and that is the key to the laziness in this publication. No differentiation between towns where cycling is increasing exponentially and towns where it is moribund. No understanding whatsoever about permeability. No real inquiry in to what cycling is for, and certainly no understanding that it is a means to an end. And, since the single motive is, apparently, to reduce reliance on car driving, no appreciation of how car travel can be disincentivised, and urban form made more amenable to cycling and walking. It's a talentless, witless piece of work, but that I don't mind so much as that fact that we paid a million quid for it. I want the money back.
When designing infrastructure for new cyclists, ignore the existing ones, says study
- Thread starter gaz
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
OK, that I agree with. It's not so much what they did, it's what they didn't do.
The bikehub page contains a link to the paper (http://www.bikehub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Understanding_Walking__Cycling_Report.pdf), but when I download it and read with the latest Adobe reader, Adobe goes unresponsive on me. Can other folk read the paper? Is a working copy available from elsewhere?
OP
OP
gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
I can't find another version. I have no problem reading the pdf from bike hub.
Have you tried updating your adobe reader?
Another view on this study can be found here.
I agree with the entirety of this text, both about the wrong and largely exaggerated negative interpretation of the reports findings, and genearally about the opinion that the report is mostly stating obvious facts, nothing very controversial indeed.
Here's a quote:
I agree with the entirety of this text, both about the wrong and largely exaggerated negative interpretation of the reports findings, and genearally about the opinion that the report is mostly stating obvious facts, nothing very controversial indeed.
Here's a quote:
Richard Mann
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Oxford
Adobe 10.1 lets me see all 26 pages, but no text!!!!
First, it is essential that the urban environment is made safe for cyclists and pedestrians. This requires the provision of fully segregated routes on all arterial and other busy roads in urban areas. It is clear from the research that most non-cyclists and recreational cyclists will only consider cycling regularly if they are segregated from traffic, and that pedestrians are hostile to pavement cyclists.
that's bollocks for a start. Has he not looked at the A24?
What's really sad (and that's £963,000 sad) is that the man has absolutely no conception of public space. No clue as to how land values affect trip generation and vice versa. And maybe my Adobe reader is playing up (I've just updated it) but there's no mention of the word 'bus'. Because, as the great Dave Holladay (who could have produced a better report for nine hundred and sixty three quid) has it 'when it rains you need more buses'
that's bollocks for a start. Has he not looked at the A24?
What's really sad (and that's £963,000 sad) is that the man has absolutely no conception of public space. No clue as to how land values affect trip generation and vice versa. And maybe my Adobe reader is playing up (I've just updated it) but there's no mention of the word 'bus'. Because, as the great Dave Holladay (who could have produced a better report for nine hundred and sixty three quid) has it 'when it rains you need more buses'
stowie
Legendary Member
To be fair, the report was specifically concerning walking and cycling.
I have only skimmed the report, but it doesn't appear to be particularly controversial. The paragraph which implies "ignoring existing cyclists" says that policies should not be based upon the views of existing committed cyclists and walkers. This has been clarified by the writer that he meant shouldn't be solely based. I am guessing that he wanted to make a point and the paragraph reads very badly. There is a point in all this hyperbole though. If I am looking to increase the usage of my product, I may ask current users what they like about it, but would be also very interested indeed in understanding the views of potential users. I also agree that cycle policy hasn't been made bad by listening to current cyclists, but by not listening to anyone.
Interestingly the survey indicates that the reason people don't cycle is not only the "danger" problem. Looking a bit silly in a plastic hat and being sweaty were also cited. I guess the plastic hat wearing may relate to the perceived danger of cycling, but the sweaty issue intrigues me. Do the dutch - with their similar climate - not worry about being sweaty? Have they somehow removed their sweat glands? Or maybe they are OK with smelly? Why are we worried when they aren't?
Because our image of a cyclist is the sports cyclist, not the elderly-woman-cycling-to-church cyclist. It's perfectly possible to cycle places and not get sweaty, if you're not having to move at car-comparable speeds in order to establish your space on the road
jonesy
Guru
Agreed, but it isn't just speed of course: Dutch cycling distances are short, as they are in places in the UK with high levels of utility cycling. It would be interesting to get some real data (from existing cyclists...) on how far people will cycle to work in normal clothes and without a shower.
byegad
Legendary Member
- Location
- NE England
AND far too many of them give up as they can't make progress for the unnecessary signs and multiple give ways built into the stupid 'infrastructure' which makes cycling seem more dangerous than it actually is.
You'd think they were doing it on purpose!
They aren't really typical examples of UK towns and cities though.
Both have high student populations, the colleges are spread about the town, parking is difficult and expensive and students are prohibited from bringing their cars with them. That doesn't leave a lot of options left for getting about other than walking and cycling.
jonesy
Guru
Again, it isn't just the students that cycle in Oxford and Cambridge Don't forget that the modal share figure most usually reported is for travel to work, i.e not students. I'd agee they aren't 'typical' towns- apart from anything else they've got a high modal share for cycing! Don't you think researchers ought to be more interested in why that might be? I also agree limited parking and traffic restraint are important factors , but that is most definitely relevant to other towns, university or not. People will cycle if it is advantageous to do so in comparison with other modes.
Richard Mann
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Oxford
Essentially what happened in Oxford is that people realised that they could never make enough room for cars, and they needed to find alternatives if they wanted the city to thrive. There was a whole lot done (bike lanes, bus lanes, quiet bike routes) to improve alternatives, and a lot done to make parking less available / more expensive. In two stages, traffic has been pushed out of the centre, with buses getting less congestion and faster routes as a result.
I'd say the hard part is getting started. And a key part of getting started is a belief that change is both possible & desirable.
I'd say the hard part is getting started. And a key part of getting started is a belief that change is both possible & desirable.
