dumbass LCC bike lane on Stratford High Street

[Pete Owens]

Oh lordly, Stevenage Again, and it turns out I'm not allowed to have my own thoughts on that topic either. That's OK. And it's not like I'd be expecting you to read other people's thoughts either. http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpres...d-is-the-cycling-infrastructure-in-bracknell/

Ah my own personal character assasination by Hembow's representative on Earth,

You are allowed to have thoughts of your own - but if those thoughts are counter-factual then expect them to be challenged - and expect to justify your arguments. It is also a bit rich to complain that others exhibiting "groupthink" when all you ever seem to do is quote Hembrow and his accolites.

Now, to take Mark Treasure's argument - which is exactly what I expected you to come with when I said "And don't try to brush this off by claiming that somehow these cycle neworks are incomplete or inadequate." Yes, maybe our new town cycle networks are not quite as good as the best Dutch examples (though there is plenty of rubbish in the NL too). But they do exist, they do go everywehere, and they do meet the key requirement, always made by the advocates of segregation, that they keep cyclists away from motor traffic. And what is more, being built from scatch on greenfield sites, those networks are far better and more comprehensive than anything that could possibly be retrofitted in a crowded city. If you live in Stevenage or Milton Keynes, or Livingstone or Telford or Skelmersdale and so on then you do not need to mix with traffic so if there were any merit whatsoever in the claim that cycle infrastructure caused an increase in cycling then you would see that in the figures - maybe not to Dutch levels but there would be some effect when there is none.

And since you seem to respect Treasure's opinions try reading his critiscism of the facility which is the subject of this very thread in the comments to this blog post:
http://departmentfortransport.wordp...never-mind-the-quality-feel-the-width-part-1/

 

[Pete Owens]

I don't know about the others, but the very structure of MK is very conducive to private car transport. In fact, if I was designing a town specifically to cater for private motorists, I doubt I would stray far from the MK model. Driving is simply the easiest way around town.

But the hypothesis is that the existence of cycle paths leads to more cycling. That "normal" people are deterred from cycling because of the fear of riding on the roads. In MK there are A LOT of cycle paths, they go everywhere and people do not have to mix it with traffic - yet very few cyclists.

Whatever you think the reasons for the complete and utter failure of cycle paths to generate cycle traffic (and not just in MK, but all our post war new-towns - including Skelmesdale whatever noodle may claim) the fact reamains that these cycle paths do not lead to more cycle traffic. And it is not just in the new towns - you see no effect whatsoever on a smaller scal near to cycle paths where they have been installed in other places.

As you correctly point out the key factor in encouraging cycling is not cycle infrastructure, but restraint of motor traffic. While this is anathema to most of the highway engineering and planning profession, the very few places that have actively discouraged motor traffic, such as Oxford - which deliberately makes it difficult to drive though or London with the congestion charge - or those places where conservaton concerns restrain the traffic engineers to some extent - York, Cambridge, Shrewsbury and so on are those which see the greatest levels of cycling.

Within London the most succesful bourough - the one place in the country where more people travel to work by bike than by car - is Hackney. A borough where they actually listen to the local cyclists and thus have a reputation for opposition to segregated cycle facilities.

 

[Pete Owens]

You are damn right I want some sort of barrier betwixt me and these people, even if it's a white line, because most of these morons will respect the white line.

To see how much less space you get when you paint a white line take a look at:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/report/cycle-lanes.pdf

 

[noodle]

And that of course is indicative of every facility isn't it
Some roads are terribly planned. by that token should we share the other parts adjacent to said road as it makes everything easier?

To see how much less space you get when you paint a white line take a look at:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/report/cycle-lanes.pdf

t

 

[noodle]

But the hypothesis is that the existence of cycle paths leads to more cycling. That "normal" people are deterred from cycling because of the fear of riding on the roads. In MK there are A LOT of cycle paths, they go everywhere and people do not have to mix it with traffic - yet very few cyclists.

Whatever you think the reasons for the complete and utter failure of cycle paths to generate cycle traffic (and not just in MK, but all our post war new-towns - including Skelmesdale whatever noodle may claim) the fact reamains that these cycle paths do not lead to more cycle traffic. And it is not just in the new towns - you see no effect whatsoever on a smaller scal near to cycle paths where they have been installed in other places.

As you correctly point out the key factor in encouraging cycling is not cycle infrastructure, but restraint of motor traffic. While this is anathema to most of the highway engineering and planning profession, the very few places that have actively discouraged motor traffic, such as Oxford - which deliberately makes it difficult to drive though or London with the congestion charge - or those places where conservaton concerns restrain the traffic engineers to some extent - York, Cambridge, Shrewsbury and so on are those which see the greatest levels of cycling.

Within London the most succesful bourough - the one place in the country where more people travel to work by bike than by car - is Hackney. A borough where they actually listen to the local cyclists and thus have a reputation for opposition to segregated cycle facilities.

Go see for yourself. You won't though will you as it doesn't fit the statistics or you pre determined plan of how things are
I once was taught a useful thing about statistics well more than one tbh but the rather nice quote still makes me smile liars damn liars and staticticians
As for other towns/cities mentioned
Bedford wasn't that bad oxford was horrendous far to many idiots roaming aimlessly on bikes Cambridge is a tough one I can't recall ever being there sober so judging it is tricky
Milton Keynes and Runcorn are terrible Runcorn is dire even in a car and has no redeeming features whatsoever

 

[noodle]

Explain hackney please what have they done?
Do you have children?
One of the problems with youngsters is who do they look to? When was the last time you did anything towards getting them off the sofa and outside?
Sitting here crying you don't want this or that won't make one bit of difference poring over dubious statistical data or taking photos of how stupid councils are again will make no difference. So real world where I live work make money contribute to the economy so favoured by today's politicians
What do you do to make the difference and get kids riding or doing anything for that matter

 

[Learnincurve]

This all screams a bit of "I don't like cheese so cheese is pointless and shouldn't exist, look at all the statistics I have from other cheese haters to back me up. Everyone should eat ham sandwiches because ham is what works for me".

 

[srw]

No. It's "cheese is a good option sometimes, but if it's the cheapo plastic Edam stuff it's a bit lowest common denominator, and never as good as you think it's going to be, particularly sandwiched between white pappy pre-sliced. Sometimes cheese is good, but only if it's top-notch hand-crafted artisan unpasteurised stuff, and the bread is worth eating on its own. Sometimes ham is good, sometimes chicken, sometimes falafel. In this case what's being offered is a strange mixture of aged cheddar and low-fat cheese substitute."

 

[srw]

Oh, and some of us have been cycling in London since it was only hard-core roadies dicing it with HGVs. What happened was a mix of the carrot and the stick - bus lanes, congestion charge, anti-pollution zones, generally lower standards of living, as well as publicity and lots of wasted money. And Chris Hoy and Bradley Wiggins and a thousand and one individuals getting out there and riding and encouraging others to do so.

 

[theclaud]

It is more that, tempting though the dream is, there is precious little evidence that the idea would work here. There is a lot of evidence to show that we just don't have the space, even to try halfheartedly. We can see other ways to achieve the objective.

Come on Ade - make some effort to run with the duff analogy. It's more like (vegetarians will need to make allowances) - wouldn't it be nice if everyone could have a ham sandwich when they wanted, but there are a whole bunch of aggressive, greedy people who don't want anyone else using the kitchen to make a sandwich of any kind, because they wish to store a giant Slush-Puppie machine in it and charge through it knocking things over on their way to get to the kettle. So instead of insisting that it's perfectly reasonable to make a ham sandwich, we give up the kitchen and fill the bits of the house that the greedy people don't use with bargain-basement cheese, and then get stroppy with the people who dare to complain that they'd quite like to go about their business without having to step over blocks of cheese left in unlikely places or worry about being surprised by blocks of cheese falling out of the airing cupboard onto their heads, and who suggest that it would be better for everyone if we just insisted on keeping the cheese and making the sandwiches in the kitchen.

Or something.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

And since you seem to respect Treasure's opinions try reading his critiscism of the facility which is the subject of this very thread in the comments to this blog post:
http://departmentfortransport.wordp...never-mind-the-quality-feel-the-width-part-1/

It is interesting that you use 'Hembrow and his accolites' to dismiss viewpoints that don't aggree with yours, given that you cannot even tell the various bloggers apart. The long blog post you've just rather weirdly attributted to Mark Treasure is not by him.

If you wish to revert the subject back to the bus bypass originally commented on, I've offered my thoughts there on this tread previously.

PS- can you please point me to the "character assassination" I performed on you?

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

"Pete Owens did nothing of the sort - he referred to the comments below the blog."

Right. Sorry about that folks -I apologise unreservedly.


Now when I go to Marks *comments* on the the blog post, the substantial contribution is that in response to Pete, Mark observes that there is a difference between the execution of bus bypass and the whole idea of bus bypasses per se.

I'm struggling to see how this observation helps Pete in his current line of argument.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

You need to calm down and read more carefully. Pete Owens did nothing of the sort - he referred to the comments below the blog.

Right. Sorry about that folks -I apologise unreservedly.

Now when I go to Marks *comments* on the the blog post, the substantial contribution is that in response to Pete, Mark observes that there is a difference between the execution of bus bypass and the whole idea of bus bypasses per se. I'm struggling to see how this observation helps Pete in his current line of argument.

Evidence for this claim please.

I think the evidence for the claim that more people cycle where there is decent infra is, that more people cycle where there is decent infra. Compare the exchange

Mr A: 'Black is not white'
Mr B: 'Evidence for this claim please.'

Not only is this borne out by the mode share in the UK v. the Netherlands, it is also, tellingly, borne out *within* the Netherlands.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

I thought knock's posts had the whiff of Hembrow about them.

"If all things were turned to smoke, the nostrils would distinguish them." -Heraclitus

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

Ah - more bollocksy guff and no evidence then...

Not really, but every time I link to evidence I get dismissed as one of "Hembrow's accolites [sic]". It's like you think the facts have joined the party opposite, and are therefore to be resisted at all costs.

EG, earlier on we had some "bollocksy guff" about the dutch experience being irrelevant, on account of the commuting times being higher. Well, the commuting distances are much higher too, so logically, one would expect *less* cycling in the NL than here. Only there isn't less, but a whole order of magnitude more. Because infrastructure.

You've already called me all the rude names in your box about linking Hembrow- but hey: he links to other stuff, and there's nothing to stop you checking out his data: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/12/are-your-travel-distances-and-times-too.html