That worthless and dangerous cycling infrastructure

[Richard Mann]

They put the riders in the door zone (unless they ride out of the lane) - contrary to any modern safe-cycle training practice.
They are (in many cases as shown by the links posted by others) far too narrow. Certainly they are narrower than accepted good practice, many appear to be barely handlebar width. This encourages close overtakes with the motor vehicle not deviating from their line in their 'designated lane'.
They put cyclists in the most dangerous place at road junctions. Some even divert slightly into the road mouth at the junction! Whilst continuous, this puts the cyclist out of the sightline of most motorists and encourages left-hooks, pull-outs and all the ways motorists can take us out (unless cyclists ride out of the lane). Again this is contrary to modern safe-cycle training practice.
They encourage the idea that cyclists do not belong on the road.

1) Door Zone: the door zone is indeed a concept invented by cycle trainers; it's certainly a good idea to be aware of the issue and cycle down the middle of a parked-up street. However on main roads, the evidence is that a critical reaction strip is sufficient to avoid most problems.
2) Far too narrow: The evidence that the Dutch cite in support of width refers to moped accidents (CROW page 118, Jim). They also like width because the use of facilities is compulsory. Certainly more width is desirable if there's room (bus lanes are great if you don't end up playing leap-frog). But if they're about 1m minimum and the road surface is in reasonable nick, and traffic speed is under control, then they're OK.
3) Danger zone at side roads: Another invention of cycle trainers. It's not much of an issue if side roads are slow (these all have 20 limits), and radii are reasonably tight.
4) They encourage the idea that cyclists do not belong on the road: I think they assert the right of cyclists to be on the road. Cycle lanes make it reasonably comfortable for there to be large numbers of ordinary people on bikes on the main roads.

Basically I think you're just applying your world-view to my situation, and ignoring my explanations of how it works. I'm not sure the "lah-lah I'm not listening" approach is going to win any arguments.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

And cycling in Manchester doubled.

If "cycling levels today are basically determined by what the cycling levels were in 1975", then why in 2001 were only 1.7% of journeys to work (to work, note, when you would expect a higher cycling modal share than for all trips) in Greater Manchester made by bike?

Meanwhile Dutch cities are touching on 40% modal share, and aiming for over 50% by 2030.

Can this really be 'basically' explained by similar adjustments to a 1975 baseline?

 

[Richard Mann]

And cycling in Manchester doubled.

Manchester went from 6% in 1970, down to 3% and back up to 6%. Manchester did nothing, and not much changed.

Amsterdam went up 10 points, while doing quite a bit.

You stated that Dutch cycling levels didn't go up, despite their efforts. That's not supported by the graph you presented. On the face of it it's directly contradicted by the graph you presented.

Do you want another attempt?

 

[SavageHoutkop]

Well, 2 door cars have doors that extend as far as 1.3m. I generally try to stay 1.5 clear metres away, which I think would put me just outside the cycle lane.

What you seem to be saying is that this road is OK to cycle along because traffic is slow and drivers tend to be civil there, not because there is a cycle lane.

... no, I think the fact that the lane is there helps drivers to be civil. If the lane weren't there you'd probably have idiots driving too far left and not giving enough space to cyclists they're overtaking. Which, I grant, might not be cyclists like you or other cyclists who have a high average speed, but certainly accounts for the majority of Oxford cyclists.

The probability of a dooring there is certainly vastly lower than my other rat-run which is down Wilmslow Road through Rusholme - that cycle lane is one I'm normally just on the outside of.

 

[Dan B]

Basically I think you're just applying your world-view to my situation, and ignoring my explanations of how it works. I'm not sure the "lah-lah I'm not listening" approach is going to win any arguments.

Basically I think you're just ignoring the world-view(s) of cyclists who are telling you why they don't like your lanes, because your explanations of how it works mostly amount to "it's not that much more dangerous and you can still ride outside the lane if you want". I'm not sure the "lah-lah I'm not listening" approach is going to win any arguments.

 

[Richard Mann]

Basically I think you're just ignoring the world-view(s) of cyclists who are telling you why they don't like your lanes, because your explanations of how it works mostly amount to "it's not that much more dangerous and you can still ride outside the lane if you want". I'm not sure the "lah-lah I'm not listening" approach is going to win any arguments.

No - I perfectly respect your world-view as applying to your situation. I'm just refusing to accept that your world-view applies to my situation.

I'm not telling people that their proposed solution is "crap" - the things that people suggest are perfectly reasonable if they don't think that slowing traffic is feasible.

What do you want me to do? Pretend the accident stats are nonsense, that what we're doing is really dangerous, and start campaigning for it all to be removed? Don't be silly.

 

[Red Light]

If "cycling levels today are basically determined by what the cycling levels were in 1975", then why in 2001 were only 1.7% of journeys to work (to work, note, when you would expect a higher cycling modal share than for all trips) in Greater Manchester made by bike?

Meanwhile Dutch cities are touching on 40% modal share, and aiming for over 50% by 2030.

Can this really be 'basically' explained by similar adjustments to a 1975 baseline?

Cycling in Amsterdam was 9x Manchester in 1975 and by 1999 it was 6.5x. And that was with a massive Dutch investment in cycling of about £1Bn over that period in the Bicycle Master Plan and not much at all in Manchester. In Eindhoven it went from 12x to 6x compared to Manchester over the same period.

Why was Manchester low to start with? Well it says in the Cycling in the Netherlands 2009 (an official Dutch Government publication):

"Apart from the general parallels in the trend lines, we immediately find very striking differences.
Differences in the level on which this general continuous movement takes place, and differences in
strength of the rise and fall of the bicycle use share:
• A high bicycle share (more than 30%) for Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Enschede and Copenhagen - cities
that never saw the arrival of a ‘bicycle use-devouring’ public transport system and where bicycle
traffic had always been a regular component of traffic policy. Accepting the cyclist as a ‘normal’
traffic participant with equal rights in the ’50s and ’60s has been a crucial factor in these cities.
• An average bicycle share (approx. 20%) for South-East Limburg and Hanover. Here, the rise of the
car coincided with a more manifest pro-car policy and a spatial structure which was more in line
with the car.
• A low bicycle share (approx. 10% or below) for Antwerp, Manchester and Basel. Here it is especially
the car-oriented traffic policy that explains matters, and the manifest influence of an early,
properly functioning public transport system (Manchester). The decline which was the result of the
arrival of the motor car continues uninterrupted and without ‘brakes’, because all relevant influencing
factors are pointing in the same direction: a negative collective picture on cycling, a strong
car-oriented policy, realisation of a large-scale car infrastructure, strong suburbanisation.

​

Not much mention there of cycle lanes or tracks in explaining the differences. Basically cycling levels at the end are primarily determined by similar growths from the cycling levels in 1975. The top group is still the top group, the middle group is still the middle group and Manchester was and still is at the bottom.

 

[Richard Mann]

• A high bicycle share (more than 30%) for Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Enschede and Copenhagen - cities
that never saw the arrival of a ‘bicycle use-devouring’ public transport system and where bicycle
traffic had always been a regular component of traffic policy. Accepting the cyclist as a ‘normal’
traffic participant with equal rights in the ’50s and ’60s has been a crucial factor in these cities.​

"bicycle traffic had always been a regular component of traffic policy" means they provided lanes and tracks

 

[Red Light]

Manchester went from 6% in 1970, down to 3% and back up to 6%. Manchester did nothing, and not much changed.

Amsterdam went up 10 points, while doing quite a bit.

You stated that Dutch cycling levels didn't go up, despite their efforts. That's not supported by the graph you presented. On the face of it it's directly contradicted by the graph you presented.

Do you want another attempt?

I chose 1975 quite deliberately because it was the date when the precipitous falls everywhere had ended but any growth had not started. By moving back onto 1970 you climb back up the fall in Manchester but not in Amsterdam. If I move it back again to 1965 cycling in Amsterdam fell 10 points while Manchester was static. The tale you tell changes dramatically with start date pre 1975 because of the sharp downward trends in all countries which is why 1975 is the sensible baseline date on the plateau period for all cities.

I would have thought as a transport consultant of 20 years experience you would have been able to work that out yourself.

 

[Richard Mann]

I chose 1975 quite deliberately ...

All this data (and especially the British data) is probably riddled with errors, changes in methodology, other things going on that nobody's thought of etc. So the first question you always ask is the null hypothesis - can we reasonably say that anything much has happened? In the case of Manchester the answer is no. Maybe it went up from 3% to 6% if we choose our start point carefully, but probably it stayed much the same. It was at rock bottom and it stayed there. To quote this as a 100% increase is statistically illiterate.

Whereas what's happened in Amsterdam is clearly a growth trend.

 

[Mad at urage]

Basically I think you're just ignoring the world-view(s) of cyclists who are telling you why they don't like your lanes, because your explanations of how it works mostly amount to "it's not that much more dangerous and you can still ride outside the lane if you want". I'm not sure the "lah-lah I'm not listening" approach is going to win any arguments.

Precisely

No - I perfectly respect your world-view as applying to your situation. I'm just refusing to accept that your world-view applies to my situation.

I'm not telling people that their proposed solution is "crap" - the things that people suggest are perfectly reasonable if they don't think that slowing traffic is feasible.

What do you want me to do? Pretend the accident stats are nonsense, that what we're doing is really dangerous, and start campaigning for it all to be removed? Don't be silly.

You are one of those creating cycle lanes which I have to cope with. Your world-view doesn't see riding along the edge of the road and in the door zone as a problem, in reality it is. I have seen cyclists taken out due to their wobbles which were caused by the slipstream or sheer presence of closely passing vehicles - and they don't have to pass very quickly to do that. I do believe you are calling for infrastructure that is dangerous to the cyclists using it and your example causes more to be built. Your world-view is thus negatively impacting my situation. You are the la-la-la-ing about that (but then I'm just a vocal minority in your world-view and can be safely ignored).

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Cycling in Amsterdam was 9x Manchester in 1975 and by 1999 it was 6.5x. And that was with a massive Dutch investment in cycling of about £1Bn over that period in the Bicycle Master Plan and not much at all in Manchester. In Eindhoven it went from 12x to 6x compared to Manchester over the same period.

Why was Manchester low to start with? Well it says in the Cycling in the Netherlands 2009 (an official Dutch Government publication):

"Apart from the general parallels in the trend lines, we immediately find very striking differences.
Differences in the level on which this general continuous movement takes place, and differences in
strength of the rise and fall of the bicycle use share:
• A high bicycle share (more than 30%) for Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Enschede and Copenhagen - cities
that never saw the arrival of a ‘bicycle use-devouring’ public transport system and where bicycle
traffic had always been a regular component of traffic policy. Accepting the cyclist as a ‘normal’
traffic participant with equal rights in the ’50s and ’60s has been a crucial factor in these cities.
• An average bicycle share (approx. 20%) for South-East Limburg and Hanover. Here, the rise of the
car coincided with a more manifest pro-car policy and a spatial structure which was more in line
with the car.
• A low bicycle share (approx. 10% or below) for Antwerp, Manchester and Basel. Here it is especially
the car-oriented traffic policy that explains matters, and the manifest influence of an early,
properly functioning public transport system (Manchester). The decline which was the result of the
arrival of the motor car continues uninterrupted and without ‘brakes’, because all relevant influencing
factors are pointing in the same direction: a negative collective picture on cycling, a strong
car-oriented policy, realisation of a large-scale car infrastructure, strong suburbanisation.

​

Not much mention there of cycle lanes or tracks in explaining the differences. Basically cycling levels at the end are primarily determined by similar growths from the cycling levels in 1975. The top group is still the top group, the middle group is still the middle group and Manchester was and still is at the bottom.

From the same report -

A wide range of measures can be considered to encourage the use of bicycles successfully in commuter traffic. The chance of success appears to increase if municipalities and commerce work together. Good bicycle routes and cycle paths - generally necessary to serve cyclists well - are and remain the most important factor.

 

[Richard Mann]

Precisely

You are one of those creating cycle lanes which I have to cope with. Your world-view doesn't see riding along the edge of the road and in the door zone as a problem, in reality it is. I have seen cyclists taken out due to their wobbles which were caused by the slipstream or sheer presence of closely passing vehicles - and they don't have to pass very quickly to do that. I do believe you are calling for infrastructure that is dangerous to the cyclists using it and your example causes more to be built. Your world-view is thus negatively impacting my situation. You are the la-la-la-ing about that (but then I'm just a vocal minority in your world-view and can be safely ignored).

Actually I'm trying to get people to understand what they need to do to convert the crap stuff into good stuff, so their good intentions produce some results. You're telling them to stuff their good intentions where the sun don't shine. That's not how politics works.

 

[Red Light]

"bicycle traffic had always been a regular component of traffic policy" means they provided lanes and tracks

That's your interpretation but without evidence. Mine is from the sentence that follows it:

"Accepting the cyclist as a ‘normal’ traffic participant with equal rights in the ’50s and ’60s has been a crucial factor in these cities."
​

Probably the closest to the experiment you are trying to hypothesise was Delft where a pilot project was set up to study the effects of building a complete cycle network. Between 1982 and 1987, 29 m Guilders was spent on putting in a three tier city wide network of a city network (grid spacing ~500m), a district network (2-300m) and a neighbourhood network (~100m). When SMOV evaluated it in 1994 they said the results were:

"not very positive: bicycle use had not increased, neither had the road safety. A route network of bicycle facilities has, apparently, no added value for bicycle use or road safety"

​

In contrast Groningen concentrated on land use, planning and economic policies instead and saw a big rise in cycling - over 75% of journeys are by cycle or on foot.

 

[Red Light]

All this data (and especially the British data) is probably riddled with errors, changes in methodology, other things going on that nobody's thought of etc. So the first question you always ask is the null hypothesis - can we reasonably say that anything much has happened? In the case of Manchester the answer is no. Maybe it went up from 3% to 6% if we choose our start point carefully, but probably it stayed much the same. It was at rock bottom and it stayed there. To quote this as a 100% increase is statistically illiterate.

Whereas what's happened in Amsterdam is clearly a growth trend.

Ah so first dismiss the result of someone who has researched it in detail as riddled with errors even though you've no idea whether that's true or not and then dismiss a 100% increase as statistical illiteracy but call a 25% increase a clearly growing trend. Oh dear, oh dear. A transport consultant from the school of policy based evidence making.