Investigating Cycle Route Preferences in the Greater Dublin Area

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.

doozerie

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.

It's one reality, certainly, but a rare one. But there are many realities, including the one that pedestrians/cyclists can kill each other under certain circumstances (usually intentionally, admittedly, but not always),which might actually be less rare than a cyclist being killed by a car.

therightstuff wrote:

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.

The rules of the road are there to provide a means of encouraging obnoxious and inconsiderate road users to toe the line, are you suggesting that the rules and their enforcement simply be discarded?

HivemindXX

kuro_man wrote: »

A cycle-lane may not fix this; its not a pancea.

Indeed. The same argument could be used to advocate segregation between motocyclists and other vehicles. The majority of people don't use motorcycles, and it seems to me the reason is they consider it too dangerous.

I wonder what non-motorcyclists would say if they were asked "would you be more likely to use a motorcycle if there were segregated routes for motorcycles and other vehicles".

If a majority of people said yes would make it a good idea to have motorcycle paths alongside the roads similar to the cycle paths we currently have?

BostonB

Considering the near misses I see on cycle lanes, I think a lot of cyclists assume they have right of way because they are in a cycle lane, and undertake left turning traffic ahead of them. Some drivers don't know either so dive across.

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

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

Well, it was a 180km round trip, with wife and baby in tow. Still, next time ...

Doctor Bob

http://www.cyclist.ie/2011/09/press-release-from-cyclist-ie-a-consultancy-report-on-cycle-lanes-released-this-week-may-not-be-what-is-needed-to-boost-commuting-cyclists-numbers-for-2020/

PRESS RELEASE From Cyclist.ie – Ireland’s National Cycling Lobby Group

Cyclists say consultants’ cycle-lane claims need careful interpretation and action by roads authorities if numbers of cyclists are to be massively increased in line with government target of 10% of commuting trips made on bikes by 2020

For immediate release: 2 September 2011

The joint AECOM and TCD (Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering) consultants’ report for Dublin City published this week attempts to show, using a cycling infrastructure preference survey methodology, what measures and policies are required in order to persuade many thousands more commuters to switch from car to bike use for their daily commutes. The context for this survey was the setting by the previous government of an ambitious target in its National Cycling Promotion Policy Framework (NCPF) of 10% of commuting trips nationally to be made by bike by 2020. We are way off that target already in 2011.

In the AECOM/TCD study, 2000 respondents were shown computer generated pictures of various cycling provisions and built infrastructure and asked to express preferences. The results, as stated by the authors, were that most respondents expressed a preference for cycling on the segregated facilities (i.e. rider is not directly in traffic) that they were shown. Mike McKillen (Cyclist.ie, chairman) stated “While we welcome Irish-based research on cycling in Ireland, we feel that showing respondents pictures of idealised cycle facilities and asking them if that’s what they want is not a viable approach to transport planning. Building cycling infrastructure is costly and with scarce road space it is not possible to create a coherent and safe network in towns and cities. It is a pipe-dream if we expect vehicle lanes to be yielded up for cycle lane or track construction. It’s akin to presenting children with a wish list for Santa Claus and then the poor parents are not in a position to deliver the goodies on Christmas Day”!

However cyclists strongly welcome the implied finding of the study, which is that cyclists and potential cyclists recognise a need for investment in measures to improve cyclists’ experience of using the roads.

Mike McKillen points out that “over the two decades since the Department of Transport started to introduce measures to try to promote greater use of the bicycle for commuting there has been too much emphasis on construction of cycling facilities – measures such as shared use of bus lanes, on-road cycle lanes, off-road cycleways, etc – that have not led to the desired increase in cyclist numbers”.

Instead, Cyclist.ie wants a focus on behavioural interventions such as training for novice cyclists, new laws requiring passing motorists to give cyclists more space and increased Garda enforcement of key traffic infringements including infringements by cyclists (no lights at night, red light running, riding on pavements, etc).

The Smarter Travel initiative culminating in the publication of the NCPF in 2009 very clearly calls for ‘soft measures’ such as introduction of 30 km/h speed limits in urban areas and around schools (properly enforced, unlike the Dublin Quays scheme), traffic calming, reduction in goods vehicles transiting through urban areas, to name but a few, to be implemented before construction of cycling facilities are considered. This report’s findings fly in the face of the NCPF.

Cyclist.ie recognises a need for built infrastructural measures in certain circumstances but insists that it must be guided by the government’s National Cycling Policy Framework (NCPF) as adopted in 2009 after extensive consultation. The NCPF advocates a hierarchical approach, where built cycle facilities get the lowest priority coming behind traffic reduction, speed restraint, traffic management and junction treatment that recognises the needs of cyclists and allocating existing traffic lanes in a way that gives them more space.

The cyclists point out that investment in built cycle facilities requires additional investment in maintenance or the new facilities rapidly become unusable. They say this maintenance is already lacking on existing cycle facilities so more of the same is not an option under present budgetary constraints.

Cyclist.ie vice chair, Dr. Darren MacAdam-O’Connell, continued “The issue here is whether we want to spend our taxes doing something on selected roads for a few cyclists or spend taxes doing as much as possible, for as many people as possible, across our whole public road system.

Unfortunately, the participants in this survey do not appear to have been given this choice. Those who are peddling built infrastructure are on a track to more wastage of public funds that will likely miss the 10% target set in the NCPF for 2020″.

ENDS

*sigh*

Posted for info for now. I'll be back later with a few comments.

shotamoose

I think that comment by cyclists.ie is completely mad, and have left a comment on their page to that effect. They seem completely uninterested in what non-cyclists want in order to get them cycling.

seamus

shotamoose wrote: »

I think that comment by cyclists.ie is completely mad, and have left a comment on their page to that effect. They seem completely uninterested in what non-cyclists want in order to get them cycling.

The problem is that non-cyclists don't really have any idea what they want. Give them more cycle lanes, and riding on the road becomes considered less safe again, and the excuses trotted out become, "there's no cycle lane where I want to go, and I'm not going to ride on the road".

Adding more cycling infrastructure is not practical or realistic. It's nice to add scenic routes like the canal towpaths and so forth, but that's only for day trippers. To actually get people out on their bikes, cycling needs to be practical - it needs to get people to work and the shops. Otherwise people will not get out on their bikes in any huge numbers. And we can't build cycle lanes up to the door of every shop, house & business in the country.

A key idea has been identified - that many non-cyclists feel that cycling is unsafe. We don't need to pander to that falsehood, we need to confront it and allay it. Focussing on behavioural aspects such as penalising offenders (cyclist and vehicular) will bring more of a focus on cyclists in general. If people feel that car drivers are taking more care around cyclists, then they will feel more safe to try out cycling.

Basic training courses will also give people the confidence to get out on a bike into traffic. Imagine coming from a place where you haven't cycled in 20 years. In order to get started, you basically have to dive in and have cars flying past you and overtaking you while you're still getting to grips with the basic controls of the bike. I can see how that would be extremely intimidating.

niceonetom

shotamoose wrote: »

I think that comment by cyclists.ie is completely mad, and have left a comment on their page to that effect. They seem completely uninterested in what non-cyclists want in order to get them cycling.

As well they should be. Asking non-cyclists what they want is pointless if you then give it to them and they are forced to come to the realisation that what they wanted was the opposite of what they actually need, or what would make life easier for those who actually engage in what the non-cyclist had only the slightest most and most ill-informed notion of.

The idea that non-cyclists should get the casting vote (and seeing as they compose the majority of the population at large, that's what it would be) in how cycling infrastructure for cyclist should be developed is nonsense. Even if they do go on to take up cycling because of changes made at their request, they'll almost certainly find that everything they thought they wanted was rubbish.

Give cyclists what they want. Explain to the rest why they want it and why it works.

shotamoose

seamus wrote: »

Adding more cycling infrastructure is not practical or realistic.

Nonsense, other countries have managed it just fine. The problem is that the authorities in Ireland and the UK can point to what groups like cyclists.ie as proof that there's no demand.

To actually get people out on their bikes, cycling needs to be practical - it needs to get people to work and the shops. Otherwise people will not get out on their bikes in any huge numbers. And we can't build cycle lanes up to the door of every shop, house & business in the country.

Side-streets aren't really the issue. It's the main connecting traffic-heavy roads that most people won't cycle on. Apart from pricing traffic off the roads, the best way to make them safe and appealing to people who don't currently cycle is separate infrastructure. It's a complete red herring to argue out that we can't do this on every road and therefore we shouldn't do it on any.

A key idea has been identified - that many non-cyclists feel that cycling is unsafe. We don't need to pander to that falsehood, we need to confront it and allay it. Focussing on behavioural aspects such as penalising offenders (cyclist and vehicular) will bring more of a focus on cyclists in general. If people feel that car drivers are taking more care around cyclists, then they will feel more safe to try out cycling.

It would be nice if we could just change people's minds and get motorists to behave themselves, but (a) that's much harder than you're letting on and (b) where's the evidence that it will persuade huge numbers of non-cyclists to start cycling?

I think when you're confronted with evidence like this study provides AND you look at what the countries that have actually suceeded in getting lots of people cycling have done, the conclusion that we need much more segregated infrastructure is inescapable.

shotamoose

Sorry one more thing.

seamus wrote: »

Basic training courses will also give people the confidence to get out on a bike into traffic. Imagine coming from a place where you haven't cycled in 20 years. In order to get started, you basically have to dive in and have cars flying past you and overtaking you while you're still getting to grips with the basic controls of the bike. I can see how that would be extremely intimidating.

I've been cycling for years, I'm very skilled and confident at this point, and I still find traffic flying past me at close range extremely intimidating. I hate it, and every time it happens (and it happens a lot) I wonder whether I'm risking my life. Training won't change this. The vast majority of people won't subject themselves to it. That's why we need more separate, good-quality infrastructure.