Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[Mr_colostomy]

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

This is a remarkably simplistic view. Without the segregation, there would not be the numbers to produce a safety in numbers effect.

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.

As for this, bundling together segregation approaches which are designed to benefit motorists (particularly German, Irish and British segregation) with segregation designed to benefit cyclists (Netherlands, Denmark) is a great way to mislead and misinform about what can be achieved with segregation when it is done right. This is a common theme in much of John Franklin's work.


Cycle infrastructure isn't just about safety, it is about making cycling appealing to normal people, by making it subjectively safe and objectively convenient. What the The Netherlands has achieved can be replicated here or anywhere, but by picking and choosing only the bits which are easiest of cheapest to implement, we will see only a fraction of that 20-40% modal share they have in NL, if any.


Just across the sea we have a proven system for taming the car and promoting the cycle. We should be replicating the system not treating it like a pick and mix. If we continue to do so, another decade will pass and cycling modal share will still be languishing around 1-2%. When that time comes, I for one will not be surprised.

 

[Tommi]

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

Mmm.. That is ignoring the effects between infrastructure and cycling rate. By the same logic you can just as well say Dutch cycling is 2.7 times safer due to better infrastructure alone.

I can accept the safety in numbers argument in that everything else being equal the more bicycles on the roads the safer it is. However I argue you can only get so far with the numbers without the infrastructure. And once you add infrastructure it directly contributes to safety by itself, as well as the numbers, making safety in numbers not directly comparable.

(Pretty much every country with significant, say more than 5% modal share seems to have significant separation from cars. I've yet to see examples of significant cycling without infrastructure.)

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

Originally you said cycling facilities do not increase the number of cyclists. Why bring up injury rates?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

As an example of where it has been got right in the UK visit, stay in, and cycle around, the city of Oxford. The off road bits work well, the shared (bike + ped) spaces/pavements work well provided as ever the cyclists give way to the peds and don't act like car drivers, and the on road cycle routes offer significant time, route priority and low traffic advantages to cyclists over motor vehicles.

 

[Tommi]

As for this, bundling together segregation approaches which are designed to benefit motorists (particularly German, Irish and British segregation) with segregation designed to benefit cyclists (Netherlands, Denmark) is a great way to mislead and misinform about what can be achieved with segregation when it is done right.

Interesting point, I hadn't thought about that. I wonder where Finland fits in this scheme. Most of the cycling infrastructure is shared use paths and as far as I recall direct, well taken care of, and virtually everywhere. And you can comfortably use walk/cycle route signage for navigation. Riding with cars is an exception as far as I know, more common for long distance but even then you often have shoulder (UK would call that cycle lane) to ride on. Mode share is 7% or 9% I think.

 

[dellzeqq]

Mmm.. That is ignoring the effects between infrastructure and cycling rate. By the same logic you can just as well say Dutch cycling is 2.7 times safer ........

it isn't - if you want to dispute my calculation, do so, but make it good.......

 

[dellzeqq]

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.


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.

there is a complete network of cycle paths in MK. Nobody uses them.

 

[dellzeqq]

I can accept the safety in numbers argument in that everything else being equal the more bicycles on the roads the safer it is. However I argue you can only get so far with the numbers without the infrastructure. And once you add infrastructure it directly contributes to safety by itself, as well as the numbers, making safety in numbers not directly comparable.

take a look at the CTC graph. It suggests that infrastructure increases deaths. Next!

 

[dellzeqq]

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.

permission to etch this on the forehead of WalthamforestCrapBlogQuoteWithoutPermissionBoy, Mr. Jonesy, sir?

The thing is this. We've got the roads we've got. They're not going to be dug up at a cost of billions to provide stuff that nobody* wants, and which will screw up our towns - not least because LCN+ was £140M down the tubes. As Greg wisely points out, there are better ways to go about making towns nicer places. And, as those cyclists who were so feared for their lives that they abandoned the tube post 7/7 and took to the bike proved, given a choice of a straight main road and some wiggly green line across a park approximately 99% will choose the main road.

Now, if anybody wants to draw a cycle path on a scale map of any part of London to demonstrate what they want, this is your chance........

*a few hundred at most

 

[Davidc]

Interesting ideas.

No. A load of utter rubbish.

Damaging and unhelpful rubbish at that.

 

[Tommi]

it isn't - if you want to dispute my calculation, do so, but make it good.......

Didn't see any calculation in this thread. Which one are you referring to?

 

[dellzeqq]

https://www.cyclechat.net/

 

[ufkacbln]

there is a complete network of cycle paths in MK. Nobody uses them.

Nothing to do with cycling at all - Everyone avoids the red routes.


Whether verifiable and deserved or press hysteria - they have a reputation for assaults, muggings and even rapes

 

[Tommi]

take a look at the CTC graph. It suggests that infrastructure increases deaths. Next!

I assume you're referring to the CTC Safety in Numbers document from earlier. As the document makes no mention of segregated infrastructure you'll have to walk me through how to reach such suggestion.

 

[dellzeqq]

they had a reputation for assaults, muggings and rapes (inspects annual rings in leg) sometime around 1984. That, to be honest, is a little beside the point. Jonesy has it right - if you design a city around the car, with overlarge trip distances, then people will use the car. MK is a featureless suburban grid, devoid of meaning, hidden behind shrubbery. People do not cycle on the redways or cycle on the roads. People do not walk on the redways or the footpaths.

 

[dellzeqq]

I assume you're referring to the CTC Safety in Numbers document from earlier. As the document makes no mention of segregated infrastructure you'll have to walk me through how to reach such suggestion.

Take a look at the curve. It purports to demonstrate that the more cyclists there are, the safer they are. Let's take that at face value. The next question is - why do some countries lie to the left of the curve and some to the right? If, indeed, more cyclists mean less risk, that can only be down to other factors. And the single greatest difference between the UK and Ireland which lie to the left of the curve and the Netherlands which lies on the curve is that the UK and Ireland have naff-all cycle infrastructure.

Which, of course, is to push tendentiousness beyond the point at which it becomes self-parody. But, and it's a big but. people look at the document, listen to the conclusions and co-opt everything they see in to the conclusions drawn by the CTC. Just as David Hembrow rides down a cycle path, feels safe and extrapolates from there to eternity. All of which goes to prove that when it comes to cycle campaigning there's a whole lot of thought not going on.......

Before you get dragged in to being challenged to draw what you want (a challenge you may not meet), re-read The Wisdom of Jonesy. It's no big secret that he knows what he's on about - it's his job.