Red Light said:
The general rule is that it is for those that are proposing a change to demonstrate there's real support for it, not others to prove there isn't. So until you can show that the status quo of no facility should stand.
Excuse me? The world wide status quo is that cycle lanes/tracks improve cycling rates and/or safety - see the supporting research.
If you mean "UK style cycle lanes/tracks" or "UK style cycle lanes/track ignoring proper designs" please do say so.
Red Light said:
So show me the evidence that if you are given £1m a mile to spend that a) cycling is dangerous enough compared other daily activities to need an intervention, b) that the cycle facilities will produce a significant increase in safety and c) they will produce a significant increase in numbers cycling.
Red Light said:
Second is there is no evidence that cycle lanes attract new people to cycling in any significant numbers.
The research I originally posted supports b) and c) and contradicts your second item - enough to have world wide support. What do you know the rest of the world doesn't? Care to share the research? Would you also mind explaining why the rest of the world is wrong?
Red Light said:
They spent a lot of money* putting in 320km of cycle network in Dublin but it resulted in a fall in cycling. On the other hand the investment in the DublinBikes share bike scheme led to a big increase in cycling
(You said elsewhere building the cycle network caused "drop in cycling of 15% in commuters and 40% in school students" but "Dublin Canal Cordon Counts" does not support that claim. For one it does not distinguish between commuters and school students. So let me ask again, source?)
Funny place that Dublin.
Before they started building the cycle network cycling count was already declining. Oddly, after they started building it in 1997 the decline slowed down noticeably (source:
1988-2003 1997-2010 (pdf)):
According to Wikipedia DublinBikes started in 13 September 2009 and yet the Cordon Counts show increase in cycling already from 2004 onwards, year after the cycle network (as originally laid out I presume) completed. Strangely enough the first drop in counts since then was between 2009-10 right after DublinBikes started which directly contradicts your claim. Did you mean to provide some other source? Since the counts are made in November it's unlikely DublinBikes related construction work can be blamed either.
Admittedly year 2004 is bit of a mystery, but I'm sure you can point me to solid
evidence how the cycle network had
no role here whatsoever and it's
all because of Bikeability or somesuch.
Couldn't find the "Dublin Transport Initiative 1995" document since all I get is the one for 2011-17 which shows continued development of the strategic cycle network. Strange that. You really should tell them how they'd get much more people cycling safely if they just stopped building all those cycle lanes and tracks.
Red Light said:
Cyclists cycling against the traffic flow on a two way cycle lane have a 12.4x (Sweden), 10x (Finland) increased collision risk compared to on the road and 3.4x (Sweden) and 4x (Denmark) higher risk in the with traffic direction.
The Räsänen papers you cited make no mention of Sweden or Denmark or otherwise make such comparisons. Want to try again?