Demise of commuting cycling



N

Nick Maclaren

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>Nick Maclaren wrote:
>>
>> The evidence for the demise of cycling as a form of commuting into
>> Cambridge (necessarily from outside, as any logician can explain)
>> has not been posted in the past few days, I agree. But I am sure
>> that most people have got rather bored with it.

>
>I can't recall it being posted here. Perhaps you could humour me with a URL?


Well, since you ask:

http://www.very.unfunny.jokes.yuck/

I posted some measurements and other observations of mine, I and other
people posted references to the DfT's report and to various items in
the structure plan and other documents. You will need to use Google
Groups.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> Well, since you ask:
>
> http://www.very.unfunny.jokes.yuck/
>
> I posted some measurements and other observations of mine, I and other
> people posted references to the DfT's report and to various items in
> the structure plan and other documents. You will need to use Google
> Groups.
>


"The problem with Cambridge is that those involved are determined to
deny the evidence."

All I'm asking is what evidence is it that they are denying (and who is
denying it). Is that such a difficult question to answer straight?

Maybe since you crossposted to cam.transport there is a conversation
going on there that I have missed from here in uk.rec.cycling.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
N

Nick Maclaren

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"The problem with Cambridge is that those involved are determined to
>deny the evidence."
>
>All I'm asking is what evidence is it that they are denying (and who is
>denying it). Is that such a difficult question to answer straight?


Not at all. However, it is extremely difficult to answer a question
straight if it hasn't been asked straight!

The evidence is the major reduction in the number of cyclists commuting
into Cambridge, especially medium distances (say, 2-10 miles). This
is associated with a similar reduction in the number riding on the
road. Also that this is NOT primarily due to potential cyclists'
choice, but is a direct result of a de facto policy of discouraging
on-road cycling (to the extent of effectively forcing cyclists off the
road).

Locally, this is being done and denied by the Highways Authority and
cooperated with and denied by the Cambridge Cycling Campaign and
others. That is all on record.

>Maybe since you crossposted to cam.transport there is a conversation
>going on there that I have missed from here in uk.rec.cycling.


No, it was posted to cam.transport and crossposted to uk.rec.cycling!
Evidence has certainly been posted to the latter in the past, but
perhaps not recent past.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Nick Maclaren wrote:

>> All I'm asking is what evidence is it that they are denying (and who is
>> denying it). Is that such a difficult question to answer straight?

>
> Not at all. However, it is extremely difficult to answer a question
> straight if it hasn't been asked straight!
>
> The evidence is the major reduction in the number of cyclists commuting
> into Cambridge, especially medium distances (say, 2-10 miles). This
> is associated with a similar reduction in the number riding on the
> road. Also that this is NOT primarily due to potential cyclists'
> choice, but is a direct result of a de facto policy of discouraging
> on-road cycling (to the extent of effectively forcing cyclists off the
> road).
>
> Locally, this is being done and denied by the Highways Authority and
> cooperated with and denied by the Cambridge Cycling Campaign and
> others. That is all on record.
>


Thank you.

The only evidence I know is the Traffic Monitoring Report which shows it
more or less static over the five years of 2000 - 2004 incl. from medium
distances.
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR...1-4252-BCB5-62E100407723/0/TMR_Chap7_2004.pdf

I'm no fan of cycling farcilities but I've never felt discouraged from
cycling on the road on the approaches to Cambridge. Its more in places
like Milton Road where drivers offer verbal and sometimes other
discouragement IME.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> You clearly don't use the Trumpington routes, then. Cyclists have
> effectively been forced off the road, and many people have given up,
> with intimidation being a major cause. I gave up after being rammed
> several times, but I don't know of anyone else who can be certain of
> deliberate ramming.


I used to road commute the A10 and Trumpington Road daily and never had
a problem. I don't commute that way any more but do still Brompton in
on the road from the Park & Ride and again never had any real problems.
Don't know why your experience is different.

>
> Interestingly, that used to be true when I used the Barton Road, and
> c. 30% of cyclists used the road for some time after the cycle track
> was built, but my observations indicate that it is more like 10% now.
> The track has actually deteriorated in the interim, by the addition
> of one new "give way" junction.
>


Never had time for that track - its too narrow over the M11 so may as
well stay on the road - but then I've never had time for psyclepaths and
farcilities.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
N

Nick Maclaren

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>Nick Maclaren wrote:
>>
>> You clearly don't use the Trumpington routes, then. Cyclists have
>> effectively been forced off the road, and many people have given up,
>> with intimidation being a major cause. I gave up after being rammed
>> several times, but I don't know of anyone else who can be certain of
>> deliberate ramming.

>
>I used to road commute the A10 and Trumpington Road daily and never had
>a problem. I don't commute that way any more but do still Brompton in
>on the road from the Park & Ride and again never had any real problems.


Since the latest rearrangement (a few years back)? That was the
cause of the problem.

> Don't know why your experience is different.


I know why my experience is what it is - I physically CANNOT maintain
20 MPH, or ride / swerve into the gutter without coming off. You can
almost certainly do all of those.

However, my experience is similar to that of many other people I have
spoken to (except that I was rammed, due to the above, not merely
forced off the road), and it is your experience that is unusual.

>Never had time for that track - its too narrow over the M11 so may as
>well stay on the road - but then I've never had time for psyclepaths and
>farcilities.


Nor have I, but the recent changes have made them effectively mandatory
for most cyclists.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> Since the latest rearrangement (a few years back)? That was the
> cause of the problem.
>


Yes

>> Don't know why your experience is different.

>
> I know why my experience is what it is - I physically CANNOT maintain
> 20 MPH, or ride / swerve into the gutter without coming off. You can
> almost certainly do all of those.


Its more like 10-15mph on the Brompton and I've not had to ride/swerve
into the gutter to date - I follow Cyclecraft on road positioning.

>
> Nor have I, but the recent changes have made them effectively mandatory
> for most cyclists.
>


I haven't cycled or driven that way recently so can't comment.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
N

Nick Maclaren

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Its more like 10-15mph on the Brompton and I've not had to ride/swerve
>into the gutter to date - I follow Cyclecraft on road positioning.


Boggle. That is how I used to ride, and it is why I got assaulted.
In fact, my speed was typically a bit higher.

I certainly notice, both when I was cycling and now when driving,
that the cyclists I see positioned according to Cyclecraft are now
almost entirely the racers (i.e. **** over ***, and over 20 MPH).
I often don't see any other single cyclists out of the gutter, er,
cycle lane for weeks. And there are effectively none left who use
the road inwards from Trumpington.

The same applies round the bends between Trumpington and Grantchester,
where I won't overtake cyclists even if they are almost in the hedge.
And I often get blasted for it by other drivers - tough :) I would
prefer that the cyclists would pull out and get a move on, of course,
rather than cowering where the gutter would be if there were one.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On 11 Feb 2006 11:56:54 GMT someone who may be [email protected]
(Nick Maclaren) wrote this:-

>Other than in the congestion zone of London, I know of nowhere that
>has had a significant overall increase. Do you know of anywhere,
>and are there some figures on the phenomenon?


Edinburgh, though things are far from perfect as parts of the
Council are doing their best to undermine the increases.

http://www.spokes.org.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=DownloadsPlus&file=index&req=getit&lid=54

============================================================

Edinburgh is facing the biggest ever threat to the Council’s proud
and highly successful record of promoting cycle use. Your help is
absolutely vital in averting this.

Although the Council has not issued actual figures for increasing
cycle use, it has been clearly stated by Council Transport Executive
person Cllr Andrew Burns and by Cycle Officer Matthew Simpson that
cycle use has at least doubled in recent years. This corresponds to
members’ feelings as to the growing numbers of bikes on the streets.
At the same time (despite recent controversy over casualty figures)
it is now clear that in that period safety has improved
substantially - serious injuries and deaths have remained static (so
the risk per cyclist has probably more than halved), whilst slight
injuries have fallen significantly [Spokesworker 31.10.05].

So the Council is almost certainly on track to meet its own highly
ambitious targets of 10% cycle commuting and 6% of all journeys by
bike by year 2010 - and with reduced casualties. Yet all this has
happened against a background of static or declining cycle use
elsewhere in Britain [apart from London].

Spokesworker 27/11/05 www.spokes.org.uk

============================================================


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
N

Nick Maclaren

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
David Hansen <> wrote:
>
>>Other than in the congestion zone of London, I know of nowhere that
>>has had a significant overall increase. Do you know of anywhere,
>>and are there some figures on the phenomenon?

>
>Edinburgh, though things are far from perfect as parts of the
>Council are doing their best to undermine the increases.


I thought that had to be where, but I didn't realise that it really
had happened.

>Edinburgh is facing the biggest ever threat to the Council's proud
>and highly successful record of promoting cycle use. Your help is
>absolutely vital in averting this.


Unfortunately, in Cmabridge, there is no threat to Cambridgeshire
County Council's proud and highly successful record of discouraging
cycle use on the main roads into, around and even through Cambridge.

>Although the Council has not issued actual figures for increasing
>cycle use, it has been clearly stated by Council Transport Executive
>person Cllr Andrew Burns and by Cycle Officer Matthew Simpson that
>cycle use has at least doubled in recent years. ...


Here, it has remained constant, but with a shift from medium
distance cycling (above 2 miles) to short distance (below that).
There are no official figures on that, of course.

>So the Council is almost certainly on track to meet its own highly
>ambitious targets of 10% cycle commuting and 6% of all journeys by
>bike by year 2010 - and with reduced casualties. Yet all this has
>happened against a background of static or declining cycle use
>elsewhere in Britain [apart from London].


The 2004 figure for cyclists crossing the Cambridge radian cordon
(i.e. entering the city) 3%, and there is some evidence that it is
dropping. It wasn't THAT long ago when it was more like 20%. The
figure of 15% is claimed for trips within the city, but I am not
at all sure how that is measured.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
C

Colin Davidson

Guest
"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> Boggle. That is how I used to ride, and it is why I got assaulted.
> In fact, my speed was typically a bit higher.
>
> I certainly notice, both when I was cycling and now when driving,
> that the cyclists I see positioned according to Cyclecraft are now
> almost entirely the racers (i.e. **** over ***, and over 20 MPH).
> I often don't see any other single cyclists out of the gutter, er,
> cycle lane for weeks. And there are effectively none left who use
> the road inwards from Trumpington.


My cruising speed on a ride over 4 miles is shy of 20mph these days, and I
ride safely (i.e. according to Cyclecraft). That means that the number of
people who come close thoughtlessly is reduced to almost zero, if someone
passes too close then its intentional. I have further reduced that part on
my daily route by having stern words with those who do it when I inevitably
catch them at any of the sets of traffic lights. The last one was a bloke in
a Jaguar on Arbury Road, who accused me of cycling two abreast. How I was
achieving that on my own is something of a mystery.

Interestingly, it isn't any of those I've stopped to talk to who have
assaulted me, either with their vehicles or on foot.

Roads like, say, Milton Road, with naff on pavement shared facilities, and
Gilbert Road, with totally inoperative on road facilities so full of parked
cars that they are a joke, are the ones that give me grief. Ride in a
typical safe place on the road on those roads, because you want to do
anything in the region of 20mph or faster, and you are very likely to have
some idiot take serious risks with your safety. The options you have are to
ride FURTHER into the lane or to ride in the gutter, or just to give up. All
too many people just give up.

> The same applies round the bends between Trumpington and Grantchester,
> where I won't overtake cyclists even if they are almost in the hedge.
> And I often get blasted for it by other drivers - tough :) I would
> prefer that the cyclists would pull out and get a move on, of course,
> rather than cowering where the gutter would be if there were one.


How do we measure the useful start of a road? How far from a kerb, a hedge
or a gutter does the useful width of a road start?
 
C

Colin Davidson

Guest
"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

(cut)
> Isn't it about time that people admitted that the current policies
> for encouraging commuting cyclists are, at best, completely futile?
> And, at worst, the main cause of the decline.

(cut)

Why would they admit that? Whats their motivation for such resounding, self
defeating honesty?
 
A

Ambrose Nankivell

Guest
Tony Raven wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> Nick Maclaren wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem with Cambridge is that those involved are determined to
>>>> deny the evidence.
>>>>
>>> What is the evidence for Cambridge - I've not seen anything
>>> recently.

>>
>> I'm pretty sure Cambridge still exists. I'll be able to verify that
>> through direct observation in a few weeks if you want.
>>

>
> :)


Don't tell him, but it's all an elaborate hoax. They're actually going to be
taking him to Harlow and using cardboard frontages.

--
Ambrose
 
N

Nick Maclaren

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Colin Davidson" <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> How do we measure the useful start of a road? How far from a
|> kerb, a hedge or a gutter does the useful width of a road start?

That one is easy. At the point where the metalling reaches the
construction standards, combined with no obstacles (mobile or
immobile) measured vertically upwards.

In Cambridge, typically 15-30% of the way across a cycle lane.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
J

Jonathan Amery

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>In article <[email protected]>,
>"Colin Davidson" <[email protected]> writes:
>|>
>|> How do we measure the useful start of a road? How far from a
>|> kerb, a hedge or a gutter does the useful width of a road start?
>
>That one is easy. At the point where the metalling reaches the
>construction standards, combined with no obstacles (mobile or
>immobile) measured vertically upwards.
>
>In Cambridge, typically 15-30% of the way across a cycle lane.


A fairly retiring road-position for a single cyclist, then?

--
Jonathan Amery. Earth is the Lord's: it is ours to enjoy it,
##### Ours as his stewards, to farm and defend.
#######__o From its pollution, misuse, and destruction,
#######'/ Good Lord, deliver us, world without end! - F.P. Green
 
R

Richard

Guest
Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Colin Davidson" <[email protected]> writes:
> |>
> |> How do we measure the useful start of a road? How far from a
> |> kerb, a hedge or a gutter does the useful width of a road start?
>
> That one is easy. At the point where the metalling reaches the
> construction standards, combined with no obstacles (mobile or
> immobile) measured vertically upwards.


*cough* *pedant* lampposts' cantilever arm */pendant* */cough*

R.
 
M

Malcolm Gray

Guest
Richard wrote:
> Nick Maclaren wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Colin Davidson" <[email protected]> writes:
>> |> |> How do we measure the useful start of a road? How far from a
>> |> kerb, a hedge or a gutter does the useful width of a road start?
>>
>> That one is easy. At the point where the metalling reaches the
>> construction standards, combined with no obstacles (mobile or
>> immobile) measured vertically upwards.

>
> *cough* *pedant* lampposts' cantilever arm */pendant* */cough*


or trees. "...measured vertically upwards for 8'." ?
 
N

Nick Maclaren

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Malcolm Gray <[email protected]> writes:
|> Richard wrote:
|> > Nick Maclaren wrote:
|> >> In article <[email protected]>,
|> >> "Colin Davidson" <[email protected]> writes:
|> >> |> |> How do we measure the useful start of a road? How far from a
|> >> |> kerb, a hedge or a gutter does the useful width of a road start?
|> >>
|> >> That one is easy. At the point where the metalling reaches the
|> >> construction standards, combined with no obstacles (mobile or
|> >> immobile) measured vertically upwards.
|> >
|> > *cough* *pedant* lampposts' cantilever arm */pendant* */cough*
|>
|> or trees. "...measured vertically upwards for 8'." ?

Mea culpa.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
N

Nick Maclaren

Guest
In article <snn*[email protected]>,
Jonathan Amery <[email protected]> writes:
|> >|>
|> >|> How do we measure the useful start of a road? How far from a
|> >|> kerb, a hedge or a gutter does the useful width of a road start?
|> >
|> >That one is easy. At the point where the metalling reaches the
|> >construction standards, combined with no obstacles (mobile or
|> >immobile) measured vertically upwards.
|> >
|> >In Cambridge, typically 15-30% of the way across a cycle lane.
|>
|> A fairly retiring road-position for a single cyclist, then?

As in the sense of being retired with maximum prejudice, yes.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
C

Colin Davidson

Guest
"Jonathan Amery" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:snn*[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:


> >In Cambridge, typically 15-30% of the way across a cycle lane.

>
> A fairly retiring road-position for a single cyclist, then?


If the cycle lane is 1m wide and 30cm is useless, I'm afraid that I
physically don't fit in the remainder.

Of course, on some bits of cycle lane here in Cambridge (like the bit on
Milton Road coming up to the Arbury Road junction, by the shops) have a busy
parking lane on the left hand side, so you can't always safely use the lane
at all. So the useful width of a cycle lane depends on a lot more than how
much gutter there is.