Make Cyclelanes Work Petition

[downfader]

As a counter to some of the stupid e-petitions I'll be setting up a couple of my own in counter. The aim is to keep them simple, if we add in too many idealogies there is a chance someone might not sign due to disagreeing with one or two points.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/3531

Effectively all this does is call for authorities to remove some of the hazards, debris, and stop-start nature of some routes. Twitter-it, facebook-it, put it on other forums you use, be my guest.

 

[downfader]

Sorry Downfader, make cycle-lanes history and assert your right to the road.

A debate thats been had ad infinitum, the point is they can work in places, you're right it should never have come down to it but with so many against us we may still be able to bend positive change that encourages new people into cycling. As it stands newbies wont last long, and dont last long when their tyres get shredded or they are unnecessarily inconvenienced.

 

[Red Light]

......but with so many against us we may still be able to bend positive change that encourages new people into cycling.

I have been able to find very little evidence that they do encourage people into cycling. Do you have any?

 

[downfader]

I have been able to find very little evidence that they do encourage people into cycling. Do you have any?

Only the ocassional comment in the local paper's letters along the lines "I would cycle but..." Most of the time it doesn't make it on to the website.

However good segregation is key to how things work abroad (Netherlands, Switzerland, parts of Germany and Belgium, etc)

Lets face facts: we've not increase cycling massively on a national level past the 2% of all traffic we still represent. To increase cycling something needs to happen that is comfortable and convenient.

 

[JonnyBlade]

As a counter to some of the stupid e-petitions I'll be setting up a couple of my own in counter. The aim is to keep them simple, if we add in too many idealogies there is a chance someone might not sign due to disagreeing with one or two points.

http://epetitions.di.../petitions/3531

Effectively all this does is call for authorities to remove some of the hazards, debris, and stop-start nature of some routes. Twitter-it, facebook-it, put it on other forums you use, be my guest.

Tweeted and on Facebook

 

[Red Light]

Only the ocassional comment in the local paper's letters along the lines "I would cycle but..." Most of the time it doesn't make it on to the website.

However good segregation is key to how things work abroad (Netherlands, Switzerland, parts of Germany and Belgium, etc)

Lets face facts: we've not increase cycling massively on a national level past the 2% of all traffic we still represent. To increase cycling something needs to happen that is comfortable and convenient.

That sounds like the "something must be done and this is something" fallacy. As I repeat, there is no evidence I could find that they actually increases cycling. For example Dublin build a 320km "strategic cycle network" to encourage people to start cycling. The result was cycle levels fell. The recent introduction of their Boris Bike equivalent, Dublinbikes, has had a far greater impact. Meanwhile London has built very few but cycling has doubled.

So unless you can find evidence that it will do what you hope, public money should not be wasted on them.

The Netherlands etc is far more complex that cycle facilities and their period of building cycle facilities saw no increase in cycling.

 

[Tommi]

That sounds like the "something must be done and this is something" fallacy. As I repeat, there is no evidence I could find that they actually increases cycling.

FWIW I saw a US study which concluded "Higher levels of bicycle infrastructure are positively and significantly correlated with higher rates of bicycle commuting." (pdf) and "The strongest and most significant correlation was with the number of Type 2 bike lanes per square mile"

EDIT: found even a newer one via citations: "[url="http://www.springerlink.com/content/n822p50241p66113/"]confirm that cities with a greater supply of bike paths and lanes have significantly higher bike commute rates[/url]" (haven't read myself yet)

 

[gaz]

If you look at the superhighways, then clear and continues routes do = an increase in cycling. However the quality of them is debatable.

 

[Tommi]

If you look at the superhighways, then clear and continues routes do = an increase in cycling. However the quality of them is debatable.

IIRC the question that gets raised and doesn't really get answered until years later is that do superhighways increase the number of people cycling, or does the number stay the same and they just migrate to the new route.

 

[downfader]

That sounds like the "something must be done and this is something" fallacy. As I repeat, there is no evidence I could find that they actually increases cycling. For example Dublin build a 320km "strategic cycle network" to encourage people to start cycling. The result was cycle levels fell. The recent introduction of their Boris Bike equivalent, Dublinbikes, has had a far greater impact. Meanwhile London has built very few but cycling has doubled.

So unless you can find evidence that it will do what you hope, public money should not be wasted on them.

The Netherlands etc is far more complex that cycle facilities and their period of building cycle facilities saw no increase in cycling.

Did Dublin's cycle infrastructure go somewhere? Did it put cyclists in the gutter, or separate them from motor traffic giving them priority to turning traffic?

And its also debatable that London's numbers increased. It depends on which study you read. One suggests that the same cyclists are simply riding more often and there is no actual increase.

The numbers of cyclists in the Netherlands is probably a moot point. The point really is that the cycle infrastructure works and isnt littered with glass, etc.

 

[gaz]

IIRC the question that gets raised and doesn't really get answered until years later is that do superhighways increase the number of people cycling, or does the number stay the same and they just migrate to the new route.

I've questioned that my self in the past. It's such a hard thing to measure.

CS7 runs along the A24 and parallel to that is the A23. They meet by Oval but the numbers on the A23 are far from dropping.

 

[Red Light]

FWIW I saw a US study which concluded "Higher levels of bicycle infrastructure are positively and significantly correlated with higher rates of bicycle commuting." (pdf) and "The strongest and most significant correlation was with the number of Type 2 bike lanes per square mile"

EDIT: found even a newer one via citations: "confirm that cities with a greater supply of bike paths and lanes have significantly higher bike commute rates" (haven't read myself yet)

Two points to raise apart from the two papers you quote coming to different conclusions off similar data sets

They look at levels of commuter cycling in a city and compare it with the number of bike lanes and find a positive correlation. But as they say of their conclusions "People may be commuting by bicycle more because
there are more lanes and paths. Alternatively, because people are commuting by bicycle, the city is building more
bike lanes and paths."

The second is what correlation they find is for Type 2 (on-road bike lanes) not Type 1 (segregated lanes or share use sidewalks).

The problem with these types of study is they cannot tell which caused what which is why the changes over time papers are the most useful. So they look at what happened to cycling levels when facilities were built and they show no significant change. So there was a fall in cycling when Dublin built its network, no change when the Netherlands built their network, no change when Germany built its network and no change when the Danes built their network. The flagship Delft cycle route project assessment found "A route network of bicycle facilities has, apparently, no added value for bicycle use or road safety"

In the UK too the experiment has been done with new towns built with a completely segregated cycle network designed in from the beginning. Stevenage, Milton Keynes and East Kilbride cycle networks are almost deserted with very low commuter cycling levels.

About the only such study showing an increase was a Danish one doing a very detailed before and after study of the construction of cycle facilities including "route shifting" i.e people switching from other routes to use a facility. They found a 5-7% increase in cycling (cycle lanes) and 18-20% (cycle tracks) but a 10-15% increase in injury rates. Other measures have a far greater effect than that if you want to increase cycling. For example while building the cycle commuting network in Dublin led to a fall in cycling, the Dublinbikes bike share scheme has been a runaway success in getting people to cycle. Boris Bikes are doing the same thing with many new cyclists going on to buy their own bike for commuting.

 

[Red Light]

Did Dublin's cycle infrastructure go somewhere?

Yes, it was built specifically to provide commuting cycling corridors from outer dormitory areas of the city to the inner commercial area of the city.

 

[Riverman]

The majority of cyclelanes I've cycled on are dangerous to be honest. They're an invitation for cyclists to go faster on what are often pavements (shared use etc). I was beeped once by a lorry for not using the bloody things. We should all ask the bastards who park their vehicles in them whether they would park in the middle of a road?

The biggest problem with them though IMO are that's very difficult to make them continuous, so you may as well be on the road and that lack of continuity again makes them dangerous.

Dan do you live in Southampton? You'll know what I mean. Take that cycle path near Ikea, a complete lack of continuity on it, I'm left wondering if it's legal to even cycle on parts of it, this bit looks a bit dangerous for pedestrians too.

Also take the avenue. If they just narrowed the road a bit you could put a cycle-lane all the way up it.

 

[StuartG]

You may be both right. Improved cycling infrastructure alone will not cause modal shift from cars. The evidence points towards only reduced motoring infrastructure/pricing will cause people to leave their cars.

That done - then a good cycling infrastructure gives the 'dispossessed' a real choice between cycling and public transport.

It has to be a two pronged strategy for success. In pragmatic terms one may need to support each prong individually. In political terms 'pro-cycling, anti-car' combination is not going to win us too many much needed friends.