10 Things that put people off cycling..

Capt'n Midnight

Raam wrote: »

Neither of which is considerable effort.

Have you even cycled along the Grand Canal cycle path , the difference it makes when the gates are open

Jabel

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Much quicker for me to drive, heading through City center from Northside to Southside takes about an hour or so depending on the wind direction.
M50 drive takes 25mins when the schools are off..

Yes but you face large fuel and toll bills, I'm saving a fortune on the bike, never felt fitter and find myself taking detours to get more in! Love it...

Raam

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Have you even cycled along the Grand Canal cycle path , the difference it makes when the gates are open

It's probably annoying alright but no more than that.

Jabel

xxyyzz wrote: »

Reading through the boards cycling forum, all I can say is thank fuk I don't live and cycle in Dublin. It sounds like misery.

Tis grand so it is...:D

Weepsie

bambergbike wrote: »

If I were in your situation, I'd be letting my local politicians and planners know that I wanted a priority cycle route.

I could have had a word with Leo Varadkar earlier. He was in Ashtown and I cycle along the canal as its much safer than 1 or 2 sections of my commute would be otherwise. I didn't though, i thought about it but was running a bit late

elfy4eva

xxyyzz wrote: »

Reading through the boards cycling forum

That should be number 11 on the list.

.ak

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Interesting article from the UK.. All points seem very familiar..

As one point says, cycling has become more popular in the UK, but only in pockets...outside of that the rates of people cycling on the roads has remained static...


10-things-that-put-people-off-cycling

11. Beasty

bambergbike

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Well that's it exactly, there are no cross town cycle routes, only patches of off-road cycle paths.
Which means if you cycle then you'd be in for an hour of dicing with taxi's, buses, vans, stop signals, dangerous junctions and bridges, pedestrians stepping out onto the cycle path/road at random in front of you.

That may be the current status quo, but it's not set in stone. It could be changed in a flash if the people who wanted change communicated what they want and why they want it clearly and noisily enough. Things are in flux. The National Cycling Policy Framework is currently under review. The national target of 10% of all journeys by bike by 2020 really means 20% for Dublin. Things are happening, new canal routes, reworking of the quays etc. If people who cycle commute or would consider it want all these new cycle routes to be any good to speedy commuting cyclists they will need to make their voices heard. Loudly. The opportunity to do something that will make a difference is there for the taking.

Tenzor07

bambergbike wrote: »

That may be the current status quo, but it's not set in stone. It could be changed in a flash if the people who wanted change communicated what they want and why they want it clearly and noisily enough. Things are in flux. The National Cycling Policy Framework is currently under review. The national target of 10% of all journeys by bike by 2020 really means 20% for Dublin. Things are happening, new canal routes, reworking of the quays etc. If people who cycle commute or would consider it want all these new cycle routes to be any good to speedy commuting cyclists they will need to make their voices heard. Loudly. The opportunity to do something that will make a difference is there for the taking.

Well true, the other thing now is that Fingal council have basically vetoed the position of an elected Dublin city Mayor/boss, which may have brought in a more coherent strategy for cycle/transport infrastructure projects.

Right now concerned citizens have to go to there local Councillors from DLRD council, Dublin City Council and Fingal county council.. Each authority is using up there budget allocations to install sections of painted cycle paths which don't join up or go anywhere useful.

rollingscone

I think something that would make a huge difference in terms of cycling infrastructure are cycle roads...something akin to the Cycle superhighways connecting Copenhagen to the suburbs.

Cycle infrastructure as it exists in Irish and british cities/towns seems exclusively aimed at old/fat people ambling 500m to the shops and back.

The fact that cycling can be an efficient means of travel over longer distances seems to be completely incomprehensible to non cyclists but if you could have a commuter route, offroad but reasonably maintained and away from the roads going from say, a satellite town like Naas or Ashbourne across terrain that is relatively flat, people would be able to maintain much higher average speeds without the chopping, changing and defensive cycling required in the current motor-synergy model where the only place envisioned for cycle lanes is alongside already badly designed and maintained roads, all of a sudden covering up to 50km* a day commuting would seem attainable to someone who just has a bike and some legs, and none of the handling skills of the committed urban warrior or sport cyclist.

Opening the realms of possibility for cycling as a means of transport for everything that doesn't require carrying multiple passengers or heavy loads.

*and the majority would still be much closer than that endpoint.

Danjamin1

I've lost faith in new cycle paths, I'll use the ones that are there if possible/safe but apart from that I don't think more money should be wasted on them unless they intend to take them seriously. If they were going to be planned correctly it would be fine, but let's face it based on the current cycle paths they're just not going to do it properly. Besides, they're just parking spaces to a lot of motorists if current opinion is anything to go by. I'm all for improving driver awareness and behaviour if possible though.

Tenzor07

Well now, "Big Brother" aka Intel are watching:

smart-dublin-high-tech-sensors-to-monitor-life-in-the-capital

(Powerless/honorary)Lord Mayor of Dublin Oisin Quinn described the development as “very exciting”.

“I hope that the city will respond by providing better cycle ways, more trees and making traffic adjustments to reduce areas where air quality is poor or noise levels high,” he said.

Chips Lovell

I think one of the things to be wary of when looking at these "factors that put people off cycling" studies is the fact that many people can often rationalise what are arbitrary or emotional decisions. So they've decided they're not interested in cycling and then go looking credible reasons for making that decision.

How many people have you heard say, "I wouldn't cycle in Dublin, it's too dangerous", when they have no experience of cycling in Dublin and no convincing evidence to back up their claim?

Forming public policy around the opinions of people who don't use a certain mode of transport is potentially hazardous. Because you could have people saying "I'd cycle if there was A, B and C". Then when A, B and C are introduced, the same people will claim that they'd cycle if it weren't for X, Y and Z.

NeedMoreGears

Raam wrote: »

Neither of which is considerable effort.

At 28kph, a 90kg bike/rider combo has about 2700 joules of kinetic energy.

At 28kph you're producing about 150 watts ; good for a mere 18 seconds in which you'll cover 140m only.

Sorry - been doing calcs all morning so couldn't resist:o:o

Danjamin1

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I think one of the things to be wary of when looking at these "factors that put people off cycling" studies is the fact that many people can often rationalise what are arbitrary or emotional decisions. So they've decided they're not interested in cycling and then go looking credible reasons for making that decision.

How many people have you heard say, "I'd wouldn't cycle in Dublin, it's too dangerous", when they have no experience of cycling in Dublin and no convincing evidence to back up their claim?

It's so annoying when people assume it's dangerous. I've had a couple near misses, but the times I've fallen it's always been just me involved, no collisions, no one cutting me off. Just wet conditions and a lack of concentration. It's certainly not a particularly dangerous method of commuting. What do the stats on it say?

Tenzor07

Danjamin1 wrote: »

What do the stats on it say?

road-deaths-europe-ireland-


The Commission said another worrying feature of the statistics is the situation of vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists. The number of pedestrians killed is decreasing to a lesser extent than expected and the number of cyclist deaths has recently been increasing.

Danjamin1

Tenzor07 wrote: »

road-deaths-europe-ireland-


The Commission said another worrying feature of the statistics is the situation of vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists. The number of pedestrians killed is decreasing to a lesser extent than expected and the number of cyclist deaths has recently been increasing.

So it's getting worse. That's not good.

Chips Lovell

The number of cyclists killed every year on Irish roads has been in single figures for years now. Last year it was five. That was down from eight in 2012.

Cycling is not dangerous.

Chips Lovell

Tenzor07 wrote: »

The Commission said another worrying feature of the statistics is the situation of vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists. The number of pedestrians killed is decreasing to a lesser extent than expected and the number of cyclist deaths has recently been increasing.

Those remarks relate to Europe as a whole, not Ireland

Danjamin1

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The number of cyclists killed every year on Irish roads has been in single figures for years now. Last year it was five. That was down from eight in 2012.

Cycling is not dangerous.

I'd still do it anyway if it was

Raam

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

At 28kph, a 90kg bike/rider combo has about 2700 joules of kinetic energy.

At 28kph you're producing about 150 watts ; good for a mere 18 seconds in which you'll cover 140m only.

Sorry - been doing calcs all morning so couldn't resist:o:o

What I get from that is, folk who complain about stopping and starting are either lazy or unfit.

Chips Lovell

What's more, the number of cyclist deaths has fallen while the number of cyclists has gone up.

Commuting cyclists were up 10 per cent between the 2006 and 2011 censuses.

Membership of Cycling Ireland has also rocketed in the same period, indicating an upsurge in the number of sports/leisure cyclists too.

Danjamin1

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

What's more, the number of cyclist deaths has fallen while the number of cyclists has gone up.

Commuting cyclists were up 10 per cent between the 2006 and 2011 censuses.

Membership of Cycling Ireland has also rocketed in the same period, indicating an upsurge in the number of sports/leisure cyclists too.

Good, so the stats confirm it's not dangerous, or at least no more than anything else we do.

Chips Lovell

Ironically, many of the moves made to promote cycling may have the opposite effect, because they often stress this exaggerated danger.

So calling for/promising more segregated infrastructure reinforces the incorrect perception among non-cyclists or inexperienced cyclists that sharing the road with other vehicles is dangerous.

Ditto with prioritising cyclists at junctions or encouraging people to deck themselves out with high-viz and helmets.

Peterx

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Ironically, many of the moves made to promote cycling may have the opposite effect, because they often stress this exaggerated danger.

So calling for/promising more segregated infrastructure reinforces the incorrect perception among non-cyclists or inexperienced cyclists that sharing the road with other vehicles is dangerous.

Ditto with prioritising cyclists at junctions or encouraging people to deck themselves out with high-viz and helmets.

I don't know about the incorrect perception part. I cycle every day and think that sharing the road with other vehicles can be dangerous. Especially at roundabouts.

Danjamin1

I have no problem with wearing a helmet, for low impact spills I'd prefer to have one on even if it's next to useless in high impact situations. Same goes for hi-viz, I wear a luminous jacket with hi-viz markings if it's dull, whether it has an impact or not I don't know. I make sure I have lights on my bike as a priority.

On an related topic a guy shouted at me as he drove past me the other day, presumably because I wasn't cycling on the cycle path (there were cars parked all over it). I'd love to have heard what he said.

mcgratheoin

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

At 28kph, a 90kg bike/rider combo has about 2700 joules of kinetic energy.

At 28kph you're producing about 150 watts ; good for a mere 18 seconds in which you'll cover 140m only.

Sorry - been doing calcs all morning so couldn't resist:o:o

no marks if you don't show your workings!

coolemon

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

At 28kph, a 90kg bike/rider combo has about 2700 joules of kinetic energy.

At 28kph you're producing about 150 watts ; good for a mere 18 seconds in which you'll cover 140m only.

Sorry - been doing calcs all morning so couldn't resist:o:o

Add in a head wind, rain, the frustration of stopping and starting for no good reason, a puff of fumes from a bus and a couple of pot holes - then all of a sudden those calculations do not reflect an actual reality.

bambergbike

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I think one of the things to be wary of when looking at these "factors that put people off cycling" studies is the fact that many people can often rationalise what are arbitrary or emotional decisions. So they've decided they're not interested in cycling and then go looking credible reasons for making that decision.

How many people have you heard say, "I'd wouldn't cycle in Dublin, it's too dangerous", when they have no experience of cycling in Dublin and no convincing evidence to back up their claim?

Forming public policy around the opinions of people who don't use a certain mode of transport is potentially hazardous. Because you could have people saying "I'd cycle if there was A, B and C". Then when A, B and C are introduced, the same people will claim that they'd cycle if it weren't for X, Y and Z.

All very true. It's certainly much easier to say "because there are no cycle paths" or "because the cycle paths are rubbish" than it is to say "because I'm enmired in path dependency and a bit unimaginative, and I've never given the matter any thought, really. Plus I'd have to put a bit of effort in if I wanted to get started, maybe get my bike fixed up, get some on-road training, recalibrate my prejudices towards cyclists, all that jazz." People who haven't started cycling will likely change their opinions about what they want rapidly when/if they do get started - so how much should their opinions count in the meantime?

On the other hand, what's the alternative to listening to these people? Basing policy entirely on the opinions of the minority of people who are quite happy to cycle in current conditions? That's possibly not a great way to arrive at improved conditions that greater numbers of people would be happy to cycle in. And that's not the way democracy works anyway, the minority of current cyclists don't get to dictate what happens. Even if their decisions would be much sounder than some of the ones we've seen and would waste less money.

So I'm on the fence. I think people who aren't currently cycling but feel they would cycle (or cycle more) if things were different should be vocal about that and should receive a hearing. But I also think that the knowledge, opinions and experiences of existing cyclists should be valued highly.

Boris Johnson falls down rather badly on the latter count here:

“We are creating a new network of routes for a new kind of cyclist: routes for people who want to cycle slowly, in their ordinary clothes, away from most of the traffic. These are your secret cycling passages through London, taking you everywhere you need to go, directly and easily, using routes you might never know existed until we showed you.
The Central London Grid will, I hope, de-Lycrafy the bicycle, reduce the testosterone levels of cycling, and move towards a continental-style cycling culture, where cycling is normal.”

That's just rubbish, on about half a dozen levels. We shouldn't let people away with such crude attempts to drive wedges between "good" and "bad" cyclists. And we shouldn't allow rubbish, disjointed infrastructure to be built on the basis that "inexperienced" cyclists *might* like it and that confident cyclists won't have to use it anyway. Nobody wants to be forced to cycle slowly by the general crappiness of the bike infrastructure, regardless of their clothing (ordinary clothes, lycra or cycle chic.) And there is no single, unified "continental-style cycling culture" anyway. Even within Northern Europe, conditions for cycling and budgets for cycling vary a lot.

If, as rollingstone says, you allocate actual roads to cyclists (or build actual roads for cyclists), you cater for everybody. Slow cyclists can make good progress even at relatively low speeds, and fast cyclists can overtake the slow cyclists smoothly instead of trying to filter awkwardly through gridlocked rush-hour traffic.

If people think stuff is never going to be built right anyway, then I think the way around that is to start by putting in claims for stuff that already has been built right and just needs minor works done to remove cars:

roads.

I've think I've said before on here that I think most roads should be shared between cars and bikes and that we don't need dedicated cycle infrastructure everywhere, just appropriate traffic calming and enforcement. But there is a case for having a few roads that are just for cars - like the M50 - and a few roads that are just for bikes (a sort of bike equivalent of the M50, and for the same purpose, getting people from one side of town to the other, fast.) And that ought, to my mind, be something uncontroversial that cyclists and potential cyclists of every stripe should be able to agree on.

bambergbike

Peterx wrote: »

I don't know about the incorrect perception part. I cycle every day and think that sharing the road with other vehicles can be dangerous. Especially at roundabouts.

Large, multi-lane roundabouts are not especially cyclist-friendly and the risks of using them as a cyclist, while quite low, would likely be higher than on most other parts of the same journey. Practice and training can help adults make themselves more visible on them (through positioning) but I'd be pretty reluctant to send an eight-year old to school via a route that took in a few of them.