Pro-cycling article in this week's Economist

al Mossah

http://www.economist.com/world/brit...ory_id=11089996

WHEN John Major, Britain's most recent Conservative prime minister,
wanted to evoke the spirit of England in 1993, he bowdlerised George
Orwell, talking romantically of “old maids bicycling to Holy Communion
through the morning mist”. It was an anachronistic image: by the time
Mr Major delivered his speech cycling accounted for only 1% of
distance travelled on British roads, down from around a third of the
total just after the second world war.

Today the proportion is even lower, at around 0.9%. But if the
government has its way, the decline could soon be stopped. Whitehall
is pouring money and effort into two-wheeled transport. Cycling
England, a government-funded outfit that promotes pedal power, will
see its budget increased from £10m to £60m by 2009. The cash will be
spent on connecting schools to the national cycle-lane network,
training for children and propaganda aimed at motorists. Six towns
have already been singled out as test-beds; 11 more are planned.

Besides helping to reduce congestion (a growing problem on the roads
in most places) and air pollution, the ambitious argue that bicycles
can help to save both the nation and the world. Cycling is hard work
and therefore likely to cut obesity in the fattest country in the
European Union. And carbon-free bicycles could help ministers meet
their elusive climate-change targets.

Enthusiasts point to the two-wheeled renaissance in London as a source
of good ideas for aspiring local councils. Transport for London (TfL)
claims that cycling in the capital has increased by 83% since 2000,
thanks to a combination of investment in cycle lanes, free lessons for
the curious, a push from the congestion charge and a five-fold hike in
funding. Ken Livingstone, the city's mayor, wants to see the number of
cycling trips rise by 400% by 2025.

Concerns about safety, which keep many would-be cyclists wedded to
their cars, seem overblown. Despite the surge of new cyclists, London
has seen the numbers killed or seriously injured fall by around a
third over the past decade, and national data show a similar trend.

TfL attributes this partly to education campaigns and partly to safety
in numbers: the more cyclists there are, the better motorists become
at sharing the road with them.

Another shining example for cycling fans is Cambridge, where an echo
of Mr Major's Albion can just about be discerned in the dons and
students cycling between ancient colleges. Cambridge is widely
regarded as the most cycle-mad city in Britain, with around a quarter
of its residents biking to work, eight times the national average.
That reflects some natural advantages (the place is mostly flat) and
some deliberate decisions (such as plenty of cycle lanes and places to
lock up bikes). But historically, no conscious decision is responsible
for cycling's popularity. Other, less tangible cultural factors seem
to be at work, harder to export to the rest of the country. “Everyone
does it and always has,” explains one Cantabrigian. “It's just the way
Cambridge is.”

Peter.

dkahn400

On Apr 28, 8:36*am, al Mossah <pe...@mossclan.co.uk> wrote:

> Transport for London (TfL)
> claims that cycling in the capital has increased by 83% since 2000,
> thanks to a combination of investment in cycle lanes, free lessons for
> the curious, a push from the congestion charge and a five-fold hike in
> funding. Ken Livingstone, the city's mayor, wants to see the number of
> cycling trips rise by 400% by 2025.

Personally I think that cycling in London has increased in spite of
the farcilities, not because of them. I am very concerned about the
push to "encourage" cycling by further marginalising cyclists. It will
almost certainly have the opposite effect.

--
Dave...

al Mossah

On 28 Apr, 10:35, dkahn400 <dkahn...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 8:36 am, al Mossah <pe...@mossclan.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Transport for London (TfL)
> > claims that cycling in the capital has increased by 83% since 2000,
> > thanks to a combination of investment in cycle lanes, free lessons for
> > the curious, a push from the congestion charge and a five-fold hike in
> > funding. Ken Livingstone, the city's mayor, wants to see the number of
> > cycling trips rise by 400% by 2025.
>
> Personally I think that cycling in London has increased in spite of
> the farcilities, not because of them. I am very concerned about the
> push to "encourage" cycling by further marginalising cyclists. It will
> almost certainly have the opposite effect.
>
> --
> Dave...

I don't see any threatened "marginalising of cyclists" in the
article. One of the key points is that
"TfL attributes this (reduction in numbers killed or seriously
injured) partly to education campaigns and partly to safety
in numbers: the more cyclists there are, the better motorists become
at sharing the road with them."

Which is what many in this group feel. This is far from marginalising
cyclists.

Peter.

Phil Cook

al Mossah wrote:

>On 28 Apr, 10:35, dkahn400 <dkahn...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 8:36 am, al Mossah <pe...@mossclan.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Transport for London (TfL)
>> > claims that cycling in the capital has increased by 83% since 2000,
>> > thanks to a combination of investment in cycle lanes, free lessons for
>> > the curious, a push from the congestion charge and a five-fold hike in
>> > funding. Ken Livingstone, the city's mayor, wants to see the number of
>> > cycling trips rise by 400% by 2025.
>>
>> Personally I think that cycling in London has increased in spite of
>> the farcilities, not because of them. I am very concerned about the
>> push to "encourage" cycling by further marginalising cyclists. It will
>> almost certainly have the opposite effect.

>I don't see any threatened "marginalising of cyclists" in the
>article. One of the key points is that
>"TfL attributes this (reduction in numbers killed or seriously
>injured) partly to education campaigns and partly to safety
>in numbers: the more cyclists there are, the better motorists become
>at sharing the road with them."
>
>Which is what many in this group feel. This is far from marginalising
>cyclists.

What about the "investment in cycle lanes" in that paragraph though?

The general consensus is that we don't want cycle lanes or at least we
don't want the bad ones. You know the ones, less than two metres
width, ones that stop just when you need them most and those that
try to force us off onto glass strewn shared use paths.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

al Mossah

On 28 Apr, 15:06, Phil Cook <p...@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> al Mossah wrote:
> >On 28 Apr, 10:35, dkahn400 <dkahn...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 28, 8:36 am, al Mossah <pe...@mossclan.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > Transport for London (TfL)
> >> > claims that cycling in the capital has increased by 83% since 2000,
> >> > thanks to a combination of investment in cycle lanes, free lessons for
> >> > the curious, a push from the congestion charge and a five-fold hike in
> >> > funding. Ken Livingstone, the city's mayor, wants to see the number of
> >> > cycling trips rise by 400% by 2025.
>
> >> Personally I think that cycling in London has increased in spite of
> >> the farcilities, not because of them. I am very concerned about the
> >> push to "encourage" cycling by further marginalising cyclists. It will
> >> almost certainly have the opposite effect.
> >I don't see any threatened "marginalising of cyclists" in the
> >article. One of the key points is that
> >"TfL attributes this (reduction in numbers killed or seriously
> >injured) partly to education campaigns and partly to safety
> >in numbers: the more cyclists there are, the better motorists become
> >at sharing the road with them."
>
> >Which is what many in this group feel. This is far from marginalising
> >cyclists.
>
> What about the "investment in cycle lanes" in that paragraph though?
>
> The general consensus is that we don't want cycle lanes or at least we
> don't want the bad ones. You know the ones, less than two metres
> width, ones that stop just when you need them most and those that
> try to force us off onto glass strewn shared use paths.
> --
> Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

I agree; bad cycle lanes are very bad. But in the Netherlands, for
example, cycle lanes are very good. So I'm in favour of investment in
cycle lanes provided that they are designed by Dutch planners :-)

Peter.

Peter Clinch

al Mossah wrote:

> I agree; bad cycle lanes are very bad. But in the Netherlands, for
> example, cycle lanes are very good. So I'm in favour of investment in
> cycle lanes provided that they are designed by Dutch planners :-)

What, on the other side of the road? (IGMC...) ;-/

Sadly, a bike lane designed by the Dutch isn't enough, because that
leaves the roads to be planned by someone else, who'll give the roads
far more right of way than the bike lanes. The Dutch system works
because the two are (AIUI) considered together, rather than taking a
road and trying to retro-fit bike paths to/around it without disturbing
the road much.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

dkahn400

On Apr 28, 10:46*am, al Mossah <pe...@mossclan.co.uk> wrote:

> I don't see any threatened "marginalising of cyclists" in the
> article. *One of the key points is that
> "TfL attributes this (reduction in numbers killed or seriously
> injured) partly to education campaigns and partly to safety
> in numbers: the more cyclists there are, the better motorists become
> at sharing the road with them."
>
> Which is what many in this group feel. *This is far from marginalising
> cyclists.

No, that is not marginalising cyclists. It is the threatened increase
in cycle lanes that will marginalise cyclists.

--
Dave...

Tom Crispin

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:34:49 +0100, Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

>al Mossah wrote:
>
>> I agree; bad cycle lanes are very bad. But in the Netherlands, for
>> example, cycle lanes are very good. So I'm in favour of investment in
>> cycle lanes provided that they are designed by Dutch planners :-)
>
>What, on the other side of the road? (IGMC...) ;-/
>
>Sadly, a bike lane designed by the Dutch isn't enough, because that
>leaves the roads to be planned by someone else, who'll give the roads
>far more right of way than the bike lanes. The Dutch system works
>because the two are (AIUI) considered together, rather than taking a
>road and trying to retro-fit bike paths to/around it without disturbing
>the road much.

That's how Transport for London now redesign roads and junctions. They
consider the whole width, building to building, for all users:
pedestrians, wheelchair users, cyclists, motorcyclists, car drivers,
van drivers and lorry drivers.

al Mossah

On 29 Apr, 15:41, dkahn400 <dkahn...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 10:46 am, al Mossah <pe...@mossclan.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I don't see any threatened "marginalising of cyclists" in the
> > article. One of the key points is that
> > "TfL attributes this (reduction in numbers killed or seriously
> > injured) partly to education campaigns and partly to safety
> > in numbers: the more cyclists there are, the better motorists become
> > at sharing the road with them."
>
> > Which is what many in this group feel. This is far from marginalising
> > cyclists.
>
> No, that is not marginalising cyclists. It is the threatened increase
> in cycle lanes that will marginalise cyclists.
>
> --
> Dave...

The Netherlands has cycle lanes everywhere, generally planned (as
Peter Clinch says) in conjunction with the needs of the pedestrian and
motorist. You can hardly call cyclists in the Netherlands
"marginalised".

Peter.

Artemisia

al Mossah wrote:

> So I'm in favour of investment in
> cycle lanes provided that they are designed by Dutch planners :-)


Here here! I've long been in favor of the annexation of Europe by the
Netherlands, but I can't find anyone else to back the plan.

EFR
Ile de France

Artemisia

al Mossah wrote:
> But historically, no conscious decision is responsible
> for cycling's popularity. Other, less tangible cultural factors seem
> to be at work, harder to export to the rest of the country. “Everyone
> does it and always has,” explains one Cantabrigian. “It's just the way
> Cambridge is.”

Not quite so... As I recall, students, a hefty whack of the population,
are officially forbidden to keep a car within city limits, so there is
at least one firm practical reason for the popularity of cycling in
Cambridge.

EFR
Ile de France