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

[Jim Higson]

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/radiowales/sites/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

 

[Don Whybrow]

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/radiowales/sites/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.

 

[burtthebike]

"Jim Higson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>,
burtthebike
[email protected] 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.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:27:41 +0100, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>burtthebike
>[email protected] 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.

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]e 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

 

[Roger Merriman]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]e 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

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:05:37 +0100, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] 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.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:05:37 +0100, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] 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'.


--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
[email protected]e 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?

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:47:22 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>in message <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
>('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:05:37 +0100, Tony Raven
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>[email protected] 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.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:47:22 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> 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'.

www.diabeticretinopathy.org.uk/birmingham/Cyclingcities.htm

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]e 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

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> 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

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> 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

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:30:27 +0100, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] 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).

One counter example doesn't disprove any hypothesis.

I have never visited Tokyo, but from my visits to Beijing, albeit the
latest being 10 years ago (Di died while I was there), I saw a very
extensive segregated cycle network.

Shanghai, which I visit annually, also has an extensive segregated
cycle network, with a great many roads one way only for motor traffic
and the other way only for cycle traffic.

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote

[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.

but what do you consider "properly designed". You are a Londoner, I
think. Do you consider the "London Cycling Design Standards" (LCDS)
sufficient to produce a "properly designed facility? I note, for
example

- the "design speed" for London's bike paths is only half that
specified for Dutch or American bike paths (Actually, the Americans
believe that cyclists need an even higher design speed on downhills
than on the level)

- London doesn't seem to have twigged that bikes lean over when
going round a curve

- the separation from cars shown as needed in the LCDS is only about
a third the amount shown in the Highway Code.

The LCDS is, presumably, written by the cream of London's bicycle
traffic engineers. The only reason it is needed is that the actual
designers know even less.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]e says...
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:30:27 +0100, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] 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).
>
> One counter example doesn't disprove any hypothesis.
>

Yes it can. A hypothesis can never be proved but it can be disproved by
a single data point. But in population statistics like this there are
too many other variables to worry about to be able to tell from that
sort of comparison anyway.

What you can do though is a longitudinal study in one location where,
over a period short enough for other variables not to vary
significantly, the impact of a change in one variable can be assessed.
As I noted this has been done in both Germany and the Netherlands with a
substantial increase in cycle facilities over a relatively short time
and the effect on levels of cycling was zip. The cost in the
Netherlands was $1Bn.

In Dublin the construction of a 200 mile "strategic cycle network" was
accompanies by a 15% fall in the numbers cycling. A study of 8 UK towns
and cities found no evidence of increased cycling from the construction
of cycle facilities. Denmark built a massive cycling infrastructure but
cycling levels have stubbornly refused to rise.

Need I go on?

> I have never visited Tokyo, but from my visits to Beijing, albeit the
> latest being 10 years ago (Di died while I was there), I saw a very
> extensive segregated cycle network.
>

With cycling a tiny fraction of what it was when I was first there in
'82.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:22:32 +0100, "Jeremy Parker"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>[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.
>
>but what do you consider "properly designed". You are a Londoner, I
>think. Do you consider the "London Cycling Design Standards" (LCDS)
>sufficient to produce a "properly designed facility? I note, for
>example
>
>- the "design speed" for London's bike paths is only half that
>specified for Dutch or American bike paths (Actually, the Americans
>believe that cyclists need an even higher design speed on downhills
>than on the level)
>
>- London doesn't seem to have twigged that bikes lean over when
>going round a curve
>
>- the separation from cars shown as needed in the LCDS is only about
>a third the amount shown in the Highway Code.
>
>The LCDS is, presumably, written by the cream of London's bicycle
>traffic engineers. The only reason it is needed is that the actual
>designers know even less.

I have heard it on very good authority that in London there are four
road design teams, only one of which are good at designing cycle
facilities, and that is why the redesigned Blackfriars' Bridge cycle
path is excellent on one side and **** on the other side.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:46:12 +0100, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:30:27 +0100, Tony Raven
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >[email protected] 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).
>>
>> One counter example doesn't disprove any hypothesis.
>>
>
>Yes it can. A hypothesis can never be proved but it can be disproved by
>a single data point. But in population statistics like this there are
>too many other variables to worry about to be able to tell from that
>sort of comparison anyway.
>
>What you can do though is a longitudinal study in one location where,
>over a period short enough for other variables not to vary
>significantly, the impact of a change in one variable can be assessed.
>As I noted this has been done in both Germany and the Netherlands with a
>substantial increase in cycle facilities over a relatively short time
>and the effect on levels of cycling was zip. The cost in the
>Netherlands was $1Bn.
>
>In Dublin the construction of a 200 mile "strategic cycle network" was
>accompanies by a 15% fall in the numbers cycling. A study of 8 UK towns
>and cities found no evidence of increased cycling from the construction
>of cycle facilities. Denmark built a massive cycling infrastructure but
>cycling levels have stubbornly refused to rise.
>
>Need I go on?

So what would be your method to increase the numbers of utility
cyclists? At first glance Cycling England seem to be putting forward
a very decent proposal:

Of a £70m pa proposed budget -
17% on child cyclist training
14% on school champions
14% on school cycle links
7% on recreation and sport programmes
14% on a major showcase city (Birmingham?)
14% on 16 showcase towns
19% support, training and admin

>> I have never visited Tokyo, but from my visits to Beijing, albeit the
>> latest being 10 years ago (Di died while I was there), I saw a very
>> extensive segregated cycle network.
>>
>
>With cycling a tiny fraction of what it was when I was first there in
>'82.

Is that as a result of a growing segregated cycle network or due to
growing affluence and private wealth?

Beijing remains a major cycling city.