"David Arditti" <
[email protected]> wrote
[snip]
> So the British just happen to be the laziest nation
> in Europe,
hence low
> cycling levels? I doubt it. I would have thought it
> was pretty
generally
> accepted that the reason more people do not cycle is the
environment.
The interesting thing about Britain is how variable the
amount of cycling is. It ranges from Cambridge, with a
higher proportion of cyclists than Amsterdam [ref EU
"Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities" 1999] down to
places in Wales and Scotland where its pretty neglegible.
The biggest deterent to cycling seems to be hills. This is
complicated by the fact that hilly places tend to be rainy
places, but it does seem to be the hills that do it This
correlates with experience in other countries. The Danes
reckon a 50 m hill halves cycling, and the one hilly part of
the nethrelands, down by Maastricht also does not have so
much cycling.
> 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. 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.
There's some interesting research about what it would take
to acheive the (then) British target of doubling cycling.
Building door to door bike paths for everybody wouldn't,
apparently, but paying people £3 per trip would, instantly [
go to www.regard.ac.uk and search for "cycling and urban
mode 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.
> >> 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.
I suppose it depends on how you measure "effective" - you
wouldn't want a circular definition. I would rate the top
few effective bike networks as
1. Stevenage
2. Harlow
3. Milton Keynes
4. Peterborough
I don't think they confirm the theory that effective
networks increase cycling.
> >
> > Evidence? Edinburgh spent large sums and the number of
> > utility cyclists apparently dropped.
> The evidence is very clear. The OECD international study
> published
in 1998
> "Safety of Vulnerable Road Users" (doc. no
DSTI/DOT/RTR/RS7(98)1/FINAL)
> shows how the age and gender profiles of cyclists vary
> from country
to
> country. This evidence was summarised in my & Paul
> Gannon's article
in the
> October 2002 London Cyclist. It shows how those developed
countries with
> high cycling levels, which are universally those with
well-developed cycle
> networks, all have an almost equal distribution of men and
> women on
bikes
> and a smooth linear decline of cycling with increasing
> age. Those
places
> with low cycling levels (like the UK) have a very large
> imbalance
between
> men and women cycling and fewer children and old people
> cycling. It
becomes
> obvious
Not to me, it doesn't.
There are many possible resons for this, of which I
quoted half a dozen or so when David and Paul first wrote
their article.
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, and 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).
I'm 62. What do plan to do for me?
>
> What I am advocating primarily are urban on-road but
> segregated
cycle tracks
> on the Dutch pattern.
What the Dutch say about this idea is, "Evaluations,
however, showed that although a good infrastructure for
bicycle traffic is a basic condition, it hardly leads on its
own to an increase in cycle use." see McClintock, "Planning
for Cycling" 2002, p197, the article by Ton Welleman of the
Dutch Cycling Council
There are none of these in Edinburgh (so far as I am
> aware)
Edinburgh has several disused railway paths within the city
> ....and few in the UK, so discussions of UK cities
> (including
Stevenage &
> Milton Keynes) are of limited relevance to my argument.
I don't follow this. We shouldn't look at Stevenage and
Milton Keyes because they are different from other places?
Is David saying that Stevenage and MK are so good that we
couldn't acheive similar results elswhere?
Surely the important point about these cities are that they
are the best networks acheivable. If a solution doesn't work
there, it won't work anywhere. It is surely true that no
matter how much money is spent in London's Camden or Edgware
the resulting bike networks are bound to be ***vastly***
inferior to those of Stevenage or Milton Keynes
> >There is a long-term high user base in these countries.
> No, usage in 1950 was similar in the UK. The
> divergence has
occurred since
> then and corresponded to a divergence in planning policy.
Not true. Usage varies greatly now in the UK, and always
did. Cambridge beats Amsterdam now, and may well always have
done. There is little Cycling in Cardiff now, and there
probably always was little. I first saw the bike paths of
Denmark and the Netherlands in the 1940s, more than half a
century ago. Denmark and the Netherlands were already
renowned as cycling countries then. It was generally agreed
that they had lots of bike paths because they had lots of
bikes, and that they had lots of bikes because they were
flat. The evidence still points to that.
In other places,
> some Italian towns and cities particularly, in recent
> years a high
level of
> usage has been built up through appropriate planning
> measures where
there
> was not a high level of cycling before.
Turning "appropriate planning measures" back from newspeak
into plain English. I think David is saying that they made
use of competing modes difficult to impossible.
> >
> >
> >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.
I continually go to meetings of cycling officers where the
principle subject is to bemoan the inability of the
bureaucracy to spend the money they have, although, to their
great pride and astonishment, they did manage it this year.
As for engineering, and expertise, I imagine London gets the
pick of what is available (although they don't employ me,
thank goodness) Aren't the results wonderful.
> The knowledge exists, and we should be using it.
To do that requires project managers who can distinguish
knowledge from nonsense.
>
> 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.
That seems to be a common view among those who advocate and
design facilities.
>
> >I will agree that we need leisure routes too, eg. along
> >the Thames
and
> >the Waterlink Way etc. in London, which will probably get
> >used by beginning commuters. But there's no way people in
> >(say) SE London will commute up to
the West
> >End if they cannot use the Old Kent Road.
>
> 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).
Not true. Cycle tracks are not roads.
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.
That's probably a definition of "well done", and a fairly
good one too. If a substantial group - any substantial
group - of cyclists complain about a cycle facility then it
is not well done. Some cycle facilities mange to harm even
those cyclists who don't use them. That perhaps is the
ultimate in badness.
>
> 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. 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. 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.
>
> 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). This is because people like John and I will
> always be a
small
> minority. Most people only want to cycle a couple of
> miles. I agree
that we
> should not do anything that gets unnecessarily in
> the way...
I don't like that word "unnecessarily". It seems to imply
that David knows that his vision must, necessarily must, do
things that necessarily get in the way.
of those who do
> want to cycle further and faster, and I believe good
> design would
not do
> that.
>
> David Arditti
