Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[Red Light]

It is interesting about Milton Keynes. I have never been cycling there, but people say it has a large off-road cycle network. I have driven through the town and it is a mess of fast roads and roundabouts, so I can imagine on-road cycling isn't the most pleasant. So why does Milton Keynes fail to encourage cycling and a similar town in the Netherlands can have cycling as the norm? Is this purely cultural or does road design have some bearing?

Milton Keynes, Stevenage and East Kilbride all tried the oft proposed solution. They completely segregated cars and cycles which have their own completely segregated network so you never need to go near the roads. They have some of the lowest cycling levels in the UK. So if anyone tells you what we need is segregated facilities to encourage more people to cycle, just point them to the failed experiments in those three towns (and the booming cycling in London despite few facilities and the alternative of excellent public transport)

 

[downfader]

Dell... I meant interesting as in "contraversial"

 

[Red Light]

This video would suggest otherwise: the difference is because of segregation

You wouldn't expect anything else from that video - David Hembrow has long promoted the view that segregation is THE solution. It's also misleading. The CTC in the UK and LAB in the US were equally active in Victorian times in getting the roads made suitable for cycle use - the Good Road's movement which ironically made the introduction of motor cars feasible.

If you want to know the true history of cycling in the Netherlands, The Dutch Bicycle Master Plan is an illuminating read. But the fact is that a massive spend on building segregated cycle facilities in the Netherlands in the late 80's/early 90's resulted in no increase in cycling and the Dutch Cycle Balance audit of city cycling provision makes no consideration of cycle facilities other than parking.

 

[dellzeqq]

Dell... I meant interesting as in "contraversial"

I know you did.

And the Saints are going up! I'm surprised you're in a fit state to type. What was it like in town last night?

 

[stowie]

and that is the key question we need an answer to. I'd argue that by limiting the speed of the cars to 20mph in areas where peds and cyclists are present the environment is immediately made more conducive, or as dell might say convivial, to human powered transport. I'd also contend that the reason why many folk have leapt on boris bikes with gusto is that, in the zones they are available the avg traffic speeds are very low making cycling safer and quicker. well, that and 70 million people a year using a victoria tube station. I find cycling in the pack streets of the west end and city far more enjoyable than trecking down, say, the mall where cars cabs and other cyclists are hazards.

Completely agree. Limit cars to 20mph (and actually enforcing it) wouldn't slow car journeys significantly which are pretty much determined by junction signals and congestion rather than the top speed that can be attained. I would also really crack down hard on unlicensed and un-insured drivers who are disproportionately likely to be involved in serious accidents, and hit and runs. And form 10% of the driving community in London (significantly more in certain areas).

 

[Red Light]

it's not just about roadways though. Look beyond cycle lanes (which will generally detract from the conviviality of streets), and ask - is this street meaningful? Do people want to be here? Is it a flourishing place? Do the people who live and work here think of it as their own? Does it have a character that is particular to the area? Does it have the mix of shops, history, dwellings, places of worship. people and whatever that gives identity?

Cue health Minister Anne Milton
Should 'play streets' be brought back?

 

[summerdays]

Milton Keynes, Stevenage and East Kilbride all tried the oft proposed solution. They completely segregated cars and cycles which have their own completely segregated network so you never need to go near the roads. They have some of the lowest cycling levels in the UK. So if anyone tells you what we need is segregated facilities to encourage more people to cycle, just point them to the failed experiments in those three towns (and the booming cycling in London despite few facilities and the alternative of excellent public transport)

Never having cycled in any of those and only having driven through MK ... does the cycle network go where people want to cycle?

I use road, cycle paths, cycle lanes etc depending on where I'm going and whether it makes my life easier - the paths that I like the most are those that get rid of a hill or cut off two sides of a triangle - usually taking a better route than the cars can take. The speed thing is true as I've found when I've been under the weather and unable to cycle so fast that I have felt more vulnerable on roads that have lots of traffic at higher speeds. I used a new cycle bridge for the first time last week - I discovered in one direction it does make my journey nicer than the main road, but in the other direction it is much faster going on the main road where I'm able to go at their speed (due to a big downhill).

I would say that if you come to cycling from a motoring background then often you don't have a great awareness of all the local back roads that are available to use because you are normally concerned with finding routes that are free flowing and faster (not whether it is shorter or flatter), whereas if you have walked around your area a lot then you are more aware of alternative routes to try.

 

[Tommi]

I agree. The difference in cycling safety between the Netherlands and the UK can be explained completely by the Safety in Numbers effect.

Completely? That seems rather unlikely to me, but do you have the research? I've yet to see a study that can show cycling infrastructure did not contribute to safety nor numbers.

And the one thing that cycle facilities do no do, as shown by the Dutch, Danish, German and Irish experiences and our own in Milton Keynes, Stevenage and East Kilbride, is increase the numbers cycling.

That's a "do not do" right? And with "cycle facilities" you mean segregated facilities rather than e.g. cycle parking? Just checking since what I've read is rather opposite and that whenever you do build cycling facilities in a desired route the cycling rates increase.

 

[Red Light]

Never having cycled in any of those and only having driven through MK ... does the cycle network go where people want to cycle?

That's exactly what they were designed for. All three were new towns and they were designed from scratch with a blank sheet. There were no roads or buildings there to constrain the design. So it's pretty much as ideal as you could get.

 

[summerdays]

Cue health Minister Anne Milton
Should 'play streets' be brought back?

I've let my children play out on the street since they were about 8 or so (quiet back street only a road or so away from the main road)... and luckily my neighbours have been tolerant of footballs, bikes and skateboards in the road.

 

[jonesy]

Milton Keynes, Stevenage and East Kilbride all tried the oft proposed solution. They completely segregated cars and cycles which have their own completely segregated network so you never need to go near the roads. They have some of the lowest cycling levels in the UK. So if anyone tells you what we need is segregated facilities to encourage more people to cycle, just point them to the failed experiments in those three towns (and the booming cycling in London despite few facilities and the alternative of excellent public transport)

Indeed, and you might also point to Oxford and Cambridge with a long history of high modal share for cycling that is mostly undertaken on road.

These discussions always prompt me to pick up my favourite theme of trip length and advantage: 1) irrespective of how cycle friendly a city might be, if only a small proportion of regular trips are within normal cycling distance (i.e. much shorter than most people here would consider) then cycling will only ever have a small modal share; and 2) even if there are enough trips within cycling distance then these will only move to cycling if it is advantageous to do so, i.e. it is time competitive and convenient to cycle in comparison with the alternatives.

So, in Oxford and Cambridge, and increasingly in London, there are lots of cycleable distance trips being made (commuting being particularly important), and congestion and lack of parking mean cycling is time competitive for those trips. While in Milton Keynes and Bracknell, the spread-out land-use has reduced the proportion of trips within cycling distance, and the extensive network of high capacity roads and availability of parking make cycling less competitive in journey time and convenience. No amount of cycle path construction will make the slightest difference to those factors, yet they are absolutely fundamental in determining the underlying potential demand for cycling.

 

[GrasB]

Never having cycled in any of those and only having driven through MK ... does the cycle network go where people want to cycle?

That's exactly what they were designed for. All three were new towns and they were designed from scratch with a blank sheet. There were no roads or buildings there to constrain the design. So it's pretty much as ideal as you could get.

+1 they take you damn close to where you want to go BUT it may take a long time getting there. You see the last time I used the cycleways in MK they were so polluted with glass & stone debris you nearly doubled your distance after you'd ridden round all the patches of c**p.

 

[Red Light]

Mm

Completely? That seems rather unlikely to me, but do you have the research? I've yet to see a study that can show cycling infrastructure did not contribute to safety nor numbers.

Yes. From memory cycling per km is 2.4 times safer in the Netherlands than the UK (1.6 deaths per 100m km vs 3.8) and the Dutch cycle 12 times as far per person per annum. So on that basis you would expect Dutch cycling to be 2.7 times safer due to the numbers effect alone

That's a "do not do" right? And with "cycle facilities" you mean segregated facilities rather than e.g. cycle parking? Just checking since what I've read is rather opposite and that whenever you do build cycling facilities in a desired route the cycling rates increase.

I don't know where you've read that but I'm reading various research reports such as the recent one into the Danish cycle tracks which like the others, found building them increased injury rates by 22%.
Copenhagen.pdf

 

[Red Light]

+1 they take you damn close to where you want to go BUT it may take a long time getting there. You see the last time I used the cycleways in MK they were so polluted with glass & stone debris you nearly doubled your distance after you'd ridden round all the patches of c**p.

There is that about segregated facilities too which is not helped by low usage either. Another issue is lack of gritting in winter.

 

[Red Light]

These discussions always prompt me to pick up my favourite theme of trip length and advantage: 1) irrespective of how cycle friendly a city might be, if only a small proportion of regular trips are within normal cycling distance (i.e. much shorter than most people here would consider) then cycling will only ever have a small modal share; and 2) even if there are enough trips within cycling distance then these will only move to cycling if it is advantageous to do so, i.e. it is time competitive and convenient to cycle in comparison with the alternatives.

That raises another interesting comparison between the UK and the Netherlands. The percentage of children living within a mile of school who cycle or walk there is higher in the UK than the Netherlands. The same for 1-2 miles and other distances. But UK children live further from school than Dutch children so overall far fewer UK children walk or cycle to school than in the Netherlands.