Overwhelming support for giving up more road space to cyclists,........

[dellzeqq]

Maybe not the greatest graph, but all I've seen show pretty much the same thing: falling cycling in the UK, whether measured by % of journeys, number of journeys, distance per person and so on. Some show a slight increase in the last few years but it still seems like it could be just a blip on a near-zero flatline.

a graph that ends in 2006?

Now....in which city has cycling doubled since 2000? Clue - it's the one without zillions of bike paths.....

 

[mjr]

a graph that ends in 2006?

Yes, because I was illustrating the decline in the decades before 1990.

Now....in which city has cycling doubled since 2000? Clue - it's the one without zillions of bike paths.....

What's Brighton got to do with this?

Or do you mean the other one, which has built more bike paths and protected lanes during that time than most and is still building yet more, apparently to a standard higher than we've ever seen in the UK before?

 

[dellzeqq]

I refer you to the lists of campaigns at https://australian-cyclists-party.org/policy-options/ and http://lcc.org.uk/pages/policy (left sidebar) and nearby linked pages.

this would be the same LCC that ignored the deaths caused by construction traffic for five years while they pursued sweetheart deals with local authorities?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

As stated repeatedly, I wanted it to show the decline in cycling in the UK, which it does - or can you explain why not?

It may just be me, but the graph does seem to show pretty much a flat line. There's a slight decline to it after the massive drop at the beginning, but without a much more favourable scale it's hard to call it significant.

To me the graph looks like it says 'around the 1950's the UK population started being able to afford cars, so bought them and stopped cycling creating a huge drop in the number of miles cycled per head. A few people kept on at it. In the late 70's there was a fuel crisis and unemployment increase, more people couldn't afford cars or driving so were forced back on to bicycles. Since then the number has slowly tailed off, probably because the people who'd taken it up had gotten older and become unable to ride for some reason, possibly death.'

Isn't attributing any of this to some poorly connected painted bits of road a bit of a stretch?

 

[Markymark]

Loads more cyclists in London compared to 2006.

 

[benb]

This is worth a read: http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/netherlands/

Whilst it's clear that segregation and infrastructure are not a magic bullet, I would argue that if we want all of the people, no matter their age and ability, who want to cycle to be able to cycle, then Dutch-quality infrastructure is necessary.

 

[Markymark]

The risk the risk the risk....

...is that as usual we'll get a half-arsed attempt which is worse than nothing. I'd love decent cycle routes. I think some I have seen are excellent and am all behind them. My worry is that by the time the planners has agreed to motorists concerns and politicians interfering all we'll get is more painted strips of danger making everything worse.

I would need to be convinced that what we get is fit for purpose. My instincts tell me it won't.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I'm afraid I just go in to stuck record mode. The Dutch infrastructure comes with compulsion. I don't want the latter so I'll skip the former thank you. I think it's incredibly naïve to imagine that we can argue up spending on cycling segregation while avoiding compulsion and while it's selfish I don't want to be forced off of the roads for my ride to work and back even if it means little Timmy can cycle safely with his Grandpops on Sunday afternoon, it's not like there aren't already places they can go and do that.

 

[benb]

The risk the risk the risk....

...is that as usual we'll get a half-arsed attempt which is worse than nothing. I'd love decent cycle routes. I think some I have seen are excellent and am all behind them. My worry is that by the time the planners has agreed to motorists concerns and politicians interfering all we'll get is more painted strips of danger making everything worse.

I would need to be convinced that what we get is fit for purpose. My instincts tell me it won't.

I'd be the first person to argue that crap infrastructure is often worse than no infrastructure.
We need proper, legally binding, design standards for councils to follow, informed by people who actually know what they are talking about.

 

[Mugshot]

The risk the risk the risk....

...is that as usual we'll get a half-arsed attempt which is worse than nothing. I'd love decent cycle routes. I think some I have seen are excellent and am all behind them. My worry is that by the time the planners has agreed to motorists concerns and politicians interfering all we'll get is more painted strips of danger making everything worse.

I would need to be convinced that what we get is fit for purpose. My instincts tell me it won't.

In the mean time I'm going to continue to use the fabulous infrastructure which is already in place, is (reasonably) maintained and always goes exactly where I need to.

 

[mjr]

I'd love decent cycle routes. I think some I have seen are excellent and am all behind them.

Where are they and are they excellent throughout? I know of many that are good in parts, but then some councillor has demanded that they have stupid crash-causing obstructions put in them, or the terminal junction has been bodged, or... well, I'm sure everyone knows the sort of things I mean. I'm often asked for examples in this country and I can never think of ones that stand up to an end-to-end test ride.

It may just be me, but the graph does seem to show pretty much a flat line. There's a slight decline to it after the massive drop at the beginning [...] Isn't attributing any of this to some poorly connected painted bits of road a bit of a stretch?

Attributing it to anything is a bit of a stretch. I was using it as illustration of the decline, not as a way to attribute that decline to a single cause. Earlier, I suggested the old defend-our-right-to-the-roads approach didn't do enough to arrest the decline, but that graph is only offered as a way to show the decline, including what you call the massive drop.

In some ways, cycling is basically engaged in a beauty contest with other modes of transport because you can only use one at a time. Motoring became more attractive in the 1950s, yet until recently, the approach of cycling organisations (civic and commercial) seems to have been that cycling should try to carry on broadly as it did BC - Before Cars - rather than trying to make cycling more attractive. To make it more attractive to more people, we have to look at why it's considered unattractive and having no choice to sharing busy roads is often near the top (third-highest reason in a 2007 survey of my locality)... so the survey result in the initial post is hardly a surprise, is it?

 

[Mugshot]

Where are they and are they excellent throughout? I know of many that are good in parts, but then some councillor has demanded that they have stupid crash-causing obstructions put in them, or the terminal junction has been bodged, or... well, I'm sure everyone knows the sort of things I mean. I'm often asked for examples in this country and I can never think of ones that stand up to an end-to-end test ride.

I guess it depends on exactly what you want, if you refuse to share with peds and other cyclists for example or make any concessions what-so-ever then you will almost certainly struggle. but I'd like to recommend the NCN4 Neyland to Haverfordwest. 8 miles of bliss as far as I'm concerned, if you wanted 10 miles though.......well.....it doesn't quite cut the mustard.

 

[angus h]

I think it's incredibly naïve to imagine that we can argue up spending on cycling segregation while avoiding compulsion and while it's selfish I don't want to be forced off of the roads for my ride to work and back even if it means little Timmy can cycle safely with his Grandpops on Sunday afternoon, it's not like there aren't already places they can go and do that.

Perhaps in your corner of the world, cycling for little Timmy is just about having some fun with Grandpops, and the distances are such that he needs to hop in Dad's car if he actually wants to go somewhere.

Where I live, a child of 5 or 6 could, in principle, meet 95% of their transport and mobility needs with a bike plus public transport (there are something like 6 different rail lines within a distance a kid that age can easily ride, a dozen parks, four or five major shopping districts). So, for that matter, could most of the adults if they weren't some toxic combination of lazy, selfish and afraid of the roads. The idea that having somewhere kids can "go and ride a bike" is acceptable provision completely misses the point. Actually we have an excellent velodrome a few miles away, but getting there with a kid and their bike is far harder than it should be (even driving - the roads are gridlock at school pickup time, I wonder why?). It's not just about making cycling safer though, it's about removing the number one reason|excuse (delete as applicable) for not cycling.

Granted, if you live in a rural or outer-suburban area this may not hold true, 20-mile-each-way trips are a regular fact of life, but I don't think anybody is proposing to build segregated cycle superhighways in Sevenoaks?

 

[Markymark]

When I first got back into cycling a few years ago, everyone said "oh, isn't that dangerous?". Rarely hear that now, everyone says, "oh yes, I do a bit too, what sort of bike do you have?"

 

[benb]

The point for me is how do we enable everyone who wants to be able to cycle to actually be able to cycle.
At the moment many people have had that choice effectively removed from them because the roads are so hostile.