Investigating Cycle Route Preferences in the Greater Dublin Area

Iwannhurl wrote:

Cyclists should be pampered, cosseted and cherished.

It seems to me that this view underlies a number of attitudes that I've encountered regarding cycling and I've never really understood it. Why should cyclists be pampered, cosseted and cherished?

doozerie wrote: »

Why should cyclists be pampered, cosseted and cherished?

Cos we're worth it!

HivemindXX wrote: »

I can't understand why people (excluding bus and taxi drivers) are against shared bus/cycle lanes. Surely being able to use the bus lane is better than not being able to use it.

I've no particular problem with it. I can only speculate that some people feel hassled or stressed by buses and taxis behind them or trying to over take them.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm too lazy to re-type/edit this, so here's a link purely for my own convenience:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73664774&postcount=66

Ah, what you mean is that the "needs" of cyclists should be prioritised over the "needs" of motorists. Which is not quite the same thing as simply advocating/promoting cycling - there is an overlap, certainly, but there is a danger when looking at how to reclaim space from cars that you end up building on a poor design to start with. If you were to take cyclists out of the equation you wouldn't find that the existing infrastructure instantly transforms into a much more efficient or safe one (like many people I'm sure, I find driving around Dublin a painful experience for the most part). Personally I'd rather see the road infrastructure fundamentally re-assessed and re-designed to accommodate motorised vehicles and bicycles together, rather than see the likes of cycle lanes be tacked onto existing poorly designed roads.

No, I don't really think that's going to happen, but even to get planners thinking along those lines might suggest that their mindset has fundamentally shifted from one of seeing cyclists as a hindrance to one of seeing cyclists as valid road users that warrant consideration during planning. That can only be a good thing. That doesn't mean that I think there is no benefit to well-designed bike lanes, I just think that convincing everyone (planners, motorists, current cyclists, potential cyclists, etc.) of the merits of sharing existing road space is a victory that would yield better results in the long run and when expending effort I'd see that as ultimately being a more worthy cause than more painted stretches of road and footpath right now.

The road looks safer to me.

Bike lanes which dump cyclists onto footpaths or into junctions are a recipe for conflict with other road users, both in a physical and argumentative sense.

Segregation is not the answer. The more they segregate, they more the advertise that CYCLING WITH TRAFFIC IS VERY DANGEROUS, putting people off cycling.

But it isn't and shouldn't be dangerous.

Iwannahurl wrote:

Fair and understandably enough, your preference is for "convincing everyone ... of the merits of sharing existing road space". My point is, given public expectations that's a hard sell, especially to less confident cyclists and their children.

I agree that is a hard sell, but then again I've also never understood the appeal of commuting by car to many people that have a choice of other means of transport. Commuting by car for me means idling in traffic for long periods, in a stuffy car, getting more frustrated by the minute while thinking about how much more progress I'd be making by bicycle. People I've discussed this with who choose to commute by car describe the benefits of a comfortable heated and dry interior ("stuffy" in my books), the freedom to listen to the radio/music (a strange definition of "freedom", to me), the luxury/fun of seeing others suffer in the weather conditions outside (I've never understood that kind of malice myself), the "fun" of driving (to me driving is okay, maybe even fun at times, inching along by car in rush hour traffic isn't what I'd consider driving though), etc. So, despite all the headaches, and expense, of commuting by car it seems that many people simply prefer it. Rather than trying to directly sell commuting by bicycle as an option to such people maybe we need to challenge the illusion that commuting by car is the be all and end all, which means challenging the place of the car in society generally. It is subtly different to trying to sell the bicycle as the best option, and not necessarily any easier a thing to do, but maybe it would stir more, or different, debate.

All that rambling of mine aside though, I think that going the route of segregation is not actually an alternative to convincing everyone of the merits of sharing existing road space i.e. it's not a case of one, segregation, versus the other, education. Even with segregation you'll still have junctions where cyclists and motorised vehicles share the same space, I see that as simply unavoidable. Those areas will be the high risk areas, as many such junctions are right now. Attracting people to cycling with the image of traffic-free stretches of segregated cycle lane might well draw people in but it potentially lulls them into a false sense of security for them to be rudely and possibly scarily awakened when they hit their first junction - an experience like that might well scare people away from cycling permanently. I think education is key, backed up by enforcement, both of which have been lacking for far too long. I think that efforts in both of those areas will do more to make cycling appear as a viable option to people than simply trying to move bicycles further away from traffic.

Iwannahurl wrote:

Depends on the question. If the question is "what do many current and potential cyclists really really want?" then the answer is, without question, segregation!

Has that question really been answered though? The study linked to by monument in his first post includes the following in its recommendations:

In terms of the type of infrastructure, high quality segregated facilities are likely to be most favoured by existing cyclists and encourage a shift to cycling.

For a study with data to hand, phrases like "are likely to be most favoured by" strike me as being vague, uncertain, and basically unconvincing. But I'd also question whether this study is one that should put forward recommendations for cycling infrastructure in the first place. 29% of the respondents are currently car drivers, who have a vested interest in seeing cyclists off the road in order to facilitate their own progress (i.e. their motives may be entirely selfish rather than based on what's best for cyclists or what may encourage they themselves to cycle). Add in car passengers and bus passengers and you are now at 47% of respondents for whom cyclists are potentially a competitor for the same valuable space on the road. I think that mix of respondents adds interest to the survey but I also think it means that drawing conclusions on what cyclists want/need from this particular set of respondents is extremely tricky and I'd be concerned that those processing the data from the study have been overly simplistic, or perhaps even biased, in the conclusions they've drawn.

Some other brief quotes from the report:

* Existing public transport users (78%) and car drivers/passengers (73%) have the greatest preference for off road infrastructure;

* Existing pedestrians have the lowest preference for off road cycling infrastructure, most likely conscious of the perceived safety hazards in using
types of shared use infrastructure;

* Existing cyclists have the highest preference for on-road cycling infrastructure (70%) and pedestrians the least preference (51%);

Taking those in isolation (perhaps not the best thing to do), it seems that according to this survey users of motorised transport want cyclists off the road, pedestrians want them off the footpath, and cyclists want to be on the road (I don't know what "on-road cycling infrastructure" really means - for me it includes being able to use bus lanes without the presence of a cycle lane, so not segregation as such, the study may have a different definition of it). Based on my reading of (parts of) the document so far, within this study it's not clear to me that there is a resounding demand for segregation (though perhaps that'll come through more clearly once I've read the study fully).

doozerie wrote: »

Commuting by car for me means idling in traffic for long periods, in a stuffy car, getting more frustrated by the minute while thinking about how much more progress I'd be making by bicycle.

I hired a car yesterday to go to a wedding. All I could think for most of the day was while I was driving through barely moving traffic, do people voluntarily do this??!?

I can't understand why non-cyclists are ask about what cyclist's need! Surely the lack of experience means they are unqualified to answer, so give an over-simplisitic answer: more segregation.

Also, if inexperienced cyclists continue to cycle, they become more experienced - the majority cyclist should be experienced provided they stay cycling.

Heirachy of cycling needs should be:
1. increase in number of cyclists (benefits all)
2.= improved surface quality & cleaning
2.= driver training
4. cycle training
5. infrastucture/lanes where appropriate.
Some cycle lanes work e.g. on straight narrow roads with a lot of
congestion, like Grand Canal.

Mucco wrote:

I disagree. I have read many surveys where the key issue for non-cyclists is always lack of bike lanes. There is a perception that bike lanes = safety. This may be wrong, but it seems correct. The fact that bike lanes are more dangerous is counter-intuitive, and therefore very difficult to argue, especially with someone who's not interested in cycling.

I see the perception of bike lanes as being safe (and roads not safe) as very much an education issue. I think it is a view that is all too often based on a lack of understanding of what using a cycle lane involves, plus what cycling *with* traffic involves. For that kind of audience I wouldn't argue that bike lanes are dangerous, I'd argue that they are unnecessary if cyclists and drivers alike use their common sense and demonstrate acknowledgement of, and consideration for, other road users.

Mucco wrote:

Getting more people cycling = safety in numbers = cycle tracks become safer

Numbers alone won't make junctions of cycle lanes and roads safer, only more considerate behaviour by all road users will achieve that in my view.

therightstuff wrote: »

It is a very obvious fact that cyclists/pedestrians are not killed by other cyclists/pedestrians. They are killed by cars, trucks and buses. When we cycle on roads we are at risk. To argue that education comes into this is a misnomer. I race bicycles. I have raced motorbikes. I do not suffer from a lack of ability or confidence on two wheels. Yet I could be killed tomorrow commuting to work by some clown driving using a mobile phone. That's reality.

A cycle-lane may not fix this; its not a pancea.
I heard that some cycle lanes were removed in Holland near junctions, cyclists have to rejoin the road.