David Arditti wrote:
>> The major deterrent to more cycling is laziness. Bulding
>> new roads spreads out the congestion; building cycle
>> paths does not amke people less lazy.
> So the British just happen to be the laziest nation in
> Europe, hence low cycling levels? I doubt it.
How else would you explain people who live less than 15
minutes' ride from an office but choose to spend 25 minutes
driving it instead?
> I would have thought it was pretty generally accepted that
> the reason more people do not cycle is the environment.
That's one of the excuses. Remove that and it becomes the
hills. Or the weather. Or the lack of changing facilities
at the office. Or they ran outta gas. Had a flat tyre.
Didn't have enough money for cab fare. Their tux didn't
come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from
outta town. Someone stole their bike. There was an
earthquake, a terrible flood, locusts. It isn't their
fault, they swear to God!
> Virtually every household has a bike but few people cycle
> regularly. Many British people on holiday cycle in
> continental cities when they would not dream of cycling at
> home. If we created the right environment in British
> cities we would get high levels of cycling.
It's conceivable but not terribly likely; I have lived in
places which are quite bike-friendly and people still drive.
> A part of that is to create the motor traffic-free cycle
> routes that most people who don't currently cycle say are
> what it would take to get them cycling.
But you can't have a traffic free route door to door. All
you do by trying is put off the inevitable: at some point
cyclists have to take to the roads. So my view of good cycle
provision is roads which don't leave you feeling squeezed
out and marginalised, so that you can just ride from A to B
and not plan your journey around somebody else's vision of
which way you would like to go (which is generally around
the houses in the little bits of land left over after the
cars have had first, second and third choice).
> You might say they are lying - that they are just lazy,
> and wouldn't cycle anyway. But evidence of the few places
> in the UK where it has been well-done suggests to me this
> is wrong.
Cycling levels in these places still doesn't get anywhere
close to bike ownership levels.
I don't think we'll be winning until riding half a mile to
the shops becomes the norm instead of a Big Deal, showing
your fgreen credentials so you can brag to your mates when
you drive to the pub later in your 4x4.
>>> Effective networks of cycle tracks encourage a much
>>> larger section of the population to cycle than we
>>> generally see on two wheels in the UK.
They certainly encourage leisure cycling. But I am not
convinced that leads to utility cycling in any great
numbers.
> becomes obvious studying this that the only way we can
> substantially increase cycling in the UK is to increase
> the uptake in the under-represented groups: women,
> children and older people
I have no problem with that aspiration.
> therefore we have to address their concerns about the
> safety and pleasantness of the cycling environment, rather
> than make policy for the group who already cycle here (the
> young men between ages 20 and
> 30).
A good start would be to ban BeHIT's strident propaganda
telling everyone how dangerous cycling is in order to
persuade them to wear a plastic hat, of course. I think
there is a significant mismatch between the perception and
the reality where cyclist safety is concerned, and
addressing this is probably cheaper and more expedient than
building large-scale segregated cycle provision.
> What I am advocating primarily are urban on-road but
> segregated cycle tracks on the Dutch pattern. There are
> none of these in Edinburgh (so far as I am aware) and few
> in the UK, so discussions of UK cities (including
> Stevenage & Milton Keynes) are of limited relevance to my
> argument.
Where will you put them? Hooke wanted to widen and
straighten London's streets back in 1667 but was prevented
by vested interests. What has changed in the last few
centuries to make it practical to start laying down
substantial networks of additional tarmac?
>> My friend Arnold is Dutch and rides 15 miles per day in
>> the UK; his view is that the cycle paths here are a
>> disaster because we lack the Dutch laws of presumed
>> fault, and we lack Dutch levels of cycling so the drivers
>> for the most part aren't properly aware of cyclists, and
>> we lack Dutch planners who know how to deal with
>> junctions fractionally better than we do, and we lack the
>> Dutch commitment to putting bikes first.
> He is right that there are various elements to it. There
> are attitudinal changes needed that take a long time. But
> it is possible to get the details of the engineering right
> with the right expertise and sufficient money immediately.
> The knowledge exists, and we should be using it.
I don't discount the possibility, but I can't help feeling
that the same result could be achieved a lot cheaper by
simply refining key parts of the existing road network to be
less hostile to cyclists. For example, replacing key
roundabouts with light-controlled junctions.
> John Hearns wrote:
>> Speed limits don't apply to bicycles
> Well perhaps they should, but actually, I don't think
> speed as such is a big issue.
It is to me, in as much as I don't want to reduce my speed
by 1/3 to fit in with the cycle provision. Which is why I
don't use the psychlepaths on the way to work.
> I don't advocate preventing cyclists from using any route
> they want (and in Holland they are allowed to use all
> roads other than those of motorway standard, just like
> here, and they do). But also, I don't accept the equation
> between cycle tracks or paths and "leisure use", or indeed
> "beginning commuters". If they are well enough done they
> are "universal use", for leisure and commuting, and
> suitable for all cyclists of almost all levels of
> experience and fitness.
The problem is that they rarely go direct, and rarely permit
of cycling at reasonable speeds. They tend to be narrow
enough that one old boy on a 3-speed Raleigh can bring the
entire route down to walking pace. I haveno problem with the
old boy on the Raleigh getting about - good luck to him -
but I would rather take a more direct, less puncture-prone
route where I can pass slower traffic.
> I regularly cycle a journey of about 13 miles, Edgware to
> the City. I need to do it quite quickly. The quickest way
> in the middle section is to use the largely segregated
> Somers Town cycle route in Camden. I also use some
> sections of segregated track in Islington. These are
> actually beneficial to the faster cyclist since they allow
> one to avoid the congestion and larger number of
> controlled junctions on the main roads, as well as being
> obviously more pleasant to use for beginners.
Sure. There is very limited capacity to add such
provision where I live and work. Better to make the roads
less hostile.
> In the outer-London parts of my journey, where there are
> no cycle facilities at all, I see few other cyclists, and
> they are all fast.
Obviously. Otherwise they would be on the train, else it
would take them all day to get into the City.
> In south Camden, where cycle facilities are present, the
> jump in cycling levels is very striking, and also the
> sudden spread of types of cyclist, fast, slow, young and
> old, male and female.
But is South Camden a destination in itself? The closer you
get to destinations (i.e. concentrations of offices /
retail) the greater the numbers of cyclists, in my
experience.
> My experiences suggest to me that cycling uptake is a
> tremendously localised phenomenon (on a scale of 1-2
> miles) and depends in a very detailed way on the quality
> of the environment (and not much on social factors such as
> race or class).
Quite possibly.
> Most people only want to cycle a couple of miles.
And all in different directions. How many do you need to
share a route before segregated provision becomes viable?
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!
