Investigating Cycle Route Preferences in the Greater Dublin Area

monument

Attached is the report mention in a Sunday Times article last weekend and The Irish Times yesterday. It's due do be presented tomorrow at this conference (which has some other interesting cycling related papers), but as it given out without restriction and was fairly widely reported, I don't see a problem posting it...

It was commissioned by Dublin City Council and authored by researchers at AECOM consulting engineers and the School of Engineering in Trinity College.

Page 1 is PR, the report follows.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
As outlined at the outset of the current study, the National Cycle Manual guidelines provide robust advise to practioners in the planning and design of cycle networks. The purpose of this research was to add further clarity in relation to individual preference regarding infrastructure and the measures which are most likely to achieve modal shift. In this regard, findings from the current study provide an interesting insight to the variations, and similarities, in preferences among existing cyclists and non cyclists.

A summary of the findings is as follows:

• Improvements in infrastructure for cyclists is the most important measure in encouraging a growth in cycling. This is followed by the need for increased bike parking and better facilities for cyclists such as showers and lockers at work;

• Direct routes with short journey times are the most important variable for existing cyclists and non-cyclists in determining route choice. This is followed by infrastructure type, the number of junctions along the route, traffic speed and cyclist volumes;

• In terms if infrastructure, regardless of the level of cycling confidence, routes which have ‘no facilities’ or ‘bus/cycle lanes’ are the least favoured cycle route types;

• There appears to be no direct correlation between cycling confidence and route choice preference with confident cyclists demonstrating a similar preference for the presented infrastructure types as respondents with no cycling confidence;

• There is, however, a small proportion of very confident cyclists who place high importance on short journey times and direct facilities with low cyclist
volumes. For these cyclists, type of infrastructure and traffic speeds are of less relevance;

• Respondents who currently drive or use public transport to travel to work have a poor perception of cycling and demonstrate a greater need for segregation and lower vehicular speeds;

• Regardless of cycling confidence, there is a similar preference for fewer junctions along cycle routes;

• Respondents who walk/cycle to work have the greatest value of time for the journey to work; and

• Cyclists with little or no experience have a greater preference for routes with a high volume of cyclists;

• The perception of conflict between cyclist and pedestrian shared space is evident with respondents who currently walk to work expressed low favourability for off road cycling facilities and routes through ‘parks/residential areas’.

RECOMMENDATIONS
As highlighted at the outset of the current study, challenging targets for a modal shift to cycling have been set. In order to achieve these targets, the current research concludes with the following recommendations:

• There is a need to prioritise investment in cycling infrastructure. In terms of the type of infrastructure, high quality segregated facilities are likely to be
most favoured by existing cyclists and encourage a shift to cycling. The second preference is for routes through ‘Parks/quiet residential areas’, which could easily be encouraged with minor investment in signage and infrastructure improvements, assuming the routes provide a direct alternative;

• Improvement in safety for cyclists at junctions needs to form an integrated element in the provision of any cycling infrastructure;

• There is a need to reconsider design approach to ‘bus/cycle lanes’ which are negatively viewed by confident and inexperienced cyclists;

• Investment in infrastructure needs to be supported by improvements in bike parking and facilities in the workplace;

• There is a strong role for cycle training to bridge the narrow, but consequential gap, between perceptions of cycling safety among existing cyclists and noncyclists,
particularly among commuters who currently travel by public transport users and by car;

• To encourage an increase in female cyclists, the results indicate a greater need to invest in segregated infrastructure and introduce lower speed limits. However, it is apparent that there is also a strong role for cycle training, improving facilities in the workplace and improving awareness of local cycle
routes.

Lumen

There is a strong role for cycle training to bridge the narrow, but consequential gap, between perceptions of cycling safety among existing cyclists and noncyclists, particularly among commuters who currently travel by public transport users and by car

There might be a role for employers here, linked to the CTW scheme. Dead employees aren't very productive.

BostonB

There is a need to reconsider design approach to ‘bus/cycle lanes’ which are negatively viewed by confident and inexperienced cyclists;

That would be one of the major points for me.

Lumen

BostonB wrote: »

That would be one of the major points for me.

What's the practical alternative, say (for example) on the north Quays?

I quite enjoy drafting buses. Maybe that could be incorporated into the newbie training.

BostonB

How about not have them disappear for a start.

what_traffic

From reviewing the "Summary of Findings" and "Recommendations" the survey questions I presume are very "Civil Engineering" based. Not surprising considering the authors. Anybody have a link to the "web based technique" (from page 1 of PDF) questions that where used here?

Iwannahurl

what_traffic wrote: »

From reviewing the "Summary of Findings" and "Recommendations" the survey questions I presume are very "Civil Engineering" based. Not surprising considering the authors. Anybody have a link to the "web based technique" (from page 1 of PDF) questions that where used here?

Fair point, now that you mention it. AECOM likes to 'showcase its expertise in cycling provision'.

That said, IMO the findings of this survey tally with other such studies. A significant proportion of cyclists keep asking for segregation, and if that's what they want that's what they should get.

Cyclists should be pampered, cosseted and cherished.

Doctor Bob

what_traffic wrote: »

From reviewing the "Summary of Findings" and "Recommendations" the survey questions I presume are very "Civil Engineering" based. Not surprising considering the authors. Anybody have a link to the "web based technique" (from page 1 of PDF) questions that where used here?

I think it was done via Survey Monkey, but the link has probably expired.

If memory serves, there was a mix of questions on socio-economic/demographic stuff, cycling skill level, regularlty of cycling, etc., and then a more visual part with many different 'A or B' scenarios presented as in Fig 1.3 in the PDF.

doozerie

Iwannhurl wrote:

Cyclists should be pampered, cosseted and cherished.

It seems to me that this view underlies a number of attitudes that I've encountered regarding cycling and I've never really understood it. Why should cyclists be pampered, cosseted and cherished?

mmclo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Fair point, now that you mention it. AECOM likes to 'showcase its expertise in cycling provision'.

That said, IMO the findings of this survey tally with other such studies. A significant proportion of cyclists keep asking for segregation, and if that's what they want that's what they should get.

Cyclists should be pampered, cosseted and cherished.

Cycling Super Highways....mmmmmmm

kenmc

doozerie wrote: »

Why should cyclists be pampered, cosseted and cherished?

Cos we're worth it!

Mucco

doozerie wrote: »

hy should cyclists be pampered, cosseted and cherished?

Because sticking in a decent bike lane is way cheaper than a Luas or a metro.

Iwannahurl

doozerie wrote: »

It seems to me that this view underlies a number of attitudes that I've encountered regarding cycling and I've never really understood it. Why should cyclists be pampered, cosseted and cherished?

I'm too lazy to re-type/edit this, so here's a link purely for my own convenience:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73664774&postcount=66

HivemindXX

I can't understand why people (excluding bus and taxi drivers) are against shared bus/cycle lanes. Surely being able to use the bus lane is better than not being able to use it.

Raam

HivemindXX wrote: »

I can't understand why people (excluding bus and taxi drivers) are against shared bus/cycle lanes. Surely being able to use the bus lane is better than not being able to use it.

I've no particular problem with it. I can only speculate that some people feel hassled or stressed by buses and taxis behind them or trying to over take them.

rflynnr

HivemindXX wrote: »

I can't understand why people (excluding bus and taxi drivers) are against shared bus/cycle lanes. Surely being able to use the bus lane is better than not being able to use it.

I suspect it's not so much that people are against it but rather that in an ideal world they'd prefer a dedicated cycle lane.

doozerie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm too lazy to re-type/edit this, so here's a link purely for my own convenience:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73664774&postcount=66

Ah, what you mean is that the "needs" of cyclists should be prioritised over the "needs" of motorists. Which is not quite the same thing as simply advocating/promoting cycling - there is an overlap, certainly, but there is a danger when looking at how to reclaim space from cars that you end up building on a poor design to start with. If you were to take cyclists out of the equation you wouldn't find that the existing infrastructure instantly transforms into a much more efficient or safe one (like many people I'm sure, I find driving around Dublin a painful experience for the most part). Personally I'd rather see the road infrastructure fundamentally re-assessed and re-designed to accommodate motorised vehicles and bicycles together, rather than see the likes of cycle lanes be tacked onto existing poorly designed roads.

No, I don't really think that's going to happen, but even to get planners thinking along those lines might suggest that their mindset has fundamentally shifted from one of seeing cyclists as a hindrance to one of seeing cyclists as valid road users that warrant consideration during planning. That can only be a good thing. That doesn't mean that I think there is no benefit to well-designed bike lanes, I just think that convincing everyone (planners, motorists, current cyclists, potential cyclists, etc.) of the merits of sharing existing road space is a victory that would yield better results in the long run and when expending effort I'd see that as ultimately being a more worthy cause than more painted stretches of road and footpath right now.

doozerie

kenmc wrote:

Cos we're worth it!

Well, okay, I am, but I'm not sure about the rest of ye...

CramCycle

Mucco wrote: »

Because sticking in a decent bike lane is way cheaper than a Luas or a metro.

But for some reason those ****ty red excuses for bike lanes that councils keep laying down seem to cost about the same or far more per person using.

BostonB

That because they don't know what they are doing.

monument

Some of what the NTA's Cycle Manual allows for is a good reason against segregated cycle lanes / tracks.

Have they learned anything from the nonsense which has already been built?

Fully segregated roundabouts
Cyclists and walkers should also be segregated.



Shared surfaces and crossing like these. Crazy that cyclists going along the road are told to yield and share space when motorists are not (ie it's different on a shared street)... I'm really unsure about these examples under the uncontrolled crossings, here. And the use of bollards on a crossing which is supposed to fit both cyclists and people on foot...







It says this junction design -- "Cyclist Deflection, in truck-intensive areas" --is not suitable for "main cycle routes", I would content it's not suitable anywhere. And the same design is listed elsewhere as "side roads for HGVs" in without any warning about not being used on "main cycle routes" what ever they are.





And this is more off the wall stuff for where a two-way cycle track meets a side road:

CramCycle

Are those pictures from the NTA? It seems they would be promoting cycling on sidewalks as you approach the junctions, so in fact, they would seem to be promoting either breaking the law or walking, not sure which.

Raam

The road looks safer to me.

seamus

CramCycle wrote: »

Are those pictures from the NTA? It seems they would be promoting cycling on sidewalks as you approach the junctions, so in fact, they would seem to be promoting either breaking the law or walking, not sure which.

The design is such that the non-cycle, non-roadway area is "shared space". However the digital example image shows that there is no signage or markings anywhere to indicate what is and isn't shared space and presumably therefore they consider it OK for cyclists to ride on the footpath where a cycle track doesn't exist.

I'm with Raam. They're all perfect examples of cycle facilities that I don't/wouldn't use.

-K2-

Bike lanes which dump cyclists onto footpaths or into junctions are a recipe for conflict with other road users, both in a physical and argumentative sense.

munsterleinster

+1 on much less hassle to just stay on the road an not use the cycle paths.

For example, heading from Fairview towards Sutton.. Have to avoid overhanding onto the cycle path opposite Vernon avenue.. then imediately a shared footpath and then a few hundred meters and off again at the wooden bridge to dollymount to try and cross back onto the road again.

It's considered one of the best cycle lanes in the city and it's too much hassle when commuting (fabulous facility for kids and famalies though)

BostonB

Jeez how much did all that crud cost....

kuro_man

Cycle lanes shown seem to be more about keep bikes from annoying motorists, so they won't work. They hardly mentioned driver training!

Rule #1: the single best thing for cycle safety is increase the number of cyclists.

Loosing right-of-way (and dodging pedestrians) at junctions breaks the rule #1.

There was a stretch of road between Ballsbridge and Merrion Gates that was resurfaced and for a while have no markings at all. It was the safest stretch to cycle - cars overtook with greater gaps and kept to a reasonable speed and the surface was excellent.

kuro_man

Segregation is not the answer. The more they segregate, they more the advertise that CYCLING WITH TRAFFIC IS VERY DANGEROUS, putting people off cycling.

But it isn't and shouldn't be dangerous.

Mucco

You have to remember that most people say that it's lack of lanes that stops them cycling - they are being put off by lack of segregation. Therefore, to get the safety in numbers, we have to build lanes.
And while it may be better for experienced cyclists to stick to the road; it's getting non-cyclists onto their bikes that matters. I tend to think that experienced cyclists can look after themselves.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

I'm with Raam. They're all perfect examples of cycle facilities that I don't/wouldn't use.

It's also assuming a good bit that all other road users will only use the space allocated to them. Having a kerbed segregated lane is pretty useless when there's someone parked in it.

On the roundabout with what looks like zebra crossings, the first thing that comes to mind are roundabouts with a traffic light straight after. You'll inevitably see cars jamming on the brakes as they exit the roundabout, and that's with red lights.

I don't see myself using any of this, but as has been mentioned I suppose this isn't aimed at present cyclists.

Bigger lanes is what I want.

monument

CramCycle wrote: »

Are those pictures from the NTA? It seems they would be promoting cycling on sidewalks as you approach the junctions, so in fact, they would seem to be promoting either breaking the law or walking, not sure which.

Yes, quite shockingly all from the NTA as on http://www.cyclemanual.ie/

Their co-called "shared surfaces" are one way or another promoting cycling on footpaths. Wide areas like shared roads or streets is one, thing but these just amount to telling cyclists to cycle on the footpath, which is wrong.

I can't see that many ministers, TDs or councillors standing over cycling on footpaths but they allow the NTA and their councils to put in these designs and then make the cycle manual suit their muck designs.

The designs have been used recently in so many areas by large councils like Fingal, South Dublin, Galway City that I imagine that there would have been some opposition if the designs were not allowed.

Mucco wrote: »

You have to remember that most people say that it's lack of lanes that stops them cycling - they are being put off by lack of segregation. Therefore, to get the safety in numbers, we have to build lanes.
And while it may be better for experienced cyclists to stick to the road; it's getting non-cyclists onto their bikes that matters. I tend to think that experienced cyclists can look after themselves.

That won't work well for a number of reasons, mainly that motorists are unlikely to give much respect to cyclists who use the road when there's an off-road cycle track and there will be less room on the roads for cyclists.

Copenhagen are now planning routes for cyclists cycling longer distances, we should be doing it from the start.

Iwannahurl

doozerie wrote: »

Ah, what you mean is that the "needs" of cyclists should be prioritised over the "needs" of motorists. Which is not quite the same thing as simply advocating/promoting cycling - there is an overlap, certainly, but there is a danger when looking at how to reclaim space from cars that you end up building on a poor design to start with. If you were to take cyclists out of the equation you wouldn't find that the existing infrastructure instantly transforms into a much more efficient or safe one (like many people I'm sure, I find driving around Dublin a painful experience for the most part). Personally I'd rather see the road infrastructure fundamentally re-assessed and re-designed to accommodate motorised vehicles and bicycles together, rather than see the likes of cycle lanes be tacked onto existing poorly designed roads.

No, I don't really think that's going to happen, but even to get planners thinking along those lines might suggest that their mindset has fundamentally shifted from one of seeing cyclists as a hindrance to one of seeing cyclists as valid road users that warrant consideration during planning. That can only be a good thing. That doesn't mean that I think there is no benefit to well-designed bike lanes, I just think that convincing everyone (planners, motorists, current cyclists, potential cyclists, etc.) of the merits of sharing existing road space is a victory that would yield better results in the long run and when expending effort I'd see that as ultimately being a more worthy cause than more painted stretches of road and footpath right now.

I wouldn't disagree with a lot of the above.

To add to my earlier point, I also think the desires of cyclists (and pedestrians and bus users) should be prioritised above the desires of motorists.

Repeated surveys tell us clearly that a large proportion of current and would-be cyclists want segregation. Whatever the goals "in the long run", that is a demand that must be addressed in some fashion.

Fair and understandably enough, your preference is for "convincing everyone ... of the merits of sharing existing road space". My point is, given public expectations that's a hard sell, especially to less confident cyclists and their children.

Iwannahurl

kuro_man wrote: »

Segregation is not the answer. The more they segregate, they more the advertise that CYCLING WITH TRAFFIC IS VERY DANGEROUS, putting people off cycling.

But it isn't and shouldn't be dangerous.

Depends on the question. If the question is "what do many current and potential cyclists really really want?" then the answer is, without question, segregation!

Mucco wrote: »

You have to remember that most people say that it's lack of lanes that stops them cycling - they are being put off by lack of segregation. Therefore, to get the safety in numbers, we have to build lanes.

And while it may be better for experienced cyclists to stick to the road; it's getting non-cyclists onto their bikes that matters. I tend to think that experienced cyclists can look after themselves.

Quite right. They also mention things like the weather, but at least that is beyond human control.

Current cyclists deserve a decent level of service. For some that means better on-road conditions, and for others it means segregation.

What about potential cyclists though? Encouraging significant modal shift to cycling will require either a stunningly effective Share the Road PR campaign, or a major increase and improvement in segregated facilities.

With regard to the NTA Manual, what input did national and local cycling campaign groups have?

Is it a draft manual or a fait accompli? If the latter, how did it manage to see the light of day?

doozerie

Iwannahurl wrote:

Fair and understandably enough, your preference is for "convincing everyone ... of the merits of sharing existing road space". My point is, given public expectations that's a hard sell, especially to less confident cyclists and their children.

I agree that is a hard sell, but then again I've also never understood the appeal of commuting by car to many people that have a choice of other means of transport. Commuting by car for me means idling in traffic for long periods, in a stuffy car, getting more frustrated by the minute while thinking about how much more progress I'd be making by bicycle. People I've discussed this with who choose to commute by car describe the benefits of a comfortable heated and dry interior ("stuffy" in my books), the freedom to listen to the radio/music (a strange definition of "freedom", to me), the luxury/fun of seeing others suffer in the weather conditions outside (I've never understood that kind of malice myself), the "fun" of driving (to me driving is okay, maybe even fun at times, inching along by car in rush hour traffic isn't what I'd consider driving though), etc. So, despite all the headaches, and expense, of commuting by car it seems that many people simply prefer it. Rather than trying to directly sell commuting by bicycle as an option to such people maybe we need to challenge the illusion that commuting by car is the be all and end all, which means challenging the place of the car in society generally. It is subtly different to trying to sell the bicycle as the best option, and not necessarily any easier a thing to do, but maybe it would stir more, or different, debate.

All that rambling of mine aside though, I think that going the route of segregation is not actually an alternative to convincing everyone of the merits of sharing existing road space i.e. it's not a case of one, segregation, versus the other, education. Even with segregation you'll still have junctions where cyclists and motorised vehicles share the same space, I see that as simply unavoidable. Those areas will be the high risk areas, as many such junctions are right now. Attracting people to cycling with the image of traffic-free stretches of segregated cycle lane might well draw people in but it potentially lulls them into a false sense of security for them to be rudely and possibly scarily awakened when they hit their first junction - an experience like that might well scare people away from cycling permanently. I think education is key, backed up by enforcement, both of which have been lacking for far too long. I think that efforts in both of those areas will do more to make cycling appear as a viable option to people than simply trying to move bicycles further away from traffic.

Iwannahurl wrote:

Depends on the question. If the question is "what do many current and potential cyclists really really want?" then the answer is, without question, segregation!

Has that question really been answered though? The study linked to by monument in his first post includes the following in its recommendations:

In terms of the type of infrastructure, high quality segregated facilities are likely to be most favoured by existing cyclists and encourage a shift to cycling.

For a study with data to hand, phrases like "are likely to be most favoured by" strike me as being vague, uncertain, and basically unconvincing. But I'd also question whether this study is one that should put forward recommendations for cycling infrastructure in the first place. 29% of the respondents are currently car drivers, who have a vested interest in seeing cyclists off the road in order to facilitate their own progress (i.e. their motives may be entirely selfish rather than based on what's best for cyclists or what may encourage they themselves to cycle). Add in car passengers and bus passengers and you are now at 47% of respondents for whom cyclists are potentially a competitor for the same valuable space on the road. I think that mix of respondents adds interest to the survey but I also think it means that drawing conclusions on what cyclists want/need from this particular set of respondents is extremely tricky and I'd be concerned that those processing the data from the study have been overly simplistic, or perhaps even biased, in the conclusions they've drawn.

Some other brief quotes from the report:

* Existing public transport users (78%) and car drivers/passengers (73%) have the greatest preference for off road infrastructure;

* Existing pedestrians have the lowest preference for off road cycling infrastructure, most likely conscious of the perceived safety hazards in using
types of shared use infrastructure;

* Existing cyclists have the highest preference for on-road cycling infrastructure (70%) and pedestrians the least preference (51%);

Taking those in isolation (perhaps not the best thing to do), it seems that according to this survey users of motorised transport want cyclists off the road, pedestrians want them off the footpath, and cyclists want to be on the road (I don't know what "on-road cycling infrastructure" really means - for me it includes being able to use bus lanes without the presence of a cycle lane, so not segregation as such, the study may have a different definition of it). Based on my reading of (parts of) the document so far, within this study it's not clear to me that there is a resounding demand for segregation (though perhaps that'll come through more clearly once I've read the study fully).

HivemindXX

It's a tricky question indeed and Doozerie raises a very good question about the motivation of the respondents.

Basically it comes down to how much weight we should give the desires of people who have little or no experience with cycling. If we do put in an extensive network of Irish style cycle lanes can we expect future non-cyclists responding that they don't cycle because "cycle lanes don't go where I need to go", "cycle lanes losing priority at every junction means cycling is too slow" and "parked cars, pedestrians and other obstructions make cycle lanes impractical to use".

BostonB

I think theres a case for segregated lanes in certain situations, a fast road, etc. But in general wheres theres a lot of junctions and old narrow roads, I think its better to be on the road.

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

Some of what the NTA's Cycle Manual allows for is a good reason against segregated cycle lanes / tracks.

Have they learned anything from the nonsense which has already been built?

Fully segregated roundabouts
Cyclists and walkers should also be segregated.



Shared surfaces and crossing like these. Crazy that cyclists going along the road are told to yield and share space when motorists are not (ie it's different on a shared street)... I'm really unsure about these examples under the uncontrolled crossings, here. And the use of bollards on a crossing which is supposed to fit both cyclists and people on foot...







It says this junction design -- "Cyclist Deflection, in truck-intensive areas" --is not suitable for "main cycle routes", I would content it's not suitable anywhere. And the same design is listed elsewhere as "side roads for HGVs" in without any warning about not being used on "main cycle routes" what ever they are.





And this is more off the wall stuff for where a two-way cycle track meets a side road:

It looks as if the symbol for a cycle lane should just be a Yield triangle.

tomasrojo

doozerie wrote: »

Commuting by car for me means idling in traffic for long periods, in a stuffy car, getting more frustrated by the minute while thinking about how much more progress I'd be making by bicycle.

I hired a car yesterday to go to a wedding. All I could think for most of the day was while I was driving through barely moving traffic, do people voluntarily do this??!?

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

I hired a car yesterday to go to a wedding.

Ha, call yourself a utility cyclist?! Surely you don't need a car for that.

monument

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Is it a draft manual or a fait accompli? If the latter, how did it manage to see the light of day?

I think it is now out of draft stage, but unlike the previous manual it's a living document which can be changed. How much of the crap will be changed is another thing...

doozerie wrote: »

Taking those in isolation (perhaps not the best thing to do), it seems that according to this survey users of motorised transport want cyclists off the road, pedestrians want them off the footpath, and cyclists want to be on the road (I don't know what "on-road cycling infrastructure" really means - for me it includes being able to use bus lanes without the presence of a cycle lane, so not segregation as such, the study may have a different definition of it). Based on my reading of (parts of) the document so far, within this study it's not clear to me that there is a resounding demand for segregation (though perhaps that'll come through more clearly once I've read the study fully).

Figure 1.2 includes the images of different infrastructure respondents were shown.

Table 1.6 shows "off-road cycle tracks" (ie segregated) as preferred by those with all level of cycling confidence, bar those who are "Not at all confident" who prefer parks.



While table 1.7 show modes and preference:



These are the overall (ie all groups) answers to what would make you start to cycle or cycle more:

Note how more connected on-road cycle lanes also has a good preference:



But when they split that by gender, it drops and for woman the gap between on and off widens:

Mucco

doozerie wrote: »

.... I think education is key, backed up by enforcement, both of which have been lacking for far too long. I think that efforts in both of those areas will do more to make cycling appear as a viable option to people than simply trying to move bicycles further away from traffic.

I disagree. I have read many surveys where the key issue for non-cyclists is always lack of bike lanes. There is a perception that bike lanes = safety. This may be wrong, but it seems correct. The fact that bike lanes are more dangerous is counter-intuitive, and therefore very difficult to argue, especially with someone who's not interested in cycling.

There is a good example near where I live. There is a busy road, fast, few traffic lights; and a parallel road with a segregated cycle lane with many lights, junctions, loss of priority etc.... Very few cyclists are on the main road (mostly roadies), while there are many cyclists on the parallel track. Many of these cyclists are reasonabley experienced (judging by bikes, speed etc), but they prefer the inconvenient cycle track.

Getting more people cycling = safety in numbers = cycle tracks become safer

kuro_man

I can't understand why non-cyclists are ask about what cyclist's need! Surely the lack of experience means they are unqualified to answer, so give an over-simplisitic answer: more segregation.

Also, if inexperienced cyclists continue to cycle, they become more experienced - the majority cyclist should be experienced provided they stay cycling.

Heirachy of cycling needs should be:
1. increase in number of cyclists (benefits all)
2.= improved surface quality & cleaning
2.= driver training
4. cycle training
5. infrastucture/lanes where appropriate.
Some cycle lanes work e.g. on straight narrow roads with a lot of
congestion, like Grand Canal.

CramCycle

kuro_man wrote: »

I can't understand why non-cyclists are ask about what cyclist's need! Surely the lack of experience means they are unqualified to answer, so give an over-simplisitic answer: more segregation.

Also, if inexperienced cyclists continue to cycle, they become more experienced - the majority cyclist should be experienced provided they stay cycling.

Heirachy of cycling needs should be:
1. increase in number of cyclists (benefits all)
2.= improved surface quality & cleaning
2.= driver training
4. cycle training
5. infrastucture/lanes where appropriate.
Some cycle lanes work e.g. on straight narrow roads with a lot of
congestion, like Grand Canal.

Personally I think driver and cyclist training should be top as they override most of the other points if they were effective.

monument

kuro_man wrote: »

I can't understand why non-cyclists are ask about what cyclist's need! Surely the lack of experience means they are unqualified to answer, so give an over-simplisitic answer: more segregation.

But cyclists also give segregation as an answer!

They are not asked what cyclists need, they are asked what would make them start cycling or would make them cycle more.

kuro_man

Whatever they do, it should it be based on real evidence and have demonstrative benefits, not the illusion of safety.

Major problem with segratated lanes is how they approach side-roads on the left. It usually involves putting cyclists is contest with cars turning left and cars on the side-road. Nearly all fatal cycling accidents involve trucks and a left-hand turn.

Under the Road Traffic Act, a cyclist if a road vehicle with the same priority as all others. But loosing right-of-way seriously degrades cycling and gives credence to the idea that it up to cyclists to get out of the way of motorists.

CramCycle

monument wrote: »

But cyclists also give segregation as an answer!

They are not asked what cyclists need, they are asked what would make them start cycling or would make them cycle more.

I think thats the problem with these types of surveys, alot of respondents may have no intention of ever cycling and will possibly give answers that muddle the results quite alot.

Although not always, 2 of the petrol heads I work with, who will never cycle to work, have told me that segregation of cycle lanes is just inviting accidents and hassle at junctions. I quote "alot of drivers just fail to realise that it makes more sense for them (cyclists) to be on the road with us" (only an opinion)

kuro_man

CramCycle wrote: »

I think thats the problem with these types of surveys, alot of respondents may have no intention of ever cycling and will possibly give answers that muddle the results quite alot.

+1

doozerie

Mucco wrote:

I disagree. I have read many surveys where the key issue for non-cyclists is always lack of bike lanes. There is a perception that bike lanes = safety. This may be wrong, but it seems correct. The fact that bike lanes are more dangerous is counter-intuitive, and therefore very difficult to argue, especially with someone who's not interested in cycling.

I see the perception of bike lanes as being safe (and roads not safe) as very much an education issue. I think it is a view that is all too often based on a lack of understanding of what using a cycle lane involves, plus what cycling *with* traffic involves. For that kind of audience I wouldn't argue that bike lanes are dangerous, I'd argue that they are unnecessary if cyclists and drivers alike use their common sense and demonstrate acknowledgement of, and consideration for, other road users.

Mucco wrote:

Getting more people cycling = safety in numbers = cycle tracks become safer

Numbers alone won't make junctions of cycle lanes and roads safer, only more considerate behaviour by all road users will achieve that in my view.

therightstuff

It is a very obvious fact that cyclists/pedestrians are not killed by other cyclists/pedestrians. They are killed by cars, trucks and buses. When we cycle on roads we are at risk. To argue that education comes into this is a misnomer. I race bicycles. I have raced motorbikes. I do not suffer from a lack of ability or confidence on two wheels. Yet I could be killed tomorrow commuting to work by some clown driving using a mobile phone. That's reality.

Not all the drivers care about how they drive in the same way that many cyclists do not obey the rules of the road. These people do not want to be educated. They are not interested. Therefore you should keep the interaction between cyclists and motorists to a minimum.

Serious countries produce effective transportation demarcation. In Holland, Germany, Switzerland etc. cycle lanes are completely separated from the road. Often they take different routes. That is the minimum we should accept.

Next time someone comes knocking on your door looking for a vote ask them what their opinions on cycling and the associated infrastructure are. If enough of us do it we may get something. The Taoiseach is a cyclist- it must be of some benefit to us.

kuro_man

therightstuff wrote: »

It is a very obvious fact that cyclists/pedestrians are not killed by other cyclists/pedestrians. They are killed by cars, trucks and buses. When we cycle on roads we are at risk. To argue that education comes into this is a misnomer. I race bicycles. I have raced motorbikes. I do not suffer from a lack of ability or confidence on two wheels. Yet I could be killed tomorrow commuting to work by some clown driving using a mobile phone. That's reality.

A cycle-lane may not fix this; its not a pancea.
I heard that some cycle lanes were removed in Holland near junctions, cyclists have to rejoin the road.