Benefits of specialised infrastructure: chances of consensus?

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.

enas

Actually I'm re-reading your post, and this puzzles me:

tomasrojo wrote: »

Otherwise, everyone who takes part in it is taking "an unacceptable risk". Makes it hard to defend yourself when something does go wrong.

I really fail to see why? Surely if something does go wrong, that can only strengthen my case that something has to be done about it? Especially when the government officially promotes cycling as a mode of transport? Isn't this what happened with the Bow roundabout in London?

enas

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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?

I don't think attack is the right word, but he is of the opinion that the Hierarchy wasn't an effective tool. Regardless of whether you agree with that, I think it makes sense that when something doesn't yield the desired results in almost 20 years, other people start thinking about different methods.

My objections with hierarchy is that it's been used in a wrong way by both sides. Many campaigners would systematically refer to it as an argument against cycle tracks, creating a false opposition between traffic speed reduction and cycle tracks (both are needed on different types of streets). Many authorities used it as a moral justification for putting shared used footpaths all over the place.

tomasrojo

enas wrote: »

Surely if something does go wrong, that can only strengthen my case that something has to be done about it? Especially when the government officially promotes cycling as a mode of transport? Isn't this what happened with the Bow roundabout in London?

Yes, that can happen, or people can say think, "Well, you brought it on yourself. Everyone knows cycling is very dangerous." That is, if it has been implicitly conceded that cycling on the road is dangerous.

(Thought I'd edit that. I hope I never meet anyone who says something like that!)

tomasrojo

enas wrote: »

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.

"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."
This is getting into semantics, so maybe it's just circling a rather hair-splitting point, but that's a standard rhetorical device. The second "judge" implies all the qualifiers that went along with the first, so it's short for "I think they can correctly judge what is or is not an unacceptably dangerous activity for them to engage in."

I don't see anything in the post that contradicts this directly, since the examples of safe cycling he mentions are all away from traffic.

(On the other hand, I guess Arditti and/or Treasure might have meant: "It's presumptuous to dictate to the public on how safe cycling is, when they can make up their own minds and have decided, as things stand, that it isn't safe." Which I wouldn't have a problem with, as that places us firmly into the realm of perception of danger, which is probably not an issue that be cleared by dialogue alone.)

I suppose I should have been clearer myself. "It's important to make clear that cycling isn't all that dangerous" should have read "it's important to make clear that in general cycling in traffic isn't all that dangerous". (Obviously, some scenarios of cycling in traffic are very dangerous.)

This is not to say that I oppose specific cycling infrastructure. I started this thread to get a clearer idea of how people feel and think about the subject, because I perceive a change in the air. (And, as you say about hierarchy of provision, a decade or two of emphasis on training and framing of danger have had very modest successes, at best.)

tomasrojo

I have to say, as well, it's been a very civilised conversation, so far! I was worried it might go "helmet thread" or something. (Cue conversation going "helmet thread".)

galwaycyclist

enas wrote: »

I don't think attack is the right word, but he is of the opinion that the Hierarchy wasn't an effective tool. Regardless of whether you agree with that, I think it makes sense that when something doesn't yield the desired results in almost 20 years, other people start thinking about different methods.

That is at face value a valid observation but I think there is a duty to fully examine why a method "didn't work" before rejecting it or its advocates.

Also, and this may not be obvious, it may be that it did work all along - given the limitations on what was possible. It may be that having the framework provided by "the hierarchy" allowed the cycling lobby to limit, to a lesser or greater extent, the damage being done by the car lobby.

Yes the established cycle campaigners delivered few cycling utopias but it may be that things would have been much much worse without them.

All speculation obviously.

My objections with hierarchy is that it's been used in a wrong way by both sides. Many campaigners would systematically refer to it as an argument against cycle tracks, creating a false opposition between traffic speed reduction and cycle tracks (both are needed on different types of streets).

Hmmm, I think we need to consider the operating environment. Why would there be any need to oppose cycle tracks?

To answer that question, I have sat in a planning hearing where roads engineers quite openly stated that their cycle track designs would require cyclists to get off and walk at every junction. These cycle tracks had nothing to do with facilitating cyclists.

With respect the cycle campaigners are dealing with an institutional environment that were extreme promoters of car supremacy sometimes to a truly comic level.

The polarisation is a product of the political and institutional environment rather than the fault of frameworks like the hierarchy of provision.

Other analytical tools and frameworks fall victim to the same motives. In one case Galway City Council produced a interpretation of "Link and Place" analysis that allowed them to claim it meant they could de-prioritise walking and cycling on main roads. (see also last sentence below)

Many authorities used it as a moral justification for putting shared used footpaths all over the place.

OK could you expand on what you mean by that a bit? I am aware that many authorities try to turn the hierarchy on its head. But that is not the fault of the framework. It simply reflects the fact that local authority officials operate outside any real control by central government. Put simply they can say or do what they like and nobody in "the Department" in Kildare street is going to do a thing about it (except maybe ask for copies of any invoices)

enas

Thanks for your input, I'll try to give a general reply.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

It may be that having the framework provided by "the hierarchy" allowed the cycling lobby to limit, to a lesser or greater extent, the damage being done by the car lobby.
[...]
All speculation obviously.

I understand your point. And I think you're quite likely guessing correctly. My overall point is that, hopefully, we're reaching a higher level of maturity regarding those questions, and in this context the Hierarchy starts to feel a bit outdated. Maybe I'm too optimistic.

I think I'm repeating myself, but I think that the target of campaigners is moving or should be moving. For many years, there was no intention to increase cycling numbers, quite the opposite, cyclists were perceived as an annoyance to get rid of. In that context, campaigners couldn't even dream of increasing cycling numbers, and were merely lobbying for the interests of the existing tiny minority willing to cycle in hostile conditions (as in, authorities were hostile to cycling, I don't mean to "dangerise" cycling). In that context, it was absolutely vital to oppose to the kind of "facilities" that required cyclists to stop at every minor junction, to mention one example.

Today, there is an official, and I believe at least partly genuine desire to increase cycling modal share, but authorities and governments don't always know how to achieve this. Old habits die hard, and the effect of years of car centric planning can't be cancelled overnight. So campaigners now have an entirely different objective, and can provide guidance in this direction. And when it comes to increasing cycling modal share, I think it's indisputable that we should only concentrate on methods with a proven track record of attracting new cyclists. And unless I'm missing something obvious, only Dutch policies provide such a result.

galwaycyclist

enas wrote: »

Thanks for your input, I'll try to give a general reply.



I understand your point. And I think you're quite likely guessing correctly. My overall point is that, hopefully, we're reaching a higher level of maturity regarding those questions, and in this context the Hierarchy starts to feel a bit outdated. Maybe I'm too optimistic.

Hmm no I agree that we are reaching a higher level of maturity. That is demonstrated by an increasing recognition that car promotion was the central problem. This means that in contrast, the Hierarchy of Provision becomes increasingly applicable. The change in social attitudes to cars makes the bloggers who reject the hierarchy something of a throwback to the dark ages where it was impossible to imagine a different vision.

I think I'm repeating myself, but I think that the target of campaigners is moving or should be moving. For many years, there was no intention to increase cycling numbers, quite the opposite, cyclists were perceived as an annoyance to get rid of. In that context, campaigners couldn't even dream of increasing cycling numbers, and were merely lobbying for the interests of the existing tiny minority willing to cycle in hostile conditions (as in, authorities were hostile to cycling, I don't mean to "dangerise" cycling). In that context, it was absolutely vital to oppose to the kind of "facilities" that required cyclists to stop at every minor junction, to mention one example.

With regret this feels like a straw man argument. Who says we haven't been trying to increase cycling participation? That is the whole purpose of the hierarchy. It is to increase cycling participation but by doing so in a morally defensible manner. You can't just tell everyone to cycle and then dump them into a traffic situation that is designed, and policed, in a manner that is inherently hostile to vulnerable road users. That includes building little sections of "Dutch" cycle facilities that dump people back into Irish traffic.

So yes in some cases it meant promoting an approach intended, as a first goal, to improve conditions for confident cyclists - albeit that these "improved" conditions would not be acceptable to less confident cyclists. That doesn't mean anyone was "abandoning" the less confident. What it means is a phased approach where the needs of one group are met as part of a strategy with the end goal of improving conditions for all.

Today, there is an official, and I believe at least partly genuine desire to increase cycling modal share, but authorities and governments don't always know how to achieve this. Old habits die hard, and the effect of years of car centric planning can't be cancelled overnight. So campaigners now have an entirely different objective, and can provide guidance in this direction. And when it comes to increasing cycling modal share, I think it's indisputable that we should only concentrate on methods with a proven track record of attracting new cyclists. And unless I'm missing something obvious, only Dutch policies provide such a result.

What makes you think we haven't been pursuing Dutch policies? Who do you think we have been watching?

Let us propose a hypothetical situation. Due to an unhappy accident at an annual conference, the roads departments of all Irish local authorities get wiped out overnight. The Netherlands government in an act of solidarity send all their roads administration staff to Ireland. These people inherit a roads system that has been mismanaged for decades. They inherit towns where developments less than twenty years old were "planned" exclusively around access by car. These towns are "policed" not by Dutch police with a sense if duty towards the community but by Irish garda who consider cars to be the "community".

If these people had to come up with a framework to fix the situation on a phased basis making the best use of available resources - what do you think that framework would look like?

I already have an answer to that question.

enas

galwaycyclist wrote: »

With regret this feels like a straw man argument. Who says we haven't been trying to increase cycling participation?

Sorry, I realise I wasn't clear. What I meant is that there was no such intention on behalf of local authorities, obviously I'm not pretending campaigners were not interested in increasing participation.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So yes in some cases it meant promoting an approach intended, as a first goal, to improve conditions for confident cyclists - albeit that these "improved" conditions would not be acceptable to less confident cyclists. That doesn't mean anyone was "abandoning" the less confident. What it means is a phased approach where the needs of one group are met as part of a strategy with the end goal of improving conditions for all.

And this precisely was what I was trying to say, albeit clumsily.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

What makes you think we haven't been pursuing Dutch policies? Who do you think we have been watching?

It has become a much more explicitly stated objective in recent times than it was in the past, hasn't it? For the reasons you just mentioned in the previous quote. I never pretended campaigners were not aware of Dutch policies before.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If these people had to come up with a framework to fix the situation on a phased basis making the best use of available resources - what do you think that framework would look like?

I already have an answer to that question.

Sorry, genuine question, but I don't see how the hierarchy, for I assume that's what you're referring to, leads to Dutch-style planning. Unless I misunderstand something, it assumes an order of preference between choices (traffic reduction/calming over segragation, to simplify), when both are needed in different place and in a complementary way. The closest thing to the hierarchy there is in CROW manual is this, which states exactly that.

galwaycyclist

enas wrote: »

It has become a much more explicitly stated objective in recent times than it was in the past, hasn't it? For the reasons you just mentioned in the previous quote. I never pretended campaigners were not aware of Dutch policies before.

And to be fair the Dutch are just one model in the list of possible models. My own view would tend towards seeing the German experience as mapping more directly to our own.

Sorry, genuine question, but I don't see how the hierarchy, for I assume that's what you're referring to, leads to Dutch-style planning. Unless I misunderstand something, it assumes an order of preference between choices (traffic reduction/calming over segragation, to simplify), when both are needed in different place and in a complementary way. The closest thing to the hierarchy there is in CROW manual is this, which states exactly that.

OK what do we mean by Dutch-style planning?

I would see the Hierarchy firstly as means for identifying priorities of action on particular routes. And yes it is not likely to result in "ideal" cycling facilities. But that is not where we are in our development. The point being that "perfection" is often the enemy of "good enough". More importantly, "perfection" is often used as a smokescreen to avoid solving real problems. An example would be constructing cycle facilities on a road with a series of hostile roundabouts but doing nothing about the roundabouts. The end result is something that is still not suitable for "potential" cyclists and may be worse for for confident cyclists.