Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[OldGreyBeard]

My 1997 edition of CYCLECRAFT is subtitled 'Skilled Cycling Techniques for Adults'

So is my 2006 edition. I had never noticed!

Perhaps it should really be fit, confident, fearless adults!


What I want is for anyone to feel they can use a bike to get about. Children are one of the biggest groups who both want to cycle and would benefit from it as would their parents.

Just think what a boon for parents it would be if children didin't need taking everywhere and just think how children would row in confidence and independance.

There is also the economic benefit to families of being more likely to be able to reduce the number of cars they own.

BUT to grow cycling people have to feel safe and they simply don't at the moment.

 

[dellzeqq]

My 1997 edition of CYCLECRAFT is subtitled 'Skilled Cycling Techniques for Adults'

not 'skilled cycling techniques for skinny adults', or 'adults who are not in the least ordinary', or 'adults whose names do not begin with D'?

and successive governments have sunk millions in to training for kids.

 

[blockend]

So is my 2006 edition. I had never noticed!

Perhaps it should really be fit, confident, fearless adults!


What I want is for anyone to feel they can use a bike to get about. Children are one of the biggest groups who both want to cycle and would benefit from it as would their parents.

Just think what a boon for parents it would be if children didin't need taking everywhere and just think how children would row in confidence and independance.

There is also the economic benefit to families of being more likely to be able to reduce the number of cars they own.

BUT to grow cycling people have to feel safe and they simply don't at the moment.

Absolutely, but expect to see an example of a cycle track running through a mugger's paradise as a reason why they're all an entirely bad idea.

 

[OldGreyBeard]

Absolutely, but expect to see an example of a cycle track running through a mugger's paradise as a reason why they're all an entirely bad idea.

Tell that to the Dutch! They are obviously completely wrong in their approach and should adopt the UK approach immediately. It's just a pity that so many of them cycle and more of them cycle where the facilities are better.

There is no reason why we can't do the same. The starting place is wanting to.

It seems to me that quite a few current cyclists are quite happy with the status quo and don't really see the need to change it. It doesn't seem to bother them that not many peole cycle.

However, there is plenty of evidence of a large number of people who would cycle if it was viable and top of the list for viability is safe. Safe from traffic and safe from muggers etc.

And don't forget all those children. In surveys of local schools about 40% of children wanted to cycle but only 4% did, the reason being parental veto due to lack of routes away from vehicles. Pretty much all the children surveyed had had Bikeability training.

I think Cyclecraft was useful once but the whole ethos it argues for will never grow cycling beyond a very low % modal share. If it would why hasn't it so far? It was first published in 1988 and the ethos originated in the mid 1970's. Seems long enough to me.

Time to move to what is proven to work.

 

[dellzeqq]

It seems to me that quite a few current cyclists are quite happy with the status quo and don't really see the need to change it. It doesn't seem to bother them that not many peole cycle.

it's that kind of misrepresentation that so cruelly exposes you.

1. Show me the drawing
2. Tell me how much it's going to cost
3. Tell me how you intend to persuade people of the merits

 

[mickle]

Read my blog - it's very good, it's all about cycling and that.

 

[theclaud]

1. Show me the drawing
2. Tell me how much it's going to cost
3. Tell me how you intend to persuade people of the merits

We could have this as a sticky at the top of Campaigning...

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

the whole myth of Dutch/Danish-style segregation being, "Dangerous:"
Segregation Myths #2: Segregated Cycle Facilities are Dangerous

Could you give a reference to the work that established the existence of this myth?

Regarding cycling infrastructure (lanes, track, etc.), my copy of Cyclecraft says something along the lines of "use them when they are helpful and ignore them when they are not". I looked in there for reference to Dutch/Danish style segregation and couldn't find it.

I have never cycled in Holland or Denmark, but have watched alexwarrior1's recent videos of cycling in London, Amsterdam and Copenhagen, and the things that stick in my mind (from the Amsterdam and Copenhagen ones) are:

• Big, wide, mandatory cycle lanes, with sufficient width for overtaking.
• No pedestrians in the cycle lanes.
• With one notable exception (white van man) no motor vehicles driving or parked in cycle lanes.
• Priority for cycles on the cycle lane when it crosses side roads.
• Cycle lanes provided for at road works.
• Lots of cyclists all going pretty fast, with hardly anyone who could remotely be considered a beginner.
• Cars that are exiting roundabouts stopping to give way to cyclists who are crossing the exit!
• Cars in towns generally moving far more slowly and patiently than they do here.
• Cyclists all stopping and waiting at red lights.
• Not a single "Cyclists Dismount" sign in sight.

I believe they have presumed liability of motorists in collisions with vulnerable road users in both of those countries.

Now, someone tell me how any of that is relevant to how I should behave when cycling home from Salford to Bolton this evening?

Now, looking at the cycle lanes that are present for much of my journey home. Let's forget about whether they actually make me safer and focus on whether they make me feel safer or whether they make me feel better about my journey home. The answer is no on both counts. If I stay in the cycle lane I am worried about the motorists that are too stupid to realize that a dashed line on the road does not make it safe to overtake too close, and the frequent left hooks that I encounter. When I move out of the cycle lane, including to go round the many parked cars, I am scared of the drivers who feel they are entitled to plough through regardless because I "should be in the cycle lane". When I ride outside the cycle lane, I am worried about the same issue, and am stressed out by the tailgaters, horn abusers and people who yell at me to "get in the cycle lane". Please tell me how this is supposed to make me feel safer and to enjoy my journey more?

[Edit: to correct a typo.]

 

[mickle]

What MrHappyCyclist said.

 

[OldGreyBeard]

it's that kind of misrepresentation that so cruelly exposes you.

1. Show me the drawing
2. Tell me how much it's going to cost
3. Tell me how you intend to persuade people of the merits

The key word was "seem" which implies that it is an impression, gained in this case from the views expressed on this thread, but I fully accept that it may not be true.

I can show you lots of drawings or you could go to the Sustrans website or this one http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=en There are no shortage of designs and implementations

It would obviously cost money but not as much as a bypass or HS2 or widening the M1 or M25 or a great many others. In the end its the cost/benefit that matters. Cycling England estimated that for every £1 invested in cycling there was a £2.59 payback in reduced mortality alone

The way to persuade is to start with those who are persuadable.

David Hembrow's excellent blog addresses pretty much all the objections raised against Dutch style infrastructure so that is a good place to start when answering all the usual objections: http://hembrow.blogspot.com/


I used to think when I started out getting involved in campaigning that it was possible to increase numbers using Cyclecraft, Bikeability etc. However, my experiences over the last few years have caused me to change my mind.

In my view the only way to build modal share is to make cycling safe and the only way to do that that will convince the current bubbling under cyclist is to separate them from cars & lorries.

 

[OldGreyBeard]

Please tell me how this is supposed to make me feel safer and to enjoy my journey more?

It almost certainly won't BUT if the infrastructure was to Dutch or even Danish standards then it probably would.

I've been out today on the road, on a shared use path and using an on road cyclelane.

Which was the best? The shared use path.

The on road bit involved the usual too close overtakes, attempts to squeeze into the apex of corners. Primary position makes little difference to some drivers. They absolutley MUST get past.

The on road cycle lane is not wide enough and the remaining car/lorry lane is not wide enough for vehicles going in each direction at the same time and there are cars parked in the cyclelane.

The verge on this road is easily wide enough for a good quality cyclepath and it is a key route to the station.

I cycle between 10 & 15mph which leaves too big a speed differential even on 30mph roads.

 

[dellzeqq]

The key word was "seem" which implies that it is an impression, gained in this case from the views expressed on this thread, but I fully accept that it may not be true.

I can show you lots of drawings or you could go to the Sustrans website or this one http://www.fietsbera...dex.cfm?lang=en There are no shortage of designs and implementations

It would obviously cost money but not as much as a bypass or HS2 or widening the M1 or M25 or a great many others. In the end its the cost/benefit that matters. Cycling England estimated that for every £1 invested in cycling there was a £2.59 payback in reduced mortality alone

The way to persuade is to start with those who are persuadable.

David Hembrow's excellent blog addresses pretty much all the objections raised against Dutch style infrastructure so that is a good place to start when answering all the usual objections: http://hembrow.blogspot.com/


I used to think when I started out getting involved in campaigning that it was possible to increase numbers using Cyclecraft, Bikeability etc. However, my experiences over the last few years have caused me to change my mind.

In my view the only way to build modal share is to make cycling safe and the only way to do that that will convince the current bubbling under cyclist is to separate them from cars & lorries.

I'm sorry, but that won't do. We've seen diagrams of perfect junctions, but what we haven't seen, despite two months of asking is a drawing showing how it might work in practice in anything approaching the centre of a UK city. And that is because it is fiendishly difficult, if not impossible, to design cycle paths that don't cut up public space (a consideration that is beyond the comprehension of segregationists) and cut across other people's way of life.

And, yes, it would be cheaper than all kinds of things, up to and including putting a man on the moon, but until someone produces a city-wide scheme and puts a price to it, nobody is going to take it seriously. Judging by the nonsense that is Cable Street E1 we are looking at a million pounds a mile. If it were possible (and it's not) to segregate all of the TfL road network that would be getting on for £400 million. Given that £140 millon has already been sunk in to LCN+ which has been disdained by cyclists of all abilities and none as they swarm up London's principal radial routes, (to such an extent that cyclists outnumber private cars on three bridges over the Thames) I don't think the Mayor is going to be sticking his hand in our pockets for segregation any time soon.

And, yes, there are all kinds of arguments for segregation, not least in David Hembrow's blog, but very few people are buying them. Sadly they look at David Hembrow's videos and conclude that Groningen is an awful place.

So, here's the bottom line. It's not going to happen.

 

[dellzeqq]

With that reference to Sustrans, what little credibility you had left has gone out the window.

Sustrans are about as capable of designing and implementing a useful junction as I am of making it to the top of Ditchling Beacon without a fag break...

taxi!

I'm afraid Greg is right. Sustans schemes are, by and large, ghastly. I think the path over the main sewer to Beckton is a stroke of genius, but, other than that..................it's a horror story. And, to give them credit, Sustrans are beating a path (sorry) in the direction set out by Richard Mann and Jonesy (see posts, passim)

 

[OldGreyBeard]

taxi!

I'm afraid Greg is right. Sustans schemes are, by and large, ghastly. I think the path over the main sewer to Beckton is a stroke of genius, but, other than that..................it's a horror story. And, to give them credit, Sustrans are beating a path (sorry) in the direction set out by Richard Mann and Jonesy (see posts, passim)

In my view Sustrans have done more to increase cycling than almost any other organisation. If it wasn't for the route pioneered by Sustrans locally I don't think we would have had our very modest cycling renaissance. Build it and they will come.

I come back to my main point: How do you get more schoolchildren cycling? I don't think this is possible to any great degree using on road cycling in most towns & cities. Their parents will simply not let them do it.

 

[Mr_colostomy]

Could you give a reference to the work that established the existence of this myth?

The perceived poor safety record of separate cycle facilities comes up pretty frequently in discussion with other cycle-people, but John Franklin has mentioned that road side paths have a "poor safety record," in Principles of Cycle Planning, and also the list of certain research articles on the Cyclecraft page. In the case of the cycle infrastructure we have in the UK, I expect this to be true, in Denmark I expect it is not the case, and in The Netherlands it most certainly is not. This is because of the different approaches taken in the different countries, with our approach to cycle infrastructure being generally simultaneously unsuccessful and laughable, Denmark doing a significantly better job with greater success, and The Netherlands doing exceptionally well at both providing objective and subjective safety, and being rewarded with cycling rates we can currently only dream of in the UK. What John Franklin's research page does is to put research into bad segregation, which is designed primarily for the benefit of motorists (such as in the UK), with research into better segregation, which is designed for the benefit of cyclists (such as Denmark) and a bit of research into very good segregation (as in The Netherlands) together, without defining any criteria for what research does and doesn't make it onto the list, and why, delares it "intended to be without bias" and then state that based on the research, "little evidence has been found to suggest that cyclists are safer on paths than on roads." Either unintentionally or otherwise, the research on that list has been cherry-picked to prop up an ideology, that cycles belong on roads. Whilst I can appreciate the ideology itself, I don't appreciate cherry-picking research which supports a particular ideology and portraying it as a consensus.

Now, someone tell me how any of that is relevant to how I should behave when cycling home from Salford to Bolton this evening?

It is sadly irrelevant to your ride home (except for perhaps making it seem a little bit more grim when a motorist buzzes you, or honks at you for "taking the lane," if you have been watching videos of cyclists in Assen for example), but it is extremely relevant to any cycle-campaign work you might be involved in. If we ever want to achieve what has been achieved in countries such as The Netherlands, we have to start somewhere.