Cycle facilities increase cycling

LSMike said:

Or rather, they don't as far as I know. Does anyone have links to the
two reports that I recall reading that show increased cycling
facilitites did nothing to increase cycling? I think one was Danish
and the other Dutch.

Cheers,
Mike.

This was probably one of them.

http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20safety%20and%20percieved%20risk%20of%20cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20Copenhagen.pdf

It's funny how memory plays tricks. My recollection was the facilities
increased cycling by 10%. You remember no change, and somebody else
posted recently suggesting the same. A quick glance at the report
suggests an 18-20% increase. Pro-helmet campaigners aren't the only
ones who ignore evidence that doesn't suit their case.

For the record, I think cycle farcilities are the wrong approach and a
bad idea. However, they do (rightly or wrongly) seem to be liked by
newbies, and just ignoring evidence of that doesn't help our case.

Rob

Quoted message said:

On 30 Oct, 07:03, LSMike <[email hidden]> wrote:

Pro-helmet campaigners aren't the only
ones who ignore evidence that doesn't suit their case.

For the record, I think cycle farcilities are the wrong approach and a
bad idea

I take your point; almost every campaigner is at risk of falling into
that trap and thus discrediting their argument.
On the other hand, there are many people who sometimes wear a helmet,
and sometimes don't depending on all sorts of circumstances, and who
also welcome some cycle facilities with open arms while regarding
others as downright dangerous and to be avoided at all costs. They
probably don't post much here though, lacking the evangelical zeal
required of a campaigner.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On 30 Oct, 07:03, LSMike <[email hidden]> wrote:

Pro-helmet campaigners aren't the only
ones who ignore evidence that doesn't suit their case.

For the record, I think cycle farcilities are the wrong approach and a
bad idea

I take your point; almost every campaigner is at risk of falling into
that trap and thus discrediting their argument.
On the other hand, there are many people who sometimes wear a helmet,
and sometimes don't depending on all sorts of circumstances, and who
also welcome some cycle facilities with open arms while regarding
others as downright dangerous and to be avoided at all costs. They
probably don't post much here though, lacking the evangelical zeal
required of a campaigner.

Waves!!

[email hidden] wrote:
..

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, there are many people who
also welcome some cycle facilities with open arms while regarding
others as downright dangerous and to be avoided at all costs.

For me it all depends on how it's implemented. I want cycling facilities
that make it _safer_ and _easier_ to cycle in town. If those conditions
aren't met then the presence of mandatory cycling facilities is actually
deleterious to cycling since it forces cyclists into a worse situation
than they would be on the road.

I recently had this experience taking my bike back from the Salle des
Expositions in the 15th Arr. to the Cité Universitaire RER stop in the
14th. Someone suggested there would be no problem as there was a cycling
track along the whole way. This is a new cycling track that the City of
Paris is very proud of - look how green and cycle-friendly we are! What
I found was a nightmare of a narrow raised track that was interrupted by
cross-traffic every 100 meters or so. At every crossing, it curved
inward to the ped crossing and curved outwards again at the other side.
The very first time I tried to follow through one of these curves on a
green light I nearly got killed by a car turning right from the street
on the intersection. The second time, I clipped the edge of the sidewalk
and came right down, my first ever fall on Flyzipper. So in practise the
only solution I saw was to get _off_ the bike at every crossing and
cross on foot. Since stopping and starting has always been a problem for
me, and since my balance tends to get progressively worse as the number
of times I have to restart increases, it quickly became impractible to
negotiate safely that narrow, constantly bending raised strip. So I
walked the distance, at least 5km.

OTOH on the very same day I had discovered a wonder of a cycling track
that goes by the side of Vanves all the way past Montparnasse into the
center of town. It is on an overpass distinct from car traffic, only
intersected about every km and absolutely straight and smooth.

It's all about how it's done.

EFR
Ile de France

"Artemisia" <[email hidden]> a écrit:

Quoted message said:

I recently had this experience taking my bike back from the Salle
des Expositions in the 15th Arr. to the Cité Universitaire RER stop
in the 14th. Someone suggested there would be no problem as there
was a cycling track along the whole way.

Someone should certainly have known better. Was I the guilty party, or was
Jon?

James Thomson

James Thomson said:

Someone should certainly have known better. Was I the guilty party, or was
Jon?

Both of you would have ridden on the road anyway, so I don't see how you
could be held responsible for someone else's perception of a track that
you would never even use.

EFR
Ile de France

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

LSMike said:

Or rather, they don't as far as I know. Does anyone have links to the
two reports that I recall reading that show increased cycling
facilitites did nothing to increase cycling? I think one was Danish
and the other Dutch.

Cheers,
Mike.

This was probably one of them.

http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20safety%20and%20percieved%20risk%20of%20cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20Copenhagen.pdf

It's funny how memory plays tricks. My recollection was the facilities
increased cycling by 10%. You remember no change, and somebody else
posted recently suggesting the same. A quick glance at the report
suggests an 18-20% increase. Pro-helmet campaigners aren't the only
ones who ignore evidence that doesn't suit their case.

For the record, I think cycle farcilities are the wrong approach and a
bad idea. However, they do (rightly or wrongly) seem to be liked by
newbies, and just ignoring evidence of that doesn't help our case.

That paper does record a small increase in usage as well as a small
increase in accident rates. However its difficult because they had to
do a lot of corrections for general traffic trends and the influence of
the new facilities on other streets i.e. more traffic on that street
does not equate to more people cycling, it could be existing people
changing their route. All this comes from a pre-print I received of a
more detailed paper to be published.

However there is a lot more papers that record no increase particularly
in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany where substantial new facilities
were installed - doubling the network mileage for the Netherlands,
tripling it for Germany and in Denmark building their whole network from
scratch with no increase in cycling resulting. The Dutch, in their
benchmarking of cycling encouragement in different towns and cities
certainly ignore the presence and extent of all cycling facilities other
than parking.

Overall therefore I think it is wise to assume that the effect is
neutral and certainly not evident enough to justify the considerable
expense of building good facilities estimated at £700k/km

Another interesting document is on the Warrington Cycle Campaign website
on their visit to their twin town of Hilden in Germany. The town has
achieved a 24% increase in cycling levels but spent only £80k of cycle
specific facilities over the last ten years. What they have used are
some simple measures that rebalance the relationship between motorists
and vulnerable road users rather than segregating them.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/report/Hilden.pdf

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

"Artemisia" <[email hidden]> a écrit:

Quoted message said:

Both of you would have ridden on the road anyway

True. Remember though that I had ridden that route - in the opposite
direction - on Behemoth in the summer, and being confined to bottom gear I
rode mostly on the path. Perhaps I (or Jon) just assumed that you would be
more comfortable (and familiar) with the shortcomings of urban bike paths
than with the cut and thrust of inner-city traffic.

Sorry to hear about your tumble, in any case.

James Thomson

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20safety%20and%20percieved%20risk%20of%
20cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20Copenhagen.pdf>

It's funny how memory plays tricks. My recollection was the facilities
increased cycling by 10%. You remember no change, and somebody else
posted recently suggesting the same. A quick glance at the report
suggests an 18-20% increase. Pro-helmet campaigners aren't the only
ones who ignore evidence that doesn't suit their case.

For the record, I think cycle farcilities are the wrong approach and a
bad idea. However, they do (rightly or wrongly) seem to be liked by
newbies, and just ignoring evidence of that doesn't help our case.

Quoted message said:

That paper does record a small increase in usage as well as a small
increase in accident rates. However its difficult because they had to
do a lot of corrections for general traffic trends and the influence of
the new facilities on other streets...

However there is a lot more papers that record no increase particularly
in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany where substantial new facilities
were installed - doubling the network mileage for the Netherlands,
tripling it for Germany and in Denmark building their whole network from
scratch with no increase in cycling resulting.

Would it be true to say that lots of people /already/ cycled in those
three countries? It may be the case that the facilities just kept people
cycling and made motoring less tempting.

I am ambivalent about this: I would certainly cycle into the city centre
more frequently if I felt safe towing my daughter behind with the
Trailgator. Likewise, I would cycle to church with my daughter more if
there was a cycle route.

The daft thing is that lots of people cycle on the pavement between here
and my church: for about three miles the pavement is easily wide enough
and there are not many junctions. Now that I am a law abiding citizen, I
only cycle where I'm permitted to do so. Of course, I could always claim
the defence, if sanctioned for pavement cycling, that I was concerned
for the welfare of my daughter.

On the other hand, I would hate to find that, when cycling solo, I was
expected to share a cycling facility with pedestrians: on my own I cycle
way too quickly for that to be enjoyable and if I'm going to travel
without enjoyment I'll drive the car round town.

Cheers,
Luke

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

(Ekul Namsob) said:

Quoted message said:

However there is a lot more papers that record no increase particularly
in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany where substantial new facilities
were installed - doubling the network mileage for the Netherlands,
tripling it for Germany and in Denmark building their whole network from
scratch with no increase in cycling resulting.

Quoted message said:

Would it be true to say that lots of people /already/ cycled in those
three countries? It may be the case that the facilities just kept people
cycling and made motoring less tempting.

That would be my guess. In the NL I never really heard the argument we
hear all the time in the UK that someone doesn't cycle because it is too
dangerous. Dutch excuses are that it is raining or tiring or slower than
the car or their bike is broken or too far or too windy or too whatever...

Roos

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

LSMike said:

Or rather, they don't as far as I know. Does anyone have links to the
two reports that I recall reading that show increased cycling
facilitites did nothing to increase cycling? I think one was Danish
and the other Dutch.

Cheers,
Mike.

This was probably one of them.

http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20safety%20and%20percieved%20risk%20of%20cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20Copenhagen.pdf

It's funny how memory plays tricks. My recollection was the facilities
increased cycling by 10%. You remember no change, and somebody else
posted recently suggesting the same. A quick glance at the report
suggests an 18-20% increase. Pro-helmet campaigners aren't the only
ones who ignore evidence that doesn't suit their case.

For the record, I think cycle farcilities are the wrong approach and a
bad idea. However, they do (rightly or wrongly) seem to be liked by
newbies, and just ignoring evidence of that doesn't help our case.

That paper does record a small increase in usage as well as a small
increase in accident rates. However its difficult because they had to
do a lot of corrections for general traffic trends and the influence of
the new facilities on other streets i.e. more traffic on that street
does not equate to more people cycling, it could be existing people
changing their route. All this comes from a pre-print I received of a
more detailed paper to be published.

However there is a lot more papers that record no increase particularly
in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany where substantial new facilities
were installed - doubling the network mileage for the Netherlands,
tripling it for Germany and in Denmark building their whole network from
scratch with no increase in cycling resulting. The Dutch, in their
benchmarking of cycling encouragement in different towns and cities
certainly ignore the presence and extent of all cycling facilities other
than parking.

BUT the interesting question is how did the Netherlands achieve an
increase in cycling in the 1970s when it continued to decline in the UK.
Given a pretty extensive cycle network it is perhaps not surprising that
extending it has little effect.

"Paul Luton" <[email hidden]> wrote

[snip]

Quoted message said:

BUT the interesting question is how did the Netherlands achieve an
increase in cycling in the 1970s when it continued to decline in
the UK.
Given a pretty extensive cycle network it is perhaps not surprising
that extending it has little effect.

Well, in 1973 the Arabs cut off the Dutch oil supply to the extent
that driving on Sundays became illegal.

The Dutch government expected fuel shortages to continue, and thought
the result would be a ride in moped traffic.

Mopeds being notoriously dangerous, they worried about an increase in
moped accidents

To forestall the problem they introduced a compulsory helmet law (for
mopeds, not bikes) as did several other European countries.

The result was an immediate halving in moped traffic, the drying up
of new moped sales, a wave of moped salesmen and lobbyists looking
for new markets in places like the USA and Australia, and the
bankruptcy of moped firms. This was, for example, when the French
VeloSolex, once almost the emblem of rural France went out of
production.

Moped riding went down. Bike riding went up.

With the increase in cycle riding in mainland Europe, countries
started to think about roadways to put those bikes on. They looked
around the world for the leader in designing urban bike networks.
That was, of course, ***Great Britain***, with its new towns, such as
Stevenage and Harlow.

Inspired by Britain's example, the Netherlands introduced their first
pilot experiments in urban bike facility design, in Tilburg and the
Hague, in 1979.

How soon the world forgets.

Jeremy Parker

Tony Raven said:

However there is a lot more papers that record no increase particularly
in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany where substantial new facilities
were installed - doubling the network mileage for the Netherlands,
tripling it for Germany and in Denmark building their whole network from
scratch with no increase in cycling resulting. The Dutch, in their
benchmarking of cycling encouragement in different towns and cities
certainly ignore the presence and extent of all cycling facilities other
than parking.

Quoted message said:

--
Tony

Thanks! These are the ones I recall - do you have any specific links
or references?

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

However there is a lot more papers that record no increase particularly
in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany where substantial new facilities
were installed - doubling the network mileage for the Netherlands,
tripling it for Germany and in Denmark building their whole network from
scratch with no increase in cycling resulting. The Dutch, in their
benchmarking of cycling encouragement in different towns and cities
certainly ignore the presence and extent of all cycling facilities other
than parking.

Quoted message said:

--
Tony

Thanks! These are the ones I recall - do you have any specific links
or references?

Somewhere but I am sure you can Google them as quickly as I can dig them
out. I've posted them here before.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven said:

Somewhere but I am sure you can Google them as quickly as I can dig them
out. I've posted them here before.

--
Tony

I've tried a few times over the last couple of days, and only found
your comments on the studies, but no specifics. I'm either missing a
necessary keyword or am an inept searcher.

Jeremy Parker said:

Well, in 1973 the Arabs cut off the Dutch oil supply to the extent
that driving on Sundays became illegal.

The Dutch government expected fuel shortages to continue, and thought
the result would be a ride in moped traffic.

I remember no such thing, got a reference for that?

Quoted message said:

Mopeds being notoriously dangerous, they worried about an increase in
moped accidents

To forestall the problem they introduced a compulsory helmet law (for
mopeds, not bikes) as did several other European countries.

There was no causal relationship between the oil embargo in 1973 and the
introduction of compulsory helmet laws in 1974. IIRC the argumentation
used was moped injury statistics (without statistical indications that
helmets would result in a reduction).

Quoted message said:

The result was an immediate halving in moped traffic, the drying up
of new moped sales, a wave of moped salesmen and lobbyists looking
for new markets in places like the USA and Australia, and the
bankruptcy of moped firms. This was, for example, when the French
VeloSolex, once almost the emblem of rural France went out of
production.

Way overdramatized, the severe decline in moped usage didn't occur until
years later. And Solex folding had more to do with the products being
old fashioned than anything else.

Quoted message said:

Moped riding went down. Bike riding went up.

Actually the oil embargo had very little effect on car usage in The
Netherlands. The few car free Sundays were the only real effect, and
they were a failure in the sense that they did not reduce fuel
consumption.

Quoted message said:

How soon the world forgets.

More like how poorly informed some are.

--
Membrane

Membrane said:

Jeremy Parker said:

Well, in 1973 the Arabs cut off the Dutch oil supply to the extent
that driving on Sundays became illegal.

Actually the oil embargo had very little effect on car usage in The
Netherlands. The few car free Sundays were the only real effect, and
they were a failure in the sense that they did not reduce fuel
consumption.

They did however result in a dramatic if temporary increase in the cycle
network.

http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/mm/tempest/2068/Image/autoloos%20groter.jpg

--

Geoff

"Membrane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jeremy Parker said:

Well, in 1973 the Arabs cut off the Dutch oil supply to the extent
that driving on Sundays became illegal.

The Dutch government expected fuel shortages to continue, and
thought
the result would be a ride in moped traffic.

I remember no such thing, got a reference for that?

Alas, no. It's my memory against your memory. Fuel shortages did
continue, of course, with the second oil shock coming in 1978.
There's an OECD publication of 1978, "The Safety of Two Wheelers"
which might be relevant, but I don't have access to it, and it's
about a quarter of a century since I last read it.

As I recall, the Dutch had observed the world wide trend of transport
to move from bike to moped/motorcyle to small car to larger car, and
assumed that people, having experienced motorised vehicles, would
wish to keep using motorised vehicles, even if less fuel was
available

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mopeds being notoriously dangerous, they worried about an increase
in
moped accidents

To forestall the problem they introduced a compulsory helmet law
(for
mopeds, not bikes) as did several other European countries.

There was no causal relationship between the oil embargo in 1973
and the
introduction of compulsory helmet laws in 1974. IIRC the
argumentation
used was moped injury statistics (without statistical indications
that
helmets would result in a reduction).

Well, I certainly agree that the argument would have been injury
statistics. Nowadays there is a general trend in Britain to
introduce safety regulation for all sorts of activities, from
playing conkers to riding the Woolwich Ferry. However, in Britain or
the USA that wasn't the case in the 1970s, and I suspect it wasn't in
the Netherlands either. Some other factor must have existed. That
helmet legislation occurred in 1974 probably depended on some
specific trend in the moped accident rates at that time, that
accident rates were increasing, or were expected to increase. It
certainly doesn't imply that accidents were expected to decrease by
themselves.

If moped accidents were expected to increase, that certainly makes it
likely that moped riding was expected to increase.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The result was an immediate halving in moped traffic, the drying up
of new moped sales, a wave of moped salesmen and lobbyists looking
for new markets in places like the USA and Australia, and the
bankruptcy of moped firms. This was, for example, when the French
VeloSolex, once almost the emblem of rural France went out of
production.

Way overdramatized, the severe decline in moped usage didn't occur
until
years later.

The wave of moped lobbyists must have hit the USA in about 1978. For
example, the US MAUDEP (Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers
and Environmental Planners) started reacting to that wave with
sessions starting in their 1979 annual conference.

And Solex folding had more to do with the products being

Quoted message said:

old fashioned than anything else.

I seem to recall that in recent years a Hungarian company have bought
the Solex tooling, and started making them again. Does anyone know
details?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Moped riding went down. Bike riding went up.

Actually the oil embargo had very little effect on car usage in The
Netherlands. The few car free Sundays were the only real effect,
and
they were a failure in the sense that they did not reduce fuel
consumption.

Well yes, so basing predictions on the assumption that people would
want to keep motorised transportation was not so crazy. People were
rich enough to pay rather than have to compromise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How soon the world forgets.

More like how poorly informed some are.

--
Membrane

Jeremy Parker

Jeremy Parker said:

Nowadays there is a general trend in Britain to
introduce safety regulation for all sorts of activities, from
playing conkers to riding the Woolwich Ferry. However, in Britain or
the USA that wasn't the case in the 1970s, and I suspect it wasn't in
the Netherlands either.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Some other factor must have existed.

You are merely guessing and linking things as it suits you.

--
Membrane