Not just London thats had a rise in Cyclists!

[HJ]

I find the title of this thread a bit confusing? There has been a small rise in the number of cyclist in central London, but it still has one of the lowest rates of cycling in Europe, with a modal share of about 2%, yet it has started to promote its self as the centre of the cycling universe? Then we are being told that the Dutch solution to junction design is "Bonkers because nobody would use it, and uncivilised because it cuts up public space." Odd how it works in the country which has the highest cycling rates in the world...

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

That Martin Way is just incredibly stupid! What goes through the minds of these idiotic designers?

 

[davefb]

That Martin Way is just incredibly stupid! What goes through the minds of these idiotic designers?

maybe theres a set of owls designing them? or maybe chameleons?

unless they also require rear view mirrors..


i can understand redisigning roads to cut down CAR speed (and like the idea of breaking straight roads up with give-ways from side streets), but redoing it to slow cyclists down? why ? what problem is that fixing ?

 

[dellzeqq]

I find the title of this thread a bit confusing? There has been a small rise in the number of cyclist in central London, but it still has one of the lowest rates of cycling in Europe, with a modal share of about 2%, yet it has started to promote its self as the centre of the cycling universe? Then we are being told that the Dutch solution to junction design is "Bonkers because nobody would use it, and uncivilised because it cuts up public space." Odd how it works in the country which has the highest cycling rates in the world...

give us some indication that you understand what public space is........and explain why many more cyclists are killed in the Netherlands than in the UK

if you take a look at the stuff coming from David Hembrow - http://hembrow.blogs...controlled.html - you'll see that his model is some vast suburban sprawl like Milton Keynes. Well, at the risk of stating the obvious,

- we already have Milton Keynes and nobody uses the cycle paths,
- and our major cities have tight street patterns - particularly in the centre of town where the inclination to cycle is greatest.

There are better means of civilising streets than segregation.

- reducing speeds to 12mph at junctions by giving pedestrians priority and raising the roadway (and, in doing so, assisting pedestrians with impaired mobility to cross the junction)
- creating home zones that stop through traffic in quiet residential areas, but allow cyclists to traverse those areas
- putting bus lanes down major routes

cyclist have got to get their head around the idea that if they're part of the solution, not the solution in itself. In itself 'modal share' means nothing - and it betrays an unhealthy obsession with transport when an appreciation of sustainable urban form is what's important. London does now have major roads on which bikes outnumber private cars, and it's wonderful to see, but in and of itself it's meaningless. What matters is that

- people who live and shop on the streets find them pleasant and find using local services within walking, cycling and bus distance more agreeable than retail parks and hypermarkets.
- people find commuting by cycle, bus, tram and train more congenial than travelling by car

Cycling can contribute to the betterment of streets, but it's not an end in itself.

 

[dellzeqq]

Burntwood Lane. Sustrans approved. What really ticks me off about this is that pedestrians are entirely forgotten about. There's a large school a little further down and playing fields to the left and right of the third pic, but no pedestrian crossings.

 

[Origamist]

give us some indication that you understand what public space is........and explain why many more cyclists are killed in the Netherlands than in the UK

IIRC, the Dutch, per inhabitant, cycle an average 2.5km per day, in the UK it averages out at 0.2km, per inhabitant, per day.

When you look at the fatality rates by distanced travelled, it's 1.1 fatalities per 100 million km cycled for the Dutch, and 3.6 fatalities per 100 million km cycled in the UK.

Of course, you can choose different metrics, but they all point to the same conclusion that vastly more people in Netherlands cycle and they're safer doing so than here.

PS the provision in Burntwood Lane is terrible for cyclists and pedestrians.

 

[dellzeqq]

IIRC, the Dutch, per inhabitant, cycle an average 2.5km per day, in the UK it averages out at 0.2km, per inhabitant, per day.

When you look at the fatality rates by distanced travelled, it's 1.1 fatalities per 100 million km cycled for the Dutch, and 3.6 fatalities per 100 million km cycled in the UK.

I accept that, but it was still a surprise to find out that for all the wonderment at the Dutch system the death toll is way higher in a country with a quarter of the population.

 

[atbman]

I accept that, but it was still a surprise to find out that for all the wonderment at the Dutch system the death toll is way higher in a country with a quarter of the population.

The key comparison is fatalities vs. the number of trips taken:

The actual number of Dutch citizens riding bikes is higher than in the UK (approx 12.4m trips per day -1999) and the number of cyclist fatalities that year was 194.

the CTC fact sheet states that in 2009 there were approx 2.5m trips/day and IIRC, in 1999 cyclist fatalities were in the region of 140. I suspect that the number of trips in the UK in 1999 was rather lower than in 2009 and something between 5 and 6 times lower than in the Netherlands, so the fatality rate was far lower.

When comparing international stats, we need to avoid comparing apples and oranges

 

[dellzeqq]

The key comparison is fatalities vs. the number of trips taken:

The actual number of Dutch citizens riding bikes is higher than in the UK (approx 12.4m trips per day -1999) and the number of cyclist fatalities that year was 194.

the CTC fact sheet states that in 2009 there were approx 2.5m trips/day and IIRC, in 1999 cyclist fatalities were in the region of 140. I suspect that the number of trips in the UK in 1999 was rather lower than in 2009 and something between 5 and 6 times lower than in the Netherlands, so the fatality rate was far lower.

When comparing international stats, we need to avoid comparing apples and oranges

the point I'm making is that it isn't the Shangri-La that people make it out to be.........

The DfT tells us that in 2009 there were 104 cycling deaths and about 3.1 billion cycling miles. I think that the number of deaths was higher in 2010, but then cycling rose as well. So - the latest authoritative figures I can find gives 1 UK cycling death per 30,000,000 milles http://www.dft.gov.u...gb2010roads.pdf page 2

If you take the average number of kilometres per day ridden in the Netherlands as 2.48, multiply by 15,000,000 and then again by 365, and then divide by 162 which is the number of cycling deaths in the Netherlands in 2010 (a considerable drop from 2009), and then convert to miles you get a figure of 1 Netherlands cycling death per 52,000,000 miles. I'm relying on this
Elsewhere the bicycle usage stats are separated. Here we see that the Dutch cycle, on average, 909km per year, which translates to 2.48km per head, per day. This has largely held steady since 1991, the earliest year shown in the chart. http://www.bakfiets-en-meer.nl/2008/12/04/fresh-cycling-statistics-from-the-netherlands/ which may not be authoritative, but is sort of backed up by this http://www.fietsbera...ument000095.pdf which gives a figure of 2,42km per day in 1999

and, locally, the stats tell a different story. Deaths per mile in London are far lower than the UK average, and, tellingly, weighted toward a particular type of incident that could, with political will, be eliminated.

I'll stand corrected if anybody has a more accurate calculation for the Netherlands, but, for all the pouting and spouting by WalthamForestQuoteWithoutPermissionCrapBlogBoy the numbers scarcely tell a tale of unrelenting carnage in London and unremitting joy in the Netherlands.

(later edit) one thing I will admit is that, having thought the thing through and looked at the numbers the case made by the CTC in it's Safety in Numbers comparison is pretty weak. To my inexpert eye the curve shown on page 2 of the pdf file (page 1 of the document) http://www.ctc.org.u..._in_Numbers.pdf suggests that there's a lot more variation between countries clustered bottom left than can be explained by the curve.

 

[dellzeqq]

with apologies to Downfader who was actually telling us about Southampton.

Which has more cyclists than in previous times.

Pity about the football team...........

 

[downfader]

Gaghh stats. I think I have stat overload now!

I spent the entire of sunday morning reading a document about KSIs (to answer a [dead simple] question to a mate). I think there are times when we can fuss over numbers when the only number we should be fussing over is zero imo. Have a look at the VisionZero campaign over in Sweden (I think).

As I've said before, I think segregation will help many nervous newbies take up the bike. Our Skyride last summer had them out in droves and they all said the same thing - they're scared of traffic. In an ideal world we shouldn't have to, but I think we might have to compromise society wise.

 

[downfader]

with apologies to Downfader who was actually telling us about Southampton.

Which has more cyclists than in previous times.

Pity about the football team...........

Ahem. My mates would weep over that.

 

[dellzeqq]

not by the way, that the stats mean a thing. Take a look at David Hembrow's blog.
http://hembrow.blogs...controlled.html
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2011_03_01_archive.html

this is the kind of place where people have a lobotomy to relieve the boredom......