Bicycle Culture by Design lecture - Engineers Ireland - 17th Oct

SerialComplaint

I did a forum search, but I don't think anyone else has posted this, so here goes...

Mikael Colville-Andersen

Urban mobility expert and "Denmark's Cycling Ambassador", Mikael Colville-Andersen is CEO of Copenhagenize. He travels around the world with keynote speeches for meetings with national and municipal policymakers. He applies his marketing expertise to campaigns that focus on selling bicycle culture and bicycle transport to a mainstream audience and advises cities and NGOs regarding infrastructure. He has discovered that 'urban mobility' is not as universal a language as one may think. There are many different actors involved in working towards liveable cities and re-establising the bicycle as transport. In this talk he offers a universal linguistic approach, using design as a common denominator for everything from advocacy to traffic engineering. Shouldn't we just design bicycle infrastructure like we design toasters or toothbrushes? Using basic design principles in planning and engineering makes understanding bicycle infrastructure and culture easier, as well as providing a more direct route to implementation.

It's time to move on and Design can make the difference.

http://www.engineersireland.ie/groups/societies/roads-and-transportation-society/events/bicycle-culture-by-design.aspx

BostonB

Should lock the doors and show them all the photos of the dire cycle lanes the engineers here have built. Then let them out a door 1ft wide with a bin/trolly just awkwardly placed on the other side of it.

Genuinely sounds interesting. I wonder is there enough enlightenment to take it onboard though.

OssianSmyth

Just a reminder that this free event is on tomorrow night.

droidus

Is he going to take some pictures of cycle lanes in the airport again and then write another article about how brilliant cycling facilities are in Dublin?

Doctor Bob

In case it's not clear from the above info, this is open to the public, no booking required.

I believe there will also be some temporary additional cycle parking on site.

BostonB wrote: »

Then let them out a door 1ft wide with a bin/trolly just awkwardly placed on the other side of it.

galwaycyclist

The title of this lecture provokes some questions -

Does the "Bicycle culture" reflect the design of the cycling provisions or does the design of the provisions reflect a pre-existing culture of cycling among the designers? (eg in Denmark?)

Historically the position of entities like the Dublin Transportation Office was that it was possible to helicopter "Dutch or Danish inspired" cycling facilities on top of "UK inspired" roads infrastructure. Is this a viable position?

To give one example. The Danish Roads Authority acknowledge that in Copenhagen they never tried to set up a system of one-way streets to keep cars moving. Is it possible to talk about providing Danish infrastructure in Irish cities and towns based on one-way streets without first considering the wider implications of those street systems?

Does the cycling provision reflect some other cultural constructs? We know that Dutch engineers seem to produce well thought out designs. The overwhelming experience in the UK and Ireland is that our engineers tend to produce poorly thought out and unworkable designs. Is there something about the way in which civil engineers are trained in Ireland that renders the recipients of that education in some way unfit to produce workable roads infrastructure? Are our University Civil Engineering degrees "fit for purpose"? If not why not?

This talk is being hosted by Engineers Ireland. Is the experience of poor road design and traffic management in this country a manifestation of a deeper malaise in how the Irish engineering profession governs itself? Is it now time to remove entities like Engineers Ireland and replace it with a state imposed structure of professional governance?

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Is it now time to remove entities like Engineers Ireland and replace it with a state imposed structure of professional governance?

Simple answer, no. To design and build any piece of civil engineering infrastructure, you're going to need civil engineers. Whether they're operating through EI or some state body, from a limited pool of people, you'll just end up with the same people doing the same job. Where I believe the energy needs to be devoted to is influencing the design criteria, in all their minutiae, that the engineers are working to, and the post-design pre-construction auditing process that test whether those criteria have been met. Put simply, we (the stake holders) have to agree on what cycling infrastructure we want for the money we have to spend, and put the mechanisms in place to ensure that is what we receive.

BTW, Engineers Ireland is already a structure of professional governance. What exactly would you change and why?

ford2600

Replacing one body with another won't do much. From my experience, most professionals doing road design, local authority engineers, contract engineers etc don't for the most part cycle.

They don't think like cyclist or see the road from a cyclist viewpoint.

That is primary problem IMHO

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The title of this lecture provokes some questions -

Does the "Bicycle culture" reflect the design of the cycling provisions or does the design of the provisions reflect a pre-existing culture of cycling among the designers? (eg in Denmark?)

Historically the position of entities like the Dublin Transportation Office was that it was possible to helicopter "Dutch or Danish inspired" cycling facilities on top of "UK inspired" roads infrastructure. Is this a viable position?

To give one example. The Danish Roads Authority acknowledge that in Copenhagen they never tried to set up a system of one-way streets to keep cars moving. Is it possible to talk about providing Danish infrastructure in Irish cities and towns based on one-way streets without first considering the wider implications of those street systems?

Does the cycling provision reflect some other cultural constructs? We know that Dutch engineers seem to produce well thought out designs. The overwhelming experience in the UK and Ireland is that our engineers tend to produce poorly thought out and unworkable designs. Is there something about the way in which civil engineers are trained in Ireland that renders the recipients of that education in some way unfit to produce workable roads infrastructure? Are our University Civil Engineering degrees "fit for purpose"? If not why not?

This talk is being hosted by Engineers Ireland. Is the experience of poor road design and traffic management in this country a manifestation of a deeper malaise in how the Irish engineering profession governs itself? Is it now time to remove entities like Engineers Ireland and replace it with a state imposed structure of professional governance?

BostonB

ford2600 wrote: »

Replacing one body with another won't do much. From my experience, most professionals doing road design, local authority engineers, contract engineers etc don't for the most part cycle.

They don't think like cyclist or see the road from a cyclist viewpoint.

That is primary problem IMHO

You'd think they don't drive either.

smacl

Won't make it down for this tonight, any idea if this is being broadcast / podcast? The CPD stuff from EI regularly is, with the Q&A having on-line as well as live questions.

galwaycyclist

ford2600 wrote: »

Replacing one body with another won't do much. From my experience, most professionals doing road design, local authority engineers, contract engineers etc don't for the most part cycle.

They don't think like cyclist or see the road from a cyclist viewpoint.

That is primary problem IMHO

I agree that this is part of the problem. And I think it is worth remembering that most if not all Dutch and Danish engineers did cycle training in school. If they have driving licences then the driver training included a module on vulnerable road users.

However thats not the whole picture either - it is reasonable to assume that many Irish engineers walk as a form of transport from time to time. Despite this, they will still routinely use road designs that inconvenience and endanger pedestrians for no other purpose than to shave a few seconds of time it takes a car to round a corner. They will still use pedestrian crossings in a manner that appears intended to manage and control people on foot for the benefit of other traffic.

Doctor Bob

smacl wrote: »

Won't make it down for this tonight, any idea if this is being broadcast / podcast? The CPD stuff from EI regularly is, with the Q&A having on-line as well as live questions.

No webast, afaik, as it's a lecture he gives around the world and an online copy would presumably undermine the commercial aspect of it.

buffalo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

However thats not the whole picture either - it is reasonable to assume that many Irish engineers walk as a form of transport from time to time. Despite this, they will still routinely use road designs that inconvenience and endanger pedestrians for no other purpose than to shave a few seconds of time it takes a car to round a corner. They will still use pedestrian crossings in a manner that appears intended to manage and control people on foot for the benefit of other traffic.

I know you're Galway-based (or at least I assume! ) but turning from Westmoreland St onto Aston Quay in Dublin is a prime example of this imo. Massive pedestrian footfall, middle of the city centre, and the wait time is atrocious. Not only that, it's dangerous when waiting pedestrians see the cross-quay traffic stop, and they start crossing, only for motor traffic from Westmoreland street to come around. I saw a green bus (M7 express?) swing around once with absolutely zero regard for people already crossing.

I think everyone in the Dept. for Transport should have a quota of days where they have to walk, drive, cycle, take the bus, train, etc.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

Simple answer, no. To design and build any piece of civil engineering infrastructure, you're going to need civil engineers. Whether they're operating through EI or some state body, from a limited pool of people, you'll just end up with the same people doing the same job. Where I believe the energy needs to be devoted to is influencing the design criteria, in all their minutiae, that the engineers are working to, and the post-design pre-construction auditing process that test whether those criteria have been met. Put simply, we (the stake holders) have to agree on what cycling infrastructure we want for the money we have to spend, and put the mechanisms in place to ensure that is what we receive.

In a sense we have already agreed what type of infractructure we need in the form of the National Cycle Policy Framework.

The problem is that the Smarter Travel Unit in the DoTTS do not appear to accept any supervisory role in how it is delivered. Indeed the relevant minister has taken a public position that it is not for he or his officials to question the activities of the local authorities he is funding.

The situation is in fact a bit worse than that. Our system of local government funding has resulted in a "project driven" process of infrastructure provision where central civil servants indicate what types of scheme they will fund this year and local authority officials compile bids accordingly. It is a system based on achieving "outputs" rather than "outcomes". For both parties the system of reward and performance measurement is based on dispensing and spending funds within set budgetary cycles with little regard for what is being achieved.

It is an output-based system where km of lanes provided is the measure of success. An outcome-based system would measure the number of people cycling.

This leads back to another question triggered by the premise of the lecture title. Is the current system one that is inherently likely to provide good design or bad design? Telling us what good design looks like is irrelevant if we have a system that is pre-disposed to providing unworkable solutions.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

BTW, Engineers Ireland is already a structure of professional governance. What exactly would you change and why?

I would not isolate the discussion to Engineers Ireland - I would also include the Association of Consulting Engineers. If you want me to give examples of bad design how about this one?



The issue is that local authorities appear to be able to get "professional" engineers to sign off on all kinds of schemes - without any apparent regard for their own professional reputations or for the reputation of engineering as a profession. The knee jerk reaction to questioning such designs is to threaten legal action.

How can this happen other than if those involved are assured they have the collective protection of their colleagues?

what_traffic

The photo galwaycyclist posted got the following write up:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/September2010.htm

"
Inspired by this example from Harlow, Galway City Council have created this even more ambitious scheme on Doughiska Road. Unfortunately, the cost of erecting Cyclists Dismount signs at the 18 junctions, 41 private drives and 12 bus stops interrupting this 1.4km shared use pavement proved prohibitive, so they had to compromise by painting Give Way markings on the pavement.
"

BostonB

In my area they spent months and hundreds of thousands to widen roads moving pavements and lines of trees, to add a priority bus lane only to bottleneck all traffic including buses to one lane in 2 or 3 places with the new design. They also added about 20+ traffic lights where they weren't needed at all.

When you see that you have to question what was in their heads at all. The only conclusion I came to was, they needed to spend their budget. Its the only think that explains many of the designs.

galwaycyclist

BostonB wrote: »

When you see that you have to question what was in their heads at all. The only conclusion I came to was, they needed to spend their budget. Its the only think that explains many of the designs.

This is precisely the issue. There is no point telling people about how wonderful life is in Denmark when the officials here are apparently spending public money purely for the purpose of getting this "project" on their CVs and drawing down their annual bonuses. This is where the discussion should focus - on the capacity of the Irish system (or lack thereof) to deliver anything useful.

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I would not isolate the discussion to Engineers Ireland - I would also include the Association of Consulting Engineers. If you want me to give examples of bad design how about this one?

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/114588/224828.JPG

The issue is that local authorities appear to be able to get "professional" engineers to sign off on all kinds of schemes - without any apparent regard for their own professional reputations or for the reputation of engineering as a profession. The knee jerk reaction to questioning such designs is to threaten legal action.

How can this happen other than if those involved are assured they have the collective protection of their colleagues?

That photo of Galway City "cycle paths" -- which were designed and approved by Irish engineers -- has been widely circulated and was Cycle Facility of the Month a couple of years ago.

I showed those "cycle paths" to a senior person in the Dansk Cyklist Forbund, and this was his verbatim response:

The first thing that springs to mind is that they are empty. That speaks volumes. The best way to measure the efficiency is to try it out. If it feels ok and MAKES SENCE then it’ll be used. (In this case I won’t have to try to see that this doesn’t make sense)

Mikael Colville-Andersen is the Copenhagenize/Cycle Chic guru, so I would expect an interesting presentation. Irish civil engineering, Irish bicycle politics and Irish bicycle culture are decades behind what he's used to, however.

tomasrojo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The first thing that springs to mind is that they are empty. That speaks volumes.

Good point. No cyclists on the road either. Were there many before they built this monstrosity? If there were, they've effectively "sterilised" the road of cyclists. Maybe that was the point?

yer man!

tomasrojo wrote: »

Good point. No cyclists on the road either. Were there many before they built this monstrosity? If there were, they've effectively "sterilised" the road of cyclists. Maybe that was the point?

Cycling wouldn't be very big in that area no, I've never seen a cyclist on that path anyway and I live near it. At either end of that road you have a T junction which was not designed at all to accommodate cyclists, they do have that bicycle box thing at the end which connects to a road with a very heavily trafficked bus lane leading into the city but still, a cycle lane approaching the junction would have been better.

Actually one thing I notice on my commute to galway city is that there are more cyclists on the N6, now that some of the roundabouts have been removed and proper cycle lanes put in at the junctions. There still could be way more but there used to be barely any.

Iwannahurl

tomasrojo wrote: »

Good point. No cyclists on the road either. Were there many before they built this monstrosity? If there were, they've effectively "sterilised" the road of cyclists. Maybe that was the point?

I've seen cyclists up there, but I have no idea what the before-after numbers were.

The Doughiska Road Cycle Experience gives the impression that the world of cycling inhabited by Irish civil engineers is a strange place indeed.

Let us go then, you and I...


The Dublin Road end.


How to calm bicycle traffic.


Just when it was getting interesting...


Substantial budget for white paint.


All a matter of perspective?


More bicycle traffic calming.


In, out, shake 'em all about.


More traffic calming for cyclists.


Bin there.


Chicanery.


Megane in two minutes.


Speed up, you're nearly there.


Dunne that.


Lesser spotted?


The butt-end.