or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Regional Cycling Forums › UK and Europe › Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales

post #1 of 61
Thread Starter 
In my town there is a group called Grwp Beic (Welsh for "bike group"). One
of their more active members posted this to a mailing list I subscribe to
today:

I'd advise not to listen to the radio show while near sharp objects.

Humph!
Jim

> On Friday 12 October 2007 15:23, Kelvin Mason wrote:
> If anyone wants to hear the phone-in on Radio Wales where I try to make
> the case for safe and environmentally friendly cycling and space for all,
> the link is:

 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/radiowale.../richardevans/

 
> Click on ‘listen again’ and the Richard Evans programme for Friday 12th
> October

 
> The phone-in on cycling starts about 1.20 pm so you can fast forward an
> hour or so if you wish
post #2 of 61

Re: Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales

Jim Higson wrote:
> In my town there is a group called Grwp Beic (Welsh for "bike group"). One
> of their more active members posted this to a mailing list I subscribe to
> today:
>
> I'd advise not to listen to the radio show while near sharp objects.
>
> Humph!
> Jim
>
>> On Friday 12 October 2007 15:23, Kelvin Mason wrote:
>> If anyone wants to hear the phone-in on Radio Wales where I try to make
>> the case for safe and environmentally friendly cycling and space for all,
>> the link is:

>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/radiowale.../richardevans/

>
>> Click on ‘listen again’ and the Richard Evans programme for Friday 12th
>> October

>
>> The phone-in on cycling starts about 1.20 pm so you can fast forward an
>> hour or so if you wish


Arrrrgh! Wrong on so many levels.
Stereotypes are us


I wonder if Zog Ziglar is related to Zig?
http://www.zigziglar.com/



--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

If you're happy and you know it, clunk your chains.
post #3 of 61

Re: Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales

"Jim Higson" <jh@333.org> wrote in message
news:_6-dnadWFdKSCJLanZ2dnUVZ8t3inZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> In my town there is a group called Grwp Beic (Welsh for "bike group"). One
> of their more active members posted this to a mailing list I subscribe to
> today:
>
> I'd advise not to listen to the radio show while near sharp objects.
>
> Humph!


He comes over as very sensible and well-informed, apart from advocating
completely seperate cycle facilities of course. He made his points clearly
and intelligently, didn't get wound up by the petrolhead Zog, or any of the
phone in people either. Obviously, he is completely misinformed about
seperate cycle facilities, but this guy was articulate and put forward a
good case for cycling.

If someone could point out to him his error about seperate facilities, he
would be spot on.
post #4 of 61

Re: Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales

In article <2_QPi.449915$p7.199429@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
burtthebike
burtthebike@blueyonder.co.uk says...

> If someone could point out to him his error about seperate facilities, he
> would be spot on.
>

So apart from being totally wrong he was mostly right?
;^>





























































I didn't listen to it. BTW.
post #5 of 61

Re: Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:27:41 +0100, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>In article <2_QPi.449915$p7.199429@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>burtthebike
>burtthebike@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>
>> If someone could point out to him his error about seperate facilities, he
>> would be spot on.
>>

>So apart from being totally wrong he was mostly right?


There's nothing wrong with segregated facilities, so long as they are
properly designed. Segregated facilities do a huge amount to
encourage new cyclists.
post #6 of 61

Re: Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales

In article <cu41h3trq6hueomdbkmk6eqhsnrbjo5m44@4ax.com>,
kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says...
>
> There's nothing wrong with segregated facilities, so long as they are
> properly designed. Segregated facilities do a huge amount to
> encourage new cyclists.
>


That's often claimed but I've seen very little to support it and a lot
that says they don't. The two biggies, Netherlands and Germany, saw no
increase in cycling from a doubling and tripling of their cycle networks
for example. The Dutch have a big programme called Cycle Balance which
benchmarks 115 Dutch towns and cities for their cycling attractiveness.
Of the ten factors ("dimensions") they look at the only cycle facility
that features is cycle parking. The amount of facilities, segregated or
not, is not seen as a relevant factor to improving and encouraging
cycling.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
post #7 of 61

Re: Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales

Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.invalid> wrote:

> In article <cu41h3trq6hueomdbkmk6eqhsnrbjo5m44@4ax.com>,
> kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says...
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with segregated facilities, so long as they are
> > properly designed. Segregated facilities do a huge amount to
> > encourage new cyclists.
> >

>
> That's often claimed but I've seen very little to support it and a lot
> that says they don't. The two biggies, Netherlands and Germany, saw no
> increase in cycling from a doubling and tripling of their cycle networks
> for example. The Dutch have a big programme called Cycle Balance which
> benchmarks 115 Dutch towns and cities for their cycling attractiveness.
> Of the ten factors ("dimensions") they look at the only cycle facility
> that features is cycle parking. The amount of facilities, segregated or
> not, is not seen as a relevant factor to improving and encouraging
> cycling.


coming from a rual area to urban area, i can see why some people like
the facilities. entering a busy road with HGV coming past rather too
close is going to people off.

yes if you use your postion etc, it is not such a problem but then
someone coming back to biking probably hasn't read cyclecraft or such.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
post #8 of 61

Re: Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:05:37 +0100, Tony Raven
<junk@raven-family.invalid> wrote:

>In article <cu41h3trq6hueomdbkmk6eqhsnrbjo5m44@4ax.com>,
>kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says...
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with segregated facilities, so long as they are
>> properly designed. Segregated facilities do a huge amount to
>> encourage new cyclists.
>>

>
>That's often claimed but I've seen very little to support it and a lot
>that says they don't. The two biggies, Netherlands and Germany, saw no
>increase in cycling from a doubling and tripling of their cycle networks
>for example. The Dutch have a big programme called Cycle Balance which
>benchmarks 115 Dutch towns and cities for their cycling attractiveness.
>Of the ten factors ("dimensions") they look at the only cycle facility
>that features is cycle parking. The amount of facilities, segregated or
>not, is not seen as a relevant factor to improving and encouraging
>cycling.


Look at the world's cities.

Is there a correlation between the percent of the street network
allocated to a segregated cycle network and the percent of traffic
making up utility cyclists, especially young cyclists and women.
post #9 of 61

Re: Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales

in message <ckg1h31cdbr1fjiboerin54s3tu5osale3@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
('kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge') wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:05:37 +0100, Tony Raven
> <junk@raven-family.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <cu41h3trq6hueomdbkmk6eqhsnrbjo5m44@4ax.com>,
>>kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says...
>>>
>>> There's nothing wrong with segregated facilities, so long as they are
>>> properly designed. Segregated facilities do a huge amount to
>>> encourage new cyclists.

>>
>>That's often claimed but I've seen very little to support it and a lot
>>that says they don't. The two biggies, Netherlands and Germany, saw no
>>increase in cycling from a doubling and tripling of their cycle networks
>>for example. The Dutch have a big programme called Cycle Balance which
>>benchmarks 115 Dutch towns and cities for their cycling attractiveness.
>>Of the ten factors ("dimensions") they look at the only cycle facility
>>that features is cycle parking. The amount of facilities, segregated or
>>not, is not seen as a relevant factor to improving and encouraging
>>cycling.

>
> Look at the world's cities.
>
> Is there a correlation between the percent of the street network
> allocated to a segregated cycle network and the percent of traffic
> making up utility cyclists, especially young cyclists and women.


Errr... no, actually. Cycling in East Kilbride, for example, which has an
extensive segregated cycle network, even to the extent of cycle
underpasses under all major road junctions and separate cycle roundabouts
inside/below every roundabout, I scarcely ever see another cyclist - or
even POB. In Edinburgh, which has none of these things and far bigger
hills, one sees lots of cyclists - about 10% of all vehicles, I would
guess (including a fair proportion of women and children).

It's a matter of local culture - the more cyclists a person sees, the more
likely they are to cycle. And I think there's a class thing to it, as
well - I think 'middle class' (loosely expressed) people are vastly more
likely to cycle than people who think of themselves as 'working class'.


--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.
post #10 of 61

Re: Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales

In article <cu41h3trq6hueomdbkmk6eqhsnrbjo5m44@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says...

> There's nothing wrong with segregated facilities, so long as they are
> properly designed. Segregated facilities do a huge amount to
> encourage new cyclists.
>

Are you sure they don't just encourage more POBs?
post #11 of 61

Re: Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:47:22 +0100, Simon Brooke
<simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:

>in message <ckg1h31cdbr1fjiboerin54s3tu5osale3@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
>('kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge') wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:05:37 +0100, Tony Raven
>> <junk@raven-family.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <cu41h3trq6hueomdbkmk6eqhsnrbjo5m44@4ax.com>,
>>>kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says...
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing wrong with segregated facilities, so long as they are
>>>> properly designed. Segregated facilities do a huge amount to
>>>> encourage new cyclists.
>>>
>>>That's often claimed but I've seen very little to support it and a lot
>>>that says they don't. The two biggies, Netherlands and Germany, saw no
>>>increase in cycling from a doubling and tripling of their cycle networks
>>>for example. The Dutch have a big programme called Cycle Balance which
>>>benchmarks 115 Dutch towns and cities for their cycling attractiveness.
>>>Of the ten factors ("dimensions") they look at the only cycle facility
>>>that features is cycle parking. The amount of facilities, segregated or
>>>not, is not seen as a relevant factor to improving and encouraging
>>>cycling.

>>
>> Look at the world's cities.
>>
>> Is there a correlation between the percent of the street network
>> allocated to a segregated cycle network and the percent of traffic
>> making up utility cyclists, especially young cyclists and women.

>
>Errr... no, actually. Cycling in East Kilbride, for example, which has an
>extensive segregated cycle network, even to the extent of cycle
>underpasses under all major road junctions and separate cycle roundabouts
>inside/below every roundabout, I scarcely ever see another cyclist - or
>even POB. In Edinburgh, which has none of these things and far bigger
>hills, one sees lots of cyclists - about 10% of all vehicles, I would
>guess (including a fair proportion of women and children).
>
>It's a matter of local culture - the more cyclists a person sees, the more
>likely they are to cycle. And I think there's a class thing to it, as
>well - I think 'middle class' (loosely expressed) people are vastly more
>likely to cycle than people who think of themselves as 'working class'.


I was really thinking of a scatter graph comparrison (utility cycle
rates V segregated facilities) between major cities such as London,
New York, Paris, Copenhagen, Bejing, Tokyo and Amsterdam.

I am convinced that there would be a strong correlation, though
exceptions would occur in cities with poorly designed facilities.

The problem with the growth of cyclist numbers in London is that is
has mainly been men in their 20s, 30s and 40s. About 50% of
Copenhagen's cyclists are women, and it has a good spead of ages on
their bikes.
post #12 of 61

Re: Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:47:22 +0100, Simon Brooke
<simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:

>> Look at the world's cities.
>>
>> Is there a correlation between the percent of the street network
>> allocated to a segregated cycle network and the percent of traffic
>> making up utility cyclists, especially young cyclists and women.

>
>Errr... no, actually. Cycling in East Kilbride, for example, which has an
>extensive segregated cycle network, even to the extent of cycle
>underpasses under all major road junctions and separate cycle roundabouts
>inside/below every roundabout, I scarcely ever see another cyclist - or
>even POB. In Edinburgh, which has none of these things and far bigger
>hills, one sees lots of cyclists - about 10% of all vehicles, I would
>guess (including a fair proportion of women and children).
>
>It's a matter of local culture - the more cyclists a person sees, the more
>likely they are to cycle. And I think there's a class thing to it, as
>well - I think 'middle class' (loosely expressed) people are vastly more
>likely to cycle than people who think of themselves as 'working class'.


http://www.diabeticretinopathy.org.u...lingcities.htm
post #13 of 61

Re: Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales

In article <acp1h3to2fug6pl1ssfboop667m9ks0cit@4ax.com>,
kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says...
>
> I was really thinking of a scatter graph comparrison (utility cycle
> rates V segregated facilities) between major cities such as London,
> New York, Paris, Copenhagen, Bejing, Tokyo and Amsterdam.
>
> I am convinced that there would be a strong correlation, though


Well both Tokyo and Beijing will put paid to your hypothesis. Both have
high utility cycling levels and minimal segregated facilities (I can't
actually recall any in Tokyo unless you count pavement cycling).

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
post #14 of 61

Re: Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales

"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in

[snip]

> There's nothing wrong with segregated facilities, so long as they
> are
> properly designed. Segregated facilities do a huge amount to
> encourage new cyclists.


That's why it's Stevenage that's Britain's cycling city, and not
Cambridge, 15 miles away

Stevenage is certainly well designed. They built the bike paths
first, and then built the town round them. It takes less dynamite to
clear a path if you do things that way round.

Stevenage became world famous, with Eric Claxton, Stevenage's chief
engineer, touring the world giving talks about it. Stevenage is the
town that taught the Dutch how to do things.

In more normal towns, I've heard level crossing gates at every
intersection suggested so that segregation actually exists. After
all, cars hit bikes where their paths intersect, which is at
intersections, so that's where segregation matters. It works for
railways. Presumably one would add gates at driveways as well.

I suppose that wouldn't solve the problem of segregating from
pedestrians, which would require a change in the law, as well as
appropriate physical measures (electric fences?)

Jeremy Parker
post #15 of 61

Re: Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales

"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote

[snip]

> I was really thinking of a scatter graph comparrison (utility cycle
> rates V segregated facilities) between major cities such as London,
> New York, Paris, Copenhagen, Bejing, Tokyo and Amsterdam.
>
> I am convinced that there would be a strong correlation, though
> exceptions would occur in cities with poorly designed facilities.


[snip]

And if there was a correlation, it could be that one caused the
other. Perhaps bikeways cause bikes, or perhaps bikes cause
bikeways. The question is, I suppose, in the high bikes/bikeways
places, which came first? Were there bikeways before bikes, or were
there bikes before bikeways?

Jeremy Parker
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: UK and Europe
Cycling Forums › Forums › Regional Cycling Forums › UK and Europe › Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales