Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[Wobblers]

In reality, no. Given statistic that's averaged out into number of killed per year, yes. Not sure what you're getting at.

That's a remarkable assertion. I'd like to see the evidence to support that. With a full statistical analysis, thank you.

Oh, and I'm perfectly aware of the factoid that "most accidents happen within a mile of the home". That's simply because most trips are short, and as many as half never leave a mile radius of the start. You'll need remove that inbuilt bias.

 

[bof]

In respect of road use, I wonder if that's as true of Dutch & Danish attitudes, tbh? (Or French, or Belgian, for that matter). No real point to make, just the observation that our (UK) road culture is so unremittingly hostile to non-motorised road users (to the point that mainstream personalities feel able to airly joke about running into cyclists in their cars &c) that it may be as different from continental attitudes as the Asian attitudes are in other respects.

I dont think the UK is "unremittingly hostile" - I find the vast bulk of drivers behave correctly towards cyclists in the UK and in recent years I reckon it's got better, largely due I expect to the increase in cycling. Of course some don't. You will find in the Netherlands when you do share road (some parts have much less segregation than others) drivers are not really better or worse as a group. They pretty universally behave well around cycle lanes crossing roads though, and this is the result of training rather than culture.

Getting UK legislators to specify that cyclists must be overtaken by a minimum width (it's 1.5m in France) IMO would cost virtually nothing to the taxpayer (a bit of propaganda) but over time would reduce high speed impacts by following vehicles which, along with left hooks, account for a good proportion of the more serious accidents.

 

[Wobblers]

According to http://ec.europa.eu/...of%20RED_v2.pdf vehicle kilometres is used because it is considered generally available. Number of trips is not. Turns out number of trips are available only for UK, FI and NL (+ 6 other EU countries) so I actually got lucky when starting to collect this.

Intuitively I find it easier to compare "how likely am I going to survive my commute to work and back" since the number of trips per week is going to be 10 to very high level of accuracy regardless of where I live. But for international studies that is unfortunately not an option.


It was not intended as such. I merely responded to the "NL is not twice as safe as UK" comment.

By your reasoning, a 5 mile journey is as safe as a 20 mile journey. That is manifestly untrue. We are dealing with an accident rate: probability per mile traveled. There is a very good reason this measure is used: it removes the bias to short journeys.

 

[jonesy]

Indeed, while there are problems with comparing accident rates on a per km basis, especially between different modes where exposure is not comparable (e.g. cycling short trips within cities vs car acccident rates that include motorways) it is a reasonable basis for comparing accident rates for cycling between different countries. We are talking about similar types of journeys in comparable locations, we would expect risk to be approximately in proportion to total distance travelled. Nonetheless, risk is still not homogeously distributed throughout any cycle trip: more than two thirds of accidents occur at junctions. So, while Amsterdam and Copenhagen have hundreds of route km of segregated cycle route, at junctions physical segregation ends; instead different signal phases are provided to avoid conflict between cyclists and other traffic. But here's the interesting thought: the physical segregation is only able to tackle around 30% of accidents, the non-physical measures at junctions have to deal with the rest. So, where should we focus our resources? Expensively segregating between junctions to address a minority of accidents, or at the junctions where the vast majority occur?

 

[bof]

I suspect the relative success in other countries is also down mainly to societal issues. But those are difficult to replicate so people try to grasp instead at tangible things like infrastructure even if there is no evidence for it. Their simplistic logical fallacy goes along the lines of "The Dutch cycle a lot; they have lots of segregated cycle tracks; the cycle tracks must be the reason they cycle a lot."

Thay are in some circumstances. A personal example is that my Dutch Newphew and Nieces cycled from their village to secondary school in the local town along an A-road, year round, including the dark in winter. They only did this because it was on a cycle lane. Segregated facilities can help, but only as part of a broader picture. A good example where the Dutch dont segregate is down minor one-way urban roads, most of them allow cycling contra-flow on the carriageway - "Fiets uitgezonderd" on the one way sign.This of course shortens trips, so gets well used.

 

[dellzeqq]

London residents (note) averaged 60 bike miles per person in 2009 - apparently slightly down on 2008!

here's my rough calculation 60x8,000,000/14 = 34million bike miles per death. I reckon that's pretty decent. If we were to get it down to 10 (easily do-able if the lorry thing is improved) that would be 48million bke miles per death.

 

[marinyork]

By your reasoning, a 5 mile journey is as safe as a 20 mile journey. That is manifestly untrue. We are dealing with an accident rate: probability per mile traveled. There is a very good reason this measure is used: it removes the bias to short journeys.

You could have rates split up into much smaller segments, it's just a lot harder to calculate. By the time you're doing that you might as well start getting into talking about particular accident clusters and what to do to minimise them.

 

[dellzeqq]

In respect of road use, I wonder if that's as true of Dutch & Danish attitudes, tbh? (Or French, or Belgian, for that matter). No real point to make, just the observation that our (UK) road culture is so unremittingly hostile to non-motorised road users (to the point that mainstream personalities feel able to airly joke about running into cyclists in their cars &c) that it may be as different from continental attitudes as the Asian attitudes are in other respects.

this is really interesting thought, and probably one for which there is no authoritative answer. My personal experience is that attitudes vary across the UK.

I was mixing it with a taxi driver on the CTC forum the other day, and caught myself thinking 'hang about, they're nowhere near as bas as they used to be'. I think that there's been a real revolution in attitude in my part of the world (I wouldn't be so bold as to say across London) over the last fifteen years.

 

[dellzeqq]

Indeed, while there are problems with comparing accident rates on a per km basis, especially between different modes where exposure is not comparable (e.g. cycling short trips within cities vs car acccident rates that include motorways) it is a reasonable basis for comparing accident rates for cycling between different countries. We are talking about similar types of journeys in comparable locations, we would expect risk to be approximately in proportion to total distance travelled. Nonetheless, risk is still not homogeously distributed throughout any cycle trip: more than two thirds of accidents occur at junctions. So, while Amsterdam and Copenhagen have hundreds of route km of segregated cycle route, at junctions physical segregation ends; instead different signal phases are provided to avoid conflict between cyclists and other traffic. But here's the interesting thought: the physical segregation is only able to tackle around 30% of accidents, the non-physical measures at junctions have to deal with the rest. So, where should we focus our resources? Expensively segregating between junctions to address a minority of accidents, or at the junctions where the vast majority occur?

f*** me! I'm running out of tablets of stone! Would his nibs settle for recon?

 

[John the Monkey]

I dont think the UK is "unremittingly hostile" - I find the vast bulk of drivers behave correctly towards cyclists in the UK and in recent years I reckon it's got better, largely due I expect to the increase in cycling. ...

I may have overstated - but it's something you really notice (ime) after cycling somewhere else for a while.

The passes that I'd tuned out without realising it during my years of riding here were suddenly remarkably close again after a week or two of riding in France & Belgium.

I don't think it's a conscious hostility by motorists (although I think that there is an undercurrent of that, as evidenced by the societal acceptability of the stuff Clarkson and his imitators trot out) as much as a feeling that they belong on the roads and we do not. My personal experience of Manchester commuting is one of indifference to my safety from the majority of drivers, who will, for instance, give me room if it's expedient, but aren't overly bothered, active malice from mercifully few, and active consideration (waiting to make a safe (from my point of view) overtake &c) from a few.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The reason I'm reluctant in using Japan as a model for western world is because in my limited understanding the Japanese culture and values are very different from any western country. So on surface I feel the relative success of Japan's no-infrastructure cycling policy is very much tied into the society and not easily repeatable (I'm sure I've read about other things western world would like to replicate, work ethics, loyalty, or somesuch, with not much luck.) I don't think "just do like the Japanese" would do any better cycling campaign than "just do like the Dutch" is.

With western countries I'd expect there to be more common ground and policies perhaps more tractable and easily applicable to other countries.

Do you really, really think that the British, whatever they are, share a common culture and value system with the French? Or the Italians with the Germans? Or the Dutch with the Spanish.

If attitudes to cycling are more than slightly influenced by cultural norms/memes, as I well suspect they are, then any comparision between the UK and other European countries is pointless. Our heads, and hearts, are in different spaces.

In fact I'd perhaps go so far to say that the cultural norms in our UK cities are so different to those in our UK towns as to make comparison between the two, in the context of cycling and its uptake, pretty meaningless.

 

[marinyork]

In fact I'd perhaps go so far to say that the cultural norms in our UK cities are so different to those in our UK towns as to make comparison between the two, in the context of cycling and its uptake, pretty meaningless.

Or within cities. I think there's a bit too much focus on so called 'cycling cities' (not a problem at all for weighty considered reports that go into it properly). It's more like 'cycling neighbourhoods' and even when you get far enough down analysis of geographic areas 'cycling streets'.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

My personal experience of Manchester commuting is one of indifference to my safety from the majority of drivers, who will, for instance, give me room if it's expedient, but aren't overly bothered, active malice from mercifully few, and active consideration (waiting to make a safe (from my point of view) overtake &c) from a few.

and thus, I'd argue, you are treated no better or worse than any other road user. Why? You describe my experience when driving/walking to a T. (apart from the Manchester bit, obvs) The only difference is (y)our vulnerability when on a bike.

...and that is the battle we must win, to educate drivers to recognise the extreme vulnerability of cyclists and peds as shared space road users and modify their behaviour accordingly. To accept second place behind human power. To accept that pedestrains have a right to cross the road in safety where ever they dman well please, not be herded into a glorified cattle pen several hundred metres out of their way to avoid inconvience to the petrol headed numpties. To accept that cyclists are their equals on the road. If education doesn't work then compulsion (aggresively enforced speed limits and overtake widths) must be introduced.

But if any cycling body started such a campaign a vocal minority would pipe up with "We don't want that we want segregated cycle lanes" or would enter the fray by suggesting that a book which seeks to help cyclists cope with the real world, rather than a Utopia when saddles are made of rainbows and stuffed with clouds, is somehow destroying cycling, and undermine the whole thing.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Or within cities. I think there's a bit too much focus on so called 'cycling cities' (not a problem at all for weighty considered reports that go into it properly). It's more like 'cycling neighbourhoods' and even when you get far enough down analysis of geographic areas 'cycling streets'.

Point well made.

Point taken. I'm a fan of Oxford as a cycling city. The facilites in Cowley and Blackbird Leys, though, away from the main roads, stink, ime.

 

[jonesy]

Part of the problem there is that even local authorities that have a history of high levels of cycle use don't necessarily understand the reasons why, or what they should be doing to maintain and build on it. Oxfordshire actually has a rather good cycling strategy, that sets out high standards, but rarely followed in practice, especially outside the city.