Benefits of specialised infrastructure: chances of consensus?

tomasrojo

We have mega-threads for helmets and hi-viz, so I was wondering whether we need one for views on infrastructure, segregated and otherwise. We did have threads with examples of woeful infrastructure, which had occasional good examples, more usually than not from outside Ireland. But there wasn't much in the way of analysis of best practice, worst practice, and trends in cycling participation in places that have adopted infrastructure of a higher standard (higher than what we have had here in Ireland), such as Seville.

I note that there is a very marked tendency in the blogosphere in the UK for calls for Dutch-style infrastructure, often accompanied by very strong criticism of John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft, an undeniable sceptic of separated infrastructure.

I hesitate to do this, as it's a bit of a rancorous subject at times, but it is Friday, after all.

I'm rather confused by it as an issue, as I don't really see a consensus emerging. At least on helmets, the cycling lobbies in Europe pretty universally oppose mandatory helmet laws, even if there are, to say the least, disagreements beyond that.

I'm a bit hampered in my thinking on this myself, as my experience of infrastructure is very bad on the whole, being based almost exclusively on cycling in Ireland, though I did find the infrastructure in Leiden pretty good on a brief visit there. I don't have the exposure to better practice to judge well myself. Conversely, I find some of the pro-Dutch-style commentary in the UK rather ad-hominem and rather prone to talking up the dangers of cycling as things currently are there. Even there, I don't really have any experience of cycling in the UK either.

Beasty

chances of consensus = 0

(based particularly on the various threads we have seen touching on this subject - some people believe every effort should be made to make cycling more attractive and encourage as many people as possible to get involved. Others are more pragmatic and believe that certain targeted improvements may make sense, but resource is always an issue. There are also some that probably believe that cyclists are too pampered already:pac:)

ford2600

I've cycled in Holland, Germany France, Spain, USA, UK, Italy, Tanzania and here.

In Holland & Germany (depending on location) I cycled partially on specialised infrastructure and also on open road, the rest primarily open roads.

The standout country to cycle in for me in very distinct geographical areas (Galicia, Asturias, Basque Country, Catalonia, Canaries, Majorca) is Spain, primarily the outstanding courtesy shown to me by almost every driver.

I would group Holland, Germany, Italy and France together as next in line, excellent but not Spain. Even Sicily is really good.

Depending on location here, USA and UK in order of decreasing cycling enjoyment.

Not really what OP asked but just to make the point that the primary battle for encouraging/facilitating cycling is an attitude change rather than an infrastructure one. We all can help there by, in the real world, calmly explaining (at social events or whatever) why cyclist/walkers/vulnerable road users deserve respect and road space.

As most of my cycling here is on country roads, and often lanes that could hardly be called roads, it does take a little time to adjust when entering busy urban areas. In particular I find dealing with commuters horrible and I generally avoid as much as possible, so maybe I cycle too much on the opposite end of spectrum to have a valid opinion at all on topic..

Iwannahurl

I can't even agree with myself on this issue.

I support both points of view, ie segregated infrastructure is needed to encourage cycling, and (for want of a better term) vehicular cycling is better.

In the past I have strongly argued against cyclepaths (Radwege? Nein Danke.) but my opinion has become more nuanced since.

In the German cycling forum linked above (which just happens to be the first link on a Google search) the antipathy to cyclepaths arises because of a combination of the mandatory use law and poor quality infrastructure.

I'm open to correction but I don't believe cyclists in the Netherlands or Copenhagen have the same objections, though I'm sure they'd all like continued improvement.

So the real problem in Ireland and the UK seems to be a combination of (a) many cyclists want to use segregated infrastructure, (b) motorists and other road users expect cyclists to use segregated infrastructure and (c) the State thinks cyclists should have segregated infrastructure, but (d) the State is not willing to pay or legislate for high quality cycle infrastructure and (e) Irish roads engineers are incapable of designing quality cycle infrastructure.

The end result, all too often, is that we end up with badly maintained crap which no intelligent cyclist wants to use. So this deters less determined cyclists while only strengthening the resolve of the die-hards (of which I am one, perhaps) to keep going no matter what.

I cycle despite Irish cycling "facilities" not because of it. However, I have also experienced Dutch and Danish infrastructure, and I know we would benefit from it here.

Incidentally, I believe Dutch and Danish cyclists are both segregationists and vehicular cyclists. They have to be, because they are trained from an early age and they still have to cycle on roads with traffic. This is where the 'invisible infrastructure' is critical, eg strong legislation and a strong cycling culture, both of which are sorely lacking here.

ROK ON

I think that I know what I want and it varies depending on the type of cycling and practicality.
For commuting into urban areas I want segregated cycle lanes with rights of way at junctions and no pedestrians or buses.
Once in central urban areas I want a 30km speed limit that is enforced and no truck traffic. Central urban areas in Ireland are very small and it is not too much of an ask to make private car use in these central areas an exception as opposed to a norm.
In rural areas I cycle for leisure, so I want respect on the road - no more is necessary.

I have trailed commuting in using various segregated means in past year. It is mostly pleasant but has the downside of losing rights of way (as on the road) or kissing gates along the canal. But the pleasantness of not having to share the road is simply nice.

Carawaystick

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So the real problem in Ireland and the UK seems to be a combination of (a) many cyclists want to use segregated infrastructure, (b) motorists and other road users expect cyclists to use segregated infrastructure and (c) the State thinks cyclists should have segregated infrastructure, but (d) the State is not willing to pay or legislate for high quality cycle infrastructure and (e) Irish roads engineers are incapable of designing quality cycle infrastructure.

You left out (f)
No punishment of vehicle users parking/driving/abusing cycling infrastructure.

BrianHenryIE

I want more use of the flexible bollards like on O'Connell street. Also, the new segregation in Blackrock is very good – for the most part cyclists are on a slightly raised, separate path but it merges with the road a few metres before each junction and the bike path is red tarmac which continues through each junction (it's not on Streetview yet). I don't feel I need segregation myself, but if it encourages more people to take up cycling, drivers will inevitably become better at dealing with cyclists through dealing with greater numbers at points where segregation is impossible.

Why don't they use the bollards more?

aldark

How do you actually go about designing segregated infrastructure?

One big advantage of vehicular cycling is that it allows faster cyclists to overtake slower ones, and generally forces people to keep a reasonably straight line on the road. Sharing the road means that most people think it's dangerous and therefore are risk averse.

If you segregate, even with a 5m wide dedicated cycle lane, I'd imagine that it would create a haze of weaving, slow cyclists impossible to pass.

Have a look at the canal cycle path - sure it's a nice idea - but having to cross so many roads and footpaths means that there is a large bunch of people spread out over both lanes at the pinchpoints - difficult to overtake because of the confusion as the bunch lollops across the road.

I think that asking for more infrastucture will actually result in a) the government forcing cyclists to use it, after all, they've paid for it. b) making cycling unenjoyable unless we all get dutch bikes and travel at 10kmh.

I also think that segregated infrastructure is impossible to implement given the design of the roads in our towns resulting in the badly designed mishmash we already have.

Buchaill_Mor

My own feelings is that it is not an either or solution. It should be both with proper legislation and enforcement to ensure safety. The health benefits to the country as a whole should be a major consideration regarding Govt policy just as much as carbon emissions. City Centre and urban cycling is not the same as rural cycling and different solutions should apply.

schemingbohemia

aldark wrote: »

How do you actually go about designing segregated infrastructure?

One big advantage of vehicular cycling is that it allows faster cyclists to overtake slower ones, and generally forces people to keep a reasonably straight line on the road. Sharing the road means that most people think it's dangerous and therefore are risk averse.

If you segregate, even with a 5m wide dedicated cycle lane, I'd imagine that it would create a haze of weaving, slow cyclists impossible to pass.

Have a look at the canal cycle path - sure it's a nice idea - but having to cross so many roads and footpaths means that there is a large bunch of people spread out over both lanes at the pinchpoints - difficult to overtake because of the confusion as the bunch lollops across the road.

I think that asking for more infrastucture will actually result in a) the government forcing cyclists to use it, after all, they've paid for it. b) making cycling unenjoyable unless we all get dutch bikes and travel at 10kmh.

I also think that segregated infrastructure is impossible to implement given the design of the roads in our towns resulting in the badly designed mishmash we already have.

If you want to over-take, stay on the road when both options are available. The slower, more risk averse cyclists will be on the segregated lane, you and the other speedsters can stay on the road.

There won't be consensus on this. The thing to remember is that virtually everyone posting on here cycles to some extent, they're not the ones that we need to attract to cycling. It's the others, they want segregation or they won't cycle at all, or if they do, it will be once a year in Mayo on the greenway.

tomasrojo

schemingbohemia wrote: »

The thing to remember is that virtually everyone posting on here cycles to some extent, they're not the ones that we need to attract to cycling. It's the others, they want segregation or they won't cycle at all, or if they do, it will be once a year in Mayo on the greenway.

Thanks for all the input from everyone.

This quoted point interests me, because, along with facilitating more children to cycle, it seems to be the best argument for infrastructure, albeit not for what we've constructed by and large in Ireland to date.

There is a nuance that interests me even within this broader point of facilitating the more risk-averse and less able. In, say, the Netherlands, infrastructure had the task largely of persuading people not to give up cycling, or to take it up again having recently forsaken it (cycling numbers were still very high, though dropping fast). It looks as if it did this, based on the trends observed from the 70s onwards.

However, in places like Ireland, infrastructure has the task of persuading people who have never based much if any of their life around cycling to take it up more or less from scratch. This is a larger task.

I suppose the experience in Seville suggests that good-quality infrastructure can do that too, but I haven't seen any academic work published on the experience of Seville, just journalistic or blog accounts.

HivemindXX

I don't buy the theory that a significant amount of non-cyclists would cycle if only there was separated infrastructure. I think the majority of non-cyclists will remain non-cyclists no matter how much infrastructure is improved.

You don't typically ask non-users what you should do to improve the service. Ignoring the opinions of cyclists to pursue guesses as to what would make non-cyclists change the habit of a lifetime strikes me as a very peculiar approach.

The way things are at the moment a lot of the cycle infrastructure exists purely for the convenience of motorists. I doubt we will see rules giving cyclists priority at junctions any time soon, and it will take a long time after that happens for you to be able to safely assume a motorist won't just plough through regardless. Those dreadful junctions where the cyclist who wants to go straight is expected to stop and use the pedestrian crossing button will be around for a long time.

Cycling has improved in Dublin as the number of cyclists has increased because other road users are more used to them. Developing the ability to share the road is superior to separation. It's a pipe dream to think that we will have a complete mirror of the road network for bicycles and because this will never happen we don't want to do anything to encourage the already embedded idea that cyclists don't belong on the roads.

tomasrojo

HivemindXX wrote: »

I don't buy the theory that a significant amount of non-cyclists would cycle if only there was separated infrastructure. I think the majority of non-cyclists will remain non-cyclists no matter how much infrastructure is improved.

I suppose logically you could be wrong on the first point even if right on the second. I mean, you could quite conceivably get to the point where 30% of journeys in Dublin city centre are by bike (it's already over 10%, I think). That's would be a significant increase in cycling, but with the majority of non-cyclists remaining non-cyclists.

(Not saying this would happen with better street design, but it seems somewhat plausible -- again, if the accounts from Seville I've read are correct and not leaving out some important alternative explanation. For example.)

HivemindXX wrote: »

You don't typically ask non-users what you should do to improve the service. Ignoring the opinions of cyclists to pursue guesses as to what would make non-cyclists change the habit of a lifetime strikes me as a very peculiar approach.

This is actually an opinion I've read a fair bit in the UK pro-Dutch blogosphere: something along the lines of "I don't care what the current users want; they can look after themselves, they'll keep cycling no matter what." I find that a bit off-putting.

HivemindXX wrote: »

Developing the ability to share the road is superior to separation.

I can definitely see that point of view. On the other hand, I take a slightly longer route home very often so I can use the cycle facility along the River Slang, just for the peace and quiet. And I'm perfectly confident using the road, and have no fear whatsoever going the other way, sharing the road with motorised traffic. So even a fairly "vehicular" cyclist can find himself gravitating towards the "nice" way home.

galwaycyclist

HivemindXX wrote: »

You don't typically ask non-users what you should do to improve the service. Ignoring the opinions of cyclists to pursue guesses as to what would make non-cyclists change the habit of a lifetime strikes me as a very peculiar approach.

Yes I personally find it amazing. Imagine the same approach being taken in other fields?

Imagine you are in hospital to have important surgery, as you are being prepped for the op, the surgeon turns to you and tells you the procedure he is about to use is based on an opinion poll conducted on a random group of people with no expertise in the field.

It would be immediate cause for a misconduct complaint. But roads engineers can use the same rationale for particular designs of "cycling facilities" and no-one is supposed to bat an eyelid?

RainyDay

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes I personally find it amazing. Imagine the same approach being taken in other fields?

Imagine you are in hospital to have important surgery, as you are being prepped for the op, the surgeon turns to you and tells you the procedure he is about to use is based on an opinion poll conducted on a random group of people with no expertise in the field.

It would be immediate cause for a misconduct complaint. But roads engineers can use the same rationale for particular designs of "cycling facilities" and no-one is supposed to bat an eyelid?

User feedback is an essential component of any good design process. It's not so much the surgeon asking randomers how to carry out the operation - it is about the surgeon asking those who have been through the operation before how it worked out for them.

tomasrojo

To be fair, the UK bloggers agitating for Dutch street designs aren't agitating for what our engineers do.

They're still often making the case for bypassing current cyclists in favour of what they assume or what they deduce from surveys the public in general would prefer. Coincidentally, this is also what the bloggers themselves want. Rather like the "silent majority" argument Nixon used in the dying days of his administration.

That doesn't mean they're wrong though. I still find the example of Seville, as I currently understand it, intriguing. Utility cycling is, to say the least, not a strong tradition in Spain, but after constructing a fairly decent joined-up network, they've increased cycling journeys about tenfold in less than ten years.

tomasrojo

RainyDay wrote: »

User feedback is an essential component of any good design process. It's not so much the surgeon asking randomers how to carry out the operation - it is about the surgeon asking those who have been through the operation before how it worked out for them.

It's funny: the engineers in the UK who make the infrastructure don't want the feedback of the current users, and the bloggers don't want their feedback either. That's quite a peculiar situation.

ednwireland

I was talking to a german cyclist last year. He said Germany motorists give out when you train on the road. He reckoned the cycle lanes are fine for commuting but useless for training.

Subpopulus

I think cycle campaigners in the UK have largely reached the consensus that for safe, mass cycling to occur in urban areas, then high-quality segregated infrastructure is needed. David Arditti, who writes the Voleospeed blog, wrote a long blog post a few years back describing how the Tavistock Place cycleway was built in the late 90s. He said that rather than trying to persuade the Camden Council, the hardest part was convincing other cycle campaigners that segregated cycle facilities were worth having. They feared that building segregated facilities would impinge on their ability to cycle vehicularly, that the design would inevitably be substandard, that it would be slower than the vehicle lanes, and that London was simply different from Denmark or the Netherlands. The lack of consensus within the London Campaigners meant that the councils were getting mixed messages as to what sort of improvements they should make for cyclists, and resultantly infrastructure was either built to some compromised standard or not at all.

The Tavistock Place cycleway got built anyway, and was immediately oversubscribed. It's now going to be doubled in width to cater for all the traffic it receives. The London Cycling Campaign eventually came round (only in the late 2000s) to the idea of campaigning for segregated facilities, and now London is getting two lengthy, fully segregated cycle routes running north-south and east west across the city.

So I think consensus can be reached here in Ireland, and as it is I think cycle campaigners here are broadly in favour of high-quality segregated facilities.

The relevant articles are here.
http://www.voleospeed.co.uk/2015/08/taking-lane-personal-history.html
http://www.voleospeed.co.uk/2011/06/understanding-walking-and-cycling-deja.html

tomasrojo

ednwireland wrote: »

I was talking to a german cyclist last year. He said Germany motorists give out when you train on the road. He reckoned the cycle lanes are fine for commuting but useless for training.

The Germans do have a lot of stripes-on-the-footpath cycle facilities though, with no right of way at junctions. At least, that's what I saw in Berlin. They have a version of mandatory use too, so if the local authorities class some piece of rubbish as an official cycle lane it makes life very difficult.

tomasrojo

Subpopulus wrote: »

The lack of consensus within the London Campaigners meant that the councils were getting mixed messages as to what sort of improvements they should make for cyclists, and resultantly infrastructure was either built to some compromised standard or not at all.

This presumably explains a fair bit of the hating on John Franklin (whom I actually admire, from what I know of him, I have to say; certainly have always really rated Cyclecraft for sound, practical advice).

Mucco

Subpopulus wrote: »

I think cycle campaigners in the UK have largely reached the consensus .........

Thanks for this informative post and links, which somewhat reflects my current view. Though I still think vehicular cycling is a useful technique that is worth learning, I now recognise that most people think busy roads are dangerous, and therefore, segregated facilities are worth-while pursuing.
Having lived in London for many years, I've seen the slow development in such facilities, and the time is ripe in Dublin and elsewhere to also push for them.

I'm guessing there is close to a consensus here, do any of the active campaigners have thoughts on this?

Subpopulus

tomasrojo wrote: »

This presumably explains a fair bit of the hating on John Franklin (whom I actually admire, from what I know of him, I have to say; certainly have always really rated Cyclecraft for sound, practical advice).

Cyclecraft is a fine book, and does have a lot of sound advice, but really it's a survival guide to cycling, and doesn't help create the conditions for mass cycling. The problem people have with Franklin is that he and his supporters have actively campaigned against installing any cycling infrastructure, and have argued that countries like the Netherlands, with its mass cycling culture and tens of thousands of kilometres of segregated paths are actually more dangerous than cycling among other motor vehicles. Franklin has also used his position as a cycling expert to persuade councils in the UK that there's no point in installing facilities for cyclists, which most councils are only too happy to go along with, since its cheaper for them.

The vast majority of people don't cycle because they are intimidated by cycling among road traffic. No amount of Bikeability courses and copies of Cyclecraft are going to turn that around.

Subpopulus

Mucco wrote: »

Though I still think vehicular cycling is a useful technique that is worth learning, I now recognise that most people think busy roads are dangerous, and therefore, segregated facilities are worth-while pursuing.

Currently, cycling vehicularly is pretty much the only way to cycle since the cycling infrastructure is so limited, and it will be this way for a long time, since the roll-out of infrastructure is so slow and piecemeal. This will be especially so away from the major urban centres. So you'd be mad to ignore it. But I don't think that it should be the only way to cycle.

HivemindXX

Subpopulus wrote: »

The vast majority of people don't cycle because they are intimidated by cycling among road traffic. No amount of Bikeability courses and copies of Cyclecraft are going to turn that around.

I don't think this is true. I think the vast majority of people don't cycle because they prefer to take their car. The number we should be worried about is those who would actually change their mode of transport if their needs were addressed (which would include inventing a weather machine by the way). This number is far far lower than a lot of campaigners like to claim.

tomasrojo

Subpopulus wrote: »

The problem people have with Franklin is that he and his supporters have actively campaigned against installing any cycling infrastructure, and have argued that countries like the Netherlands, with its mass cycling culture and tens of thousands of kilometres of segregated paths are actually more dangerous than cycling among other motor vehicles.

He actually argued that the Netherlands was safer, but not because of specialised infrastructure. At least he did in this somewhat famous correspondence with Sustrans:

I am at present looking further into Dutch and Danish casualty statistics. I think it true that the Netherlands and Denmark are safer places to cycle than the UK (although I suspect the ratios usually suggested are exaggerated), but the connection between this and cycle facilities is tenuous.

http://cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/sustrans1.html

This letter is controversial in itself. At least, I've seen it referred to with ire a few times.

KingBrian2

I believe segregating cycling simple gives the impression that Cycling is not for the roads. Motorbikes or trucks are not segregated from other motorists.

Subpopulus

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I believe segregating cycling simple gives the impression that Cycling is not for the roads. Motorbikes or trucks are not segregated from other motorists.

Motorbikes and trucks are motor vehicles which are capable of accelerating at and travelling at the same speeds as other motorists. There is a world of difference.

Subpopulus

HivemindXX wrote: »

I don't think this is true. I think the vast majority of people don't cycle because they prefer to take their car. The number we should be worried about is those who would actually change their mode of transport if their needs were addressed (which would include inventing a weather machine by the way). This number is far far lower than a lot of campaigners like to claim.

So what is the number and what is the number that a lot of campaigners like to claim?

As usual, there's not much information specific to Ireland, but here's some British data which suggests that more than half Britons would cycle more if there was cycle lanes.



There's more of that sort of stuff here - http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/barriers-cycling

Also, why is it that people prefer the car over the bike in the first place?

Personally I think that in the Dublin area 20-30% of work/school/college commuting trips could be made by bike within say, 25 years time. The number already stands somewhere around 10% in the Dublin City area, and there's huge room to expand.

RainyDay

Subpopulus wrote: »

Motorbikes and trucks are motor vehicles which are capable of accelerating at and travelling at the same speeds as other motorists. There is a world of difference.

I'm not sure why 'capable' would be the main issue. For most of my cycling (urban commute), I'm travelling at the same or greater speeds than motorists.

doolox

On the cycling versus car choice to me wind and rain would be huge issues. Also where I live long hills would also be an issue.

I would say that when petrol runs out and the mainstream population are forced by lack of a cost effective alternative cycling will become more popular. The design engineers could look at covered, sheltered cycle ways to alleviate the rain and wind problem and maybe some way of getting rid of slopes and hills but this would be a lot harder to do.

HivemindXX

Subpopulus wrote: »

So what is the number and what is the number that a lot of campaigners like to claim?

You just claimed that the "vast majority" of people don't cycle because they are scared of traffic and the data you provided, if we take it on face value, doesn't back this up. Your own thought that up to 30% of short trips could be made by bike in 25 years (which I think is very possible) actually means that only 22% of car trips are being converted and I doubt anyone will argue that this is a majority, vast or otherwise.

I also have a lot of doubts about the survey data you posted. Leaving to one side the fact that just over 50% isn't a vast majority I think these answers are aspirational and I'd far prefer to see data based on asking people had they actually changed their mode of transport based on new infrastructure in their area. I have had too many people tell me "I'd love to cycle if only I didn't have to carry this heavy laptop" or "I'd definitely cycle but they don't have showers are work" only to discover that when the circumstances change they still don't cycle.

Provision of cycling infrastructure should be based on a cost benefit analysis and I think there is a common tendency to ignore the costs (which include things like furthering the idea that bicycles should not be on the road as well as the money required to build it) and overstating the benefits (by claiming that the majority of car users will change mode if only there were more cycle paths).

Peterx

doolox wrote: »

On the cycling versus car choice to me wind and rain would be huge issues. Also where I live long hills would also be an issue.

I would say that when petrol runs out and the mainstream population are forced by lack of a cost effective alternative cycling will become more popular. The design engineers could look at covered, sheltered cycle ways to alleviate the rain and wind problem and maybe some way of getting rid of slopes and hills but this would be a lot harder to do.

I'm just back from a weekend trip to the UK and I was (again) struck by how useful a good rail network is.
It won't happen here due to cost and pre-existing infrastructure getting in the way but a decent, widespread train network is really the job for enticing people out of cars. Buses are seen as getting stuck in the same traffic as your car but trains have their own roads and timetables that are generally met.


I easily took clearly signed and advertised trains from Gatwick to my brother near Epsom on both Friday and Sunday and on Sunday at many stations there were cyclists using the trains with no issues.

For Ireland even signposted junctions would be a good start. I cycled out the N7 from Dublin last week and for the craic decided to see if I could follow any cycle signage. Of course not and a few minutes later I'm cycling over the M50 at the Red Cow junction and then out the N7.
Not too difficult to have signage directing me to go via Tallaght or Clondalkin.
Not done though.

KingBrian2

Cyclists and drivers encounter the same issues we both use the road and neither can just kick the other off. Paths are for people. I am all for better cycling lanes at the end of the day cyclists are going to be on our roads in the future and that is a good thing. It was good when they got the trucks off the main road and gave them their own route. In fact Motorist do get their own routes which cyclists rarely use. Appling that to the whole city won't work what buses, taxes and cars can't do the Cyclist is more than able to smoothly navigate across the streets than any road vehicle.

tomasrojo

I couldn't log in for the last day and a half, so I didn't contribute to the last bit of the conversation.

One point that occurs to me is that rises in cycling participation needn't necessarily come mostly at the expense of car journeys. I have heard that in the Netherlands a lot of the increase in cycling since the 70s came at the expense of public transport. Mind you, cycling and public transport are well integrated in the Netherlands, so I imagine rises in cycling are far from a total loss to public transport.

In my case, nearly of my current cycling journeys would be public transport journeys if I couldn't cycle.

tomasrojo

HivemindXX wrote: »

You just claimed that the "vast majority" of people don't cycle because they are scared of traffic and the data you provided, if we take it on face value, doesn't back this up. Your own thought that up to 30% of short trips could be made by bike in 25 years (which I think is very possible) actually means that only 22% of car trips are being converted and I doubt anyone will argue that this is a majority, vast or otherwise.

The survey did ask the correspondents whether they'd "cycle (more)" if there were dedicated cycle paths, rather than whether they'd adopt the bicycle as their principal mode of transport. So a majority or large minority of current drivers could in theory cycle more and contribute to a 30% modal share, while still mostly driving (or using public transport, whatever they're doing now). (That's a bit picky, isn't it?)

I agree that people's reasons for not cycling are often excuses rather than reasons, but at the same time, some places have seen sharp rises in cycling after building a joined-up cycle network. As I already said, Seville gets mentioned a lot, and some boroughs in London. Unless I've been misinformed. As I said, it's really journalists and bloggers I'm getting this impression from.


Looking at it from a different perspective, how would Amsterdam look if it had the current numbers of cyclists sharing the road with the current numbers of motorists and buses? (I know that some cities would in the 50s or thereabouts have had similar, 30%+ shares of journeys undertaken by bike in what we'd now call a vehicular-cycling paradigm, but there were a lot fewer cars then.)

tomasrojo

This is quite interesting.

TfL unveils junction designed to eliminate left turn danger for cyclists

Part of the Cycle Superhighway 2 (CS2) upgrade, the junction of Whitechapel Road and Cambridge Heath Road, holds left turning vehicles while cyclists and straight ahead traffic get a green light.

http://road.cc/content/news/161801-tfl-unveils-junction-designed-eliminate-left-turn-danger-cyclists

Looks like a reasonably cost-effective way of fixing a lot of "undertaking" cycle facilities.

(I know you can take the lane instead, and I do.)

(Also, some of the comments say the cyclists end up with less green time than straight-ahead motorists.)

enas

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes I personally find it amazing. Imagine the same approach being taken in other fields?

I find this argument a bit unnecessary in fairness, and often based on a misunderstanding about what's at stake (this misunderstanding is not accidental by any means). If we're talking about what could be done to make life of current cyclists better, then surely we should seek the input of current cyclists. But that hardly pays off politically (it's a bit of a niche market). If we're talking about increasing the number of cyclists, then it does make sense to see what non-cyclists have to say, since they're the ones that might turn into cyclists.

Of course, it's not an either/or, since it's quite likely that both needs converge. And it's actually a good rule of thumb: anything that opposes the two needs (typically opposing the fast confident cyclists vs beginner non-confident cyclists) is guaranteed to fail on both counts.

(PS: I'm not quoting you for any particular reason. I am just referring to this topic.)

enas

To reply to the OP, the situation is pretty obvious to me. There has been a traditional dislike, among UK and Irish campaigners (and to a lesser extent in other countries too) against infrastructure, because they rightly didn't trust that authorities could ever get them right. This is true of Germany too. Unfortunately, this has lasted so long that some campaigners forgot why they were opposing infrastructure in the first place, and this aversion became a "culturally" deeply rooted belief with some of them.

Lately, it becomes apparent that views are maturing. Authorities tend to take cycling slightly more seriously than before, and some campaigners are changing from rejecting any infrastructure for fear of it being crap, to demanding properly designed ones. We're still far from a full convergence, but in my view the consensus is clearly emerging.

As for the anti-segragation views expressed here, rather than replying in detail, I can provide those links to those who might not know them. They're a gold mine of information. They address the arguments that have already been expressed and those that will inevitably come later. In a nutshell, the Dutch policy is not about putting bike lanes everywhere. It is about providing separate routes from A to B for bicycles and motorised traffic.
- What Dutch cycling infrastructure really is. Very useful even to people who might have already cycled in the Netherlands once or twice: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com
- A UK-centered, and therefore more relevant to Ireland, view of what the situation currently is and how Dutch-style infrastructure can improve it: https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com

tomasrojo

enas wrote: »

Lately, it becomes apparent that views are maturing. Authorities tend to take cycling slightly more seriously than before, and some campaigners are changing from rejecting any infrastructure for fear of it being crap, to demanding properly designed ones.

That's sort of my impression at the moment.

I have a slight problem with the aseasy... blog, as I don't like how he talks about the risks of cycling. I don't know the UK roads (and I'm sure they vary absolutely enormously), but he, and a few like-minded bloggers, talk up the dangers considerably. Which may be strategically valid as a way to apply pressure for change, especially now that authorities seem more willing to try out better designs, but I don't think that cycling in the UK, if the KSIs per billion km figures are accurate, is all that dangerous. The same figures, at the same time, make me think that it's safer in the Netherlands, especially if you consider how many more very young cyclists they have, and how many very old.

(The aseasy... blog is incredibly detailed though. And he posts very often. It's a very impressive achievement.)

enas

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't like how he talks about the risks of cycling[...]he, and a few like-minded bloggers, talk up the dangers considerably.

Have you read this post?
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/talking-about-danger-again/

It answers specifically this point. (I told you so ) Some quotes:

We aren’t say that cycling itself is dangerous.

Instead, quite specifically, we are arguing that the design of certain roads and streets, and the nature of the motor traffic using them, presents an unacceptably high risk to people cycling on them.
[...]
The public knows that cycling itself isn’t dangerous. That’s why families will wobble around parks, and up and down trails, and in those places they feel comfortable. But they do know that cycling on certain types of road presents a kind of risk – even a feeling of risk – that they simply aren’t prepared to tolerate.

Can't argue with any of that...

tomasrojo

I did see that, but he's still saying "cycling on UK roads is dangerous". Saying that cycling in the park isn't dangerous isn't doing utility cycling any favours, as far as I can see.

I can see from a certain perspective why he's saying that the danger from motorised vehicles is unacceptable, but if you get hurt while cycling on UK roads, what's stopping someone using that formulation against you: "why are you taking unacceptable risks?"

I'd still say that the UK statistics suggest that the UK is pretty safe, but very far from top of the class. I don't know how you begin to correct for the greater number of vulnerable users in the Netherlands to make the figure with the Netherlands directly comparable, however. It's clearly better in the Netherlands, but even better than the KSIs per billion km alone would suggest.

(He seems to admit that he's conflating risk and "feeling of risk", which is absolutely valid for the wary non-cyclist, as they're not likely to want to go to the trouble of disentangling the two. But in other senses, it's not valid to conflate the two.)

galwaycyclist

I don't have time for considered response now but the key issue I have with the bloggers (and I gave up on some of them years back) is that they appear to ignore the institutional and cultural pressures that lead to the Dutch vs UK model.

The underlying issue is not about segregation at all - this is a distraction. It is also not primarily about cycling - that is also a distraction. The underlying issue is about the motives and intentions of those who plan and construct transport infrastructure. If those who engage in such planning accept that the needs of all roads users must be balanced then there is less to worry about.

The problem arises when those planning roads and other infrastructure have as their overriding goal the promotion of car travel and see car supremacy as part of the natural order. In that case, the trend is for funding and activities to happen in pursuit of a goal of facilitating cars. This includes funds spent on pedestrian facilities and those spent on cycle facilities. Has anyone else noticed the disappearance of zebra crossings around Ireland?

This is the issue that needs to be addressed and confronted - car supremacy and car centred planning. With regret I have formed the view that some of the bloggers are simply moral cowards and rabble rousers. They like to attack the cycle campaigners because the cycle campaigners are an easy target. The car lobby, in all its aspects, are the much harder target. Also in a society dominated by car centred attitudes they are also a much less "populist" target to attack. So instead an attempt is made to whip up indignation by attacking the existing cycling groups - as if they actually created the mess.

buffalo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Has anyone else noticed the disappearance of zebra crossings around Ireland?

This! According to the Dublin Inquirer, there's only one zebra crossing in al of Dublin city centre, in the Italian Quarter. I know there's a few in Howth, and one in Crumlin village, but they'd be a great traffic calmer and would restore a bit of humanity to the streets.

edit: Streetview shows Crumlin has been replaced by a traffic light-controlled pedestrian crossing. Right outside the Garda station.

enas

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If those who engage in such planning accept that the needs of all roads users must be balanced then there is less to worry about.

The problem arises when those planning roads and other infrastructure have as their overriding goal the promotion of car travel and see car supremacy as part of the natural order.

I don't think any campaigner would deny any of that! But then what do we do? The invaluable contribution of such blogs, and especially Mark Treasure's one (aseasy...) is to help people visualise how things could be different from the current status quo. The problem is that the uninformed majority sees car supremacy as part of the natural order too. People don't like to hear negative stuff, but saying things like "these are the nice things you're missing in the current car-centric approach" tends to resonate much more.

That's not the end of it, but any successful campaigning approach has to find a way to appeal to the mainstream non-cycling majority, for only them can demand and obtain change.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

With regret I have formed the view that some of the bloggers are simply moral cowards and rabble rousers. They like to attack the cycle campaigners because the cycle campaigners are an easy target.

Incidentally, Mark Treasure is the current chair of the Cycle Embassy of Great Britain. One of the most dynamic campaigning groups in the UK at the moment in my opinion.

enas

tomasrojo wrote: »

but he's still saying "cycling on UK roads is dangerous".

I don't see where he's saying this. This is surely not a quote from his post.

tomasrojo wrote: »

(He seems to admit that he's conflating risk and "feeling of risk"

He's not conflating the two. These are two distinct but equally valid issues. People don't want to cycle where it is dangerous (actual safety, for example where there is a poor safety track record, such as the Bow roundabout in London), but they don't want to cycle either where it feels unsafe (subjective safety, or perceived safety). Mostly because that feels unpleasant to most.

The point is that to increase cycling numbers, both actual and subjective safety need to be improved simultaneously. People will cycle where it feels safe to. They will keep cycling if it is actually safe. Then it goes into a self-reinforcing loop. See this classic post: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2008/09/three-types-of-safety.html

galwaycyclist

enas wrote: »

That's not the end of it, but any successful campaigning approach has to find a way to appeal to the mainstream non-cycling majority, for only them can demand and obtain change.

Sure. As an example the "20's plenty" movement derives directly from cycle campaigning. Key movers and shakers in that movement are closet cycle campaigners who gave up "banging their heads off brick walls" when trying to get local authority officials to improve cycling conditions.

enas

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Sure. As an example the "20's plenty" movement derives directly from cycle campaigning.

This is precisely the type of results I think should be pursued. I can think of two more obvious objectives that can get mainstream support: tackling rat-running, and improving conditions for pedestrians on large junctions and along main arteries. Those are issues many more people can sympathise with, and that directly benefit cycling (in the sense that both suffer from the same car-centric approach).

Incidentally, although I fully appreciate how hard it was to make authorities accept the idea of 20mph speed limits, it is important to keep in mind that lower speed limits are not an end in itself. The aim is for having the kind of streets where people don't drive at higher speeds. I hate to repeat myself, but Mark Treasure put it eloquently in this post: https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/the-85th-percentile-as-a-tool-for-improving-roads-and-streets/ (the photos say it all in my opinion).

tomasrojo

"cycling on UK roads is dangerous".

enas wrote: »

I don't see where he's saying this. This is surely not a quote from his post.

It's an approving quote of a quote.

This is exactly the point that David Arditti makes in the post I have already linked to –

I think the advocates of cycling need to stop treating the public like idiots who cannot correctly judge what is or is not an unacceptably dangerous activity for them to engage in. I think they can judge.

Of course, the public probably won't be persuaded by wonkish breakdowns of relative risk. If he had made his point using that kind of phrasing I wouldn't have any issue with it. It's just that when you talk about the public being pretty good judges of risk, you're implying that (to use the Arditti quote, which he says makes exactly his point) cycling is an unacceptably dangerous activity for them to engage in (the public have correctly judged it be so).

I suppose it could be argued that he's only talking about the more dangerous streets (lots of heavy traffic, fast-moving, narrow lanes) or that the feeling that it is dangerous is as deleterious to cycling promotion as the actuality (which is what I meant by "conflation"), but I think he never makes it clear that he thinks cycling in general is pretty safe. In fact from reading his blog on and off (with great interest and some eye-opening) over a year or more, I don't think he thinks that cycling in the UK is pretty safe. I'd be interested to know whether he ever breaks the numbers down in a fashion different from how the CTC did.

I think, even if dangerisation is nonsense, it's important to make clear that cycling isn't all that dangerous (if that be the case). Otherwise, everyone who takes part in it is taking "an unacceptable risk". Makes it hard to defend yourself when something does go wrong.

galwaycyclist

enas wrote: »

but Mark Treasure put it eloquently in this post: https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/the-85th-percentile-as-a-tool-for-improving-roads-and-streets/ (the photos say it all in my opinion).

Sure but this is the essence of level 2 "Traffic Speed Reduction" of the Hierarchy of Solutions - as proposed by the CTC back in 1996. And by CROW before that if I remember (will need to recheck certainly inspired by CROW)

Reducing perceived design speeds was always part of the package.

Am I wrong in thinking that in the past Mr. Treasure and his associates were happy to attack established cycle campaigners for advocating the Hierarchy?

enas

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's an approving quote of a quote.

It's just that when you talk about the public being pretty good judges of risk, you're implying that (to use the Arditti quote, which he says makes exactly his point) cycling is an unacceptably dangerous activity for them to engage in (the public have correctly judged it be so).

With all due respect, I think you're completely misunderstanding the quote He's quoted saying "I think they can judge", without implying "they can judge that it's dangerous". This is your assumption. This quote is simply addressing the claim that "talking about ‘danger’ puts people off cycling, and [...] we should refrain from talking about it all". That's what Mark Treasure is disagreeing with. As he puts it:

Is this really at all probable? Are [people] somehow blind to the hostility of these roads and the hazards they present, yet simultaneously so danger-sensitive that mere words will stop them cycling on them?

His claim is not to say that cycling is very dangerous, and that others downplay this not to put people off cycling. He's saying that where danger exists, there's no benefit from not discussing about it openly. I find it very hard to argue against that.

tomasrojo wrote: »

but I think he never makes it clear that he thinks cycling in general is pretty safe

He says:

we are not arguing that cycling is an intrinsically dangerous mode of transport. We aren’t say[ing] that cycling itself is dangerous.