Why does cycling have a 'high' risk rating? or does it?

[smutchin]

I know a lot of people seem to complain about them, the same reasons I read about in the UK - broken bottles, poor surfaces, etc.

The ones I saw looked great but admittedly I didn't go outside a fairly limited area.

d.

 

[HLaB]

[QUOTE 1821875, member: 45"]Interesting. Where did you read this? The only info I can get is that the number of cyclists riding into the city has increased (this obviously doesn't include Dublinbikes) over the last 10 years, but I can't see anything about any decrease as a result of cycling infrastructure.[/quote]
I've not read thing so it was in hear say that I heard it from a friend (Member of the Dublin Cycling Campaign) when I was living in Dublin. Dublin had large numbers of cyclists back in the 60,70 & 80's but the introduction of farcilities coincided with numbers falling during the late 90's early 00s. I guess the DCC might have figure on it but how unbiased

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1821875, member: 45"]Interesting. Where did you read this? The only info I can get is that the number of cyclists riding into the city has increased (this obviously doesn't include Dublinbikes) over the last 10 years, but I can't see anything about any decrease as a result of cycling infrastructure.[/quote]

There are cordon counts with the data available on-line covering the period before, during and after construction which show a 15% decrease in cycling. You'll need to dig them out yourself though as its some time since I did that and I don't have the links now.

 

[Red Light]

However, I've taken note of Red Light's interesting point about the reduction of cycling in Dublin. The argument in favour of segregated lanes tends to be that more people would cycle if they had that protection. Maybe it's more complex than that...

A study of cycle routes in 7 UK towns found they didn't encourage people to cycle:

"Constructing safe routes did not of itself encourage those who own cycles - but do not currently use them - to start cycling"​

(DfT Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/95)​

 

[ufkacbln]

I know a lot of people seem to complain about them, the same reasons I read about in the UK - broken bottles, poor surfaces, etc. I live a long way away from Dublin and have never used any of these facilities so won't comment myself. I agree, if they are well designed and go to places people want to travel to, then it's fine, I would be happy to use cycle paths myself but I don't believe it should be compulsory in towns. Alongside busy highspeed routes, maybe, but not in a normal urban environment.

We have an interesting case in Gosport at the moment.

There is a new "Bus Rapid Transport" route that is being touted as an answer to congestion on the A32. It is open to busses and cyclist and is at the moment seeing more cyclists than bus passengers!

Access is restricted to two or three points and it serves the West of Fareham, but has no links for those travelling East.

We already have the "why are cyclists still using the A32?" comments.

Now the route is technically better for cyclists as it is pedestrian free, no dogs and other "Hazards" and the next stage will take over a present cycle path. However what is missing so far are the children, the "pootlers" and the oler riders that can be found in abundance on the present cycle track despite it's "limitations"