. Remember that these are, in the main,
> professional engineers. They undertake assessments of cycling policy
> and its effectiveness and base their policy on those assessments.
> What they do not do is to rely on John Franklin's reputation and his
> reporting of studies. They look at the studies and conclude that the
> evidence available to them shows that their policies work. The
> speakers also included a representative of the Dutch cyclists
> organisation indicating that the strategy is supported not only by
> engineers but by cyclists too.
>
> No doubt Peter Clinch and others will dismiss this with their comfort
> slogan about correlation and causation. No doubt Peter and others
> will consider that these Dutchies are ignorant of the truth and
> misunderstand the situation, failing to realise that really it was all
> due to something else!!!!
>
> The report was written by a member of LCC who attended the conference.
> Not by me. Notes [in square brackets] have been added by me.
>
> The next speaker [after introductory remarks by the Ambassador] at the
> conference was Ms Ria Hilhorst, the cycling coordinator for the
> Municipality of Amsterdam. Ms Hilhorst indicated the cycling policy
> aims of the city of Amsterdam. The first aim is to create and maintain
> an urban cycle network and to create separate cycling lanes to make
> Amsterdam accessible for cyclists ... The fourth important policy aim is
> to create safety in traffic by separate cycling lanes
> Ms de Lange from the Amsterdam Branch of the Cyclists' Union
> (Fietsersbond) also opened the session by presenting on how the
> bicycle reconquered Amsterdam. In the 1950's and 1960's Amsterdam was
> packed with cars as more people owned and drove cars in the city.
> There has even been a steep decline in cyclists since the 1950's but
> still there are many bicycle users. In 1975 the cyclists no longer put
> up with the limited road space and joined up at the Cyclists' Union.
> The first step in promoting changes was to draw political and social
> attention to the bicycle. The Traffic Circulation Plan helped improve
> bicycle conditions in Amsterdam. The aim of the plan was to reduce the
> number of parking spaces for cars and making them more expensive. The
> development of a Main Bicycle Network [ie a network with a large
> proportion of segregated links] was also included in the scheme. At
> the same time good alternatives were provided such as public transport
> and bike use. Cycling becomes appealing when it is easier and faster
> to go by bike than by car. Improvements have been made such as reduced
> speed for cars and separate cycling lanes that protect cyclists.-
> The next presenter was Mr Jan Koeman of the Dutch campaign 'Cycling to
> Work' and COS - Centre for International Cooperation. A change in
> attitudes and the encouragement of cycling will happen by creating
> more space and separate cycle paths for cyclists in towns and along
> roads. In addition, dangerous crossings should be marked clearly and
> should be elevated to reduce speed, also in shared traffic lanes. It
> is also important to realise that the young cyclists of today are the
> car drivers of the future. Not only young people should receive
> education in cycling but also adults because it enables them to show
> respect to cyclists when they are driving their car.
>
> The third presenter was Mr Tonny Bosch from traffic and transport
> consultancy Goudappel Coffeng in the Netherlands. Mr Bosch presented
> Cycle Masterplanning and the demands for clean air and segregated road
> use, which guarantees comfort and safety. Blizzard cycling routes are
> good infrastructural lanes which enable cyclists to reach their
> destination quickly
>
> Mr Andre Pettinga is a representative from one of the leading advice
> and engineering agencies in Europe: Grontmij. Mr Pettinga is an urban
> planner and traffic engineer. Over the years the Netherlands has
> experimented with cycling, for example with a variety of densities,
> traffic calming, transparency in housing areas, and the integration of
> water and green features. What is needed to create good cycle networks
> [ie with an appropriate level ofb segregated tracks] are money, ground
> works, streets, and urban opportunities. One must bear in mind that
> these developments need to be consistent, and inclusive to incorporate
> cycling infrastructure in other urban projects. On a political level
> it is essential that politicians highlight the positive economic
> consequences of such infrastructure.
>
A very interesting read thanks for putting it up.
A country with a journey by cycle of 27%-----dream on UK--but perhaps it
will come who knows how quickly volatile oil prices will rise.
If I was a young UK politico I would be dusting off all those mass transit
by bike reports--yes those yellow paged ones high up on top of the cupboard.
tam