The joys of Cambridge

[Ekul Namsob]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <1i7b913.jz4ag91g45t3rN%
> [email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > Would it be fair to suggest that many such European cities have already
> > achieved a critical mass of cyclists? As I have mentioned before, I
> > would be much more confident taking my daughter on her trailer-bike
> > around town if there were useful cycling facilities. I am a very
> > confident cyclist but 1% of the motoring public acts in a way that would
> > make me unwilling to take the risk without an outrider.

> So how big do you think the risk really is? Your lack of confidence is
> like a fear of flying. Rationally you are at much greater risk of being
> killed driving to the airport than from your plane crashing (in fact
> more likely to die of natural causes on the plane than from it
> crashing). Cycling is very very safe despite what you might think.

I know cycling is very safe. Unfortunately, 1% of motorists seem to
think that I am stupid for putting my daughter on a trailer. These
individuals then decide to shout abuse at us.

When flying, I don't have idiots to contend with.

cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <hV%[email protected]>, tpsc12248
@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> The Berlin politico s are doing something right.
>
> I just wish it was happening in the UK
>

Well tell you what - you enjoy your cycling on the cycle farcilities in
Berlin and we'll enjoy cycling on the roads in the UK. That seems to be
a solution which suits both of us without inconveniencing either of us.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> If you believe the theory, because they are even less well equipped
> to cope with roads while inexperienced, and will never become cyclists
> at all unless you can lure them onto cycle paths. Or even just that
> so long as they _believe_ they will be safer on paths than roads, they
> won't become cyclists at all unless you can lure them onto cycle paths.
>
> Eventually they will become experienced cyclists, confident on the roads,
> and the initial extra danger it will have all been worthwhile. Apart from
> the ones killed or maimed by the additional dangers of paths, but then
> the "blame it all on inexperience" theory says they'd have been worse
> off on the roads, so it's just a question of whether it's better overall
> that they are encouraged to cycle or to keep driving.
>

That's a big IF and as I said there is no evidence that the theory is
correct and much to the contrary.

Dublin for example has appalling traffic congestion so every incentive
to use a convenient alternative. They built 320km of "strategic cycle
network" in Dublin between 1997 and 2003 and cycling fell 16%. The
Galway Cycle Campaign and many local community groups have now banded
together to campaign against any more such networks.
http://www.geocities.com/galwaycyclist/news6.html#story1

In the UK ten towns were studied for Cycle Routes, Traffic Advisory
Leaflet 03/95 which says "Constructing safe routes did not of itself
encourage those who own cycles - but do not currently us them - to start
cycling."
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/cyclefacilities/cycleroutes

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <1i7brrk.7dp6mt1r3q3b2N%
[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> I know cycling is very safe. Unfortunately, 1% of motorists seem to
> think that I am stupid for putting my daughter on a trailer. These
> individuals then decide to shout abuse at us.

Well its easy to ignore abuse and whatever you think of the 1% they are
clearly not creating much danger or you would see it in the accident
figures.

>
> When flying, I don't have idiots to contend with.
>

90%+ of commercial air accidents are pilot errors.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Martin Dann
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Paul Boyd wrote:
>> tam said the following on 09/11/2007 10:34:
>>
>>> When a survey states that I am safer riding in the street surrounded
>>> by vehicles rather than separated from them then I say hmmmmmmmm-thats
>>> what our political masters love to hear.
>>
>> If you survey most cyclists on this group, the results will be that you
>> *are* safer riding on the streets surrounded by vehicles than riding on
>> many cycle paths. Would that survey do you?
>
> My personnel anecdote is that I feel safer riding on a dual carriage way
> mixing with 50mph and NSL traffic than I do on the shared use lane
> beside the road.

Me too. Indeed, I have just this choice on my commute to work. I confess I
do sometime use the cyclepath because it's about half a mile shorter, but
I usually use the dual carriageway because it's safer.

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

[ This .sig intentionally left blank ]

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> If you believe the theory, because they are even less well equipped
>> to cope with roads while inexperienced, and will never become cyclists
>> at all unless you can lure them onto cycle paths. [...]
>
>That's a big IF and as I said there is no evidence that the theory is
>correct and much to the contrary.

Agreed, but I was proposing an answer to your "then .. why" question
which was about people who do believe. See for example cam.transport
with Colin R explaining that his constituents want even worse than
useless facilities and that since he doesn't understand the problems
he has to pander to them.

 

[Membrane]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dublin for example has appalling traffic congestion so every incentive
>to use a convenient alternative. They built 320km of "strategic cycle
>network" in Dublin between 1997 and 2003 and cycling fell 16%.

As so often when statistics are used, the quotation "He uses statistics
as a drunken man uses lamp-posts - for support rather than
illumination." comes to mind.

To suggest that the one resulted from the other is foolish. There are
many variables that influence people's choice of transport mode. One
example: in Ireland we have been and to some extend still are playing
catch up on car ownership which has been much lower here than in
comparable European countries. Owning a car was/is is a goal people set
themselves. This strongly applies to the period cited.

>The
>Galway Cycle Campaign and many local community groups have now banded
>together to campaign against any more such networks.
>http://www.geocities.com/galwaycyclist/news6.html#story1

Dead link.

The current policy of the pressure group the "Dublin Cycling Campaign"
is to support the construction of (better quality) cycle paths.
http://home.connect.ie/dcc/cycletracks/

--
Membrane

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <1i7brrk.7dp6mt1r3q3b2N%
> [email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > I know cycling is very safe. Unfortunately, 1% of motorists seem to
> > think that I am stupid for putting my daughter on a trailer. These
> > individuals then decide to shout abuse at us.
>
> Well its easy to ignore abuse and whatever you think of the 1% they are
> clearly not creating much danger or you would see it in the accident
> figures.

It is easy for me to ignore abuse. It's not so easy for a four year old
child. What I'm trying to get at is that this country needs to do
something to encourage more people to cycle. At the very least, some
form of campaign that makes not sharing the road as socially
unacceptable as driving under the influence or while using a mobile
phone might help. We would however still need people to feel confident
when starting out on their bikes. There are a lot of people out there
who appear not to have cycled in twenty years or more.

If I, as someone who has cycled on the roads since the age of 10, am
cautious about cycling with my child, how are we going to get others to
cycle?

> > When flying, I don't have idiots to contend with.

> 90%+ of commercial air accidents are pilot errors.

Go on... How many of those errors are malicious?

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

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

> > Eventually they will become experienced cyclists, confident on the roads,
> > and the initial extra danger it will have all been worthwhile. Apart from
> > the ones killed or maimed by the additional dangers of paths, but then
> > the "blame it all on inexperience" theory says they'd have been worse
> > off on the roads, so it's just a question of whether it's better overall
> > that they are encouraged to cycle or to keep driving.

> That's a big IF and as I said there is no evidence that the theory is
> correct and much to the contrary.
>
> Dublin for example has appalling traffic congestion so every incentive
> to use a convenient alternative. They built 320km of "strategic cycle
> network" in Dublin between 1997 and 2003 and cycling fell 16%.

For comparison, by what rate did cycling fall between 1991 and 1997?

> In the UK ten towns were studied for Cycle Routes, Traffic Advisory
> Leaflet 03/95 which says "Constructing safe routes did not of itself
> encourage those who own cycles - but do not currently us them - to start
> cycling."
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/cyclefacilities/cycleroutes

The words "of itself" could mean a lot.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]lid says...
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Dublin for example has appalling traffic congestion so every incentive
> >to use a convenient alternative. They built 320km of "strategic cycle
> >network" in Dublin between 1997 and 2003 and cycling fell 16%.
>
> As so often when statistics are used, the quotation "He uses statistics
> as a drunken man uses lamp-posts - for support rather than
> illumination." comes to mind.
>
> To suggest that the one resulted from the other is foolish. There are
> many variables that influence people's choice of transport mode. One
> example: in Ireland we have been and to some extend still are playing
> catch up on car ownership which has been much lower here than in
> comparable European countries. Owning a car was/is is a goal people set
> themselves. This strongly applies to the period cited.

Ah the "I don't agree; let's rubbish the statistics" gambit. An even
more common abuse of statistics than the one you quote. Dublin was just
an example (Hint: that's what "for example" means).

But when you pile up the evidence on the failure of cycle facilities to
increase cycling - Dublin, the English ten towns study, the Dutch,
Danish and German experience you come to the unavoidable conclusion that
there is a common feature of cycle facilities everywhere that they fail
to demonstrate either an increase in cyclist safety or any significant
effect on cyclist numbers. At £700k/km to install they have to do
better than that. Which is perhaps why the Dutch Cycle Balance audit of
Dutch towns and cities ignores the presence of all cycle facilities
other than cycle parking in their assessments. And why the Swiss, who
have probably the best cycle facilities in the Europe, are starting to
remove theirs in cities in favour of on road integration.

>
> >The
> >Galway Cycle Campaign and many local community groups have now banded
> >together to campaign against any more such networks.
> >http://www.geocities.com/galwaycyclist/news6.html#story1
>
> Dead link.

Works for me (last night and just)

>
> The current policy of the pressure group the "Dublin Cycling Campaign"
> is to support the construction of (better quality) cycle paths.
> http://home.connect.ie/dcc/cycletracks/
>

Yes, the standard response to pointing out the problem is always "they
didn't build it properly; if they built a proper one it would be safer
and more people would start cycling". And yet I have yet to see someone
point me to a "properly built" cycle path and show me the statistics
that show that it is better. So far Milton Keynes, Stevenage, Dublin,
the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, the Nordic Countries..... have all
failed to produce a "properly designed" cycle facility that increases
cyclist safety. When you get that situation it is reasonable to ask
whether there is a pattern and common factor emerging. If you can show
me such a facility please do but even the latest and best cycle paths
and tracks built in Copenhagen have decreased cycle safety without
producing any significant increase in cycling.

My battles with the cycle facility addicts in London and Cambridge are
always filled with the "they didn't build it properly" excuses along
with the addicts expectation that "next time it will be different"

As with all addicts you should tell them to "Just say No"

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <1i7csff.1hwmeng1o4hk1kN%
[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Well its easy to ignore abuse and whatever you think of the 1% they are
> > clearly not creating much danger or you would see it in the accident
> > figures.
>
> It is easy for me to ignore abuse. It's not so easy for a four year old
> child.

Come on, its easy to develop that ability in children by setting the
example yourself. We even have a traditional childhood chant for it
"Stick and stones...etc"

> What I'm trying to get at is that this country needs to do
> something to encourage more people to cycle.

Agreed but tackle it at the source with driving behaviour not by
rewarding those drivers by segregating cyclists out of their way.
Building cycle facilities is like trying to encourage more women to feel
safe and go out at night by giving them chastity belts and women only
areas of the city rather than dealing with the real problem.

>
> If I, as someone who has cycled on the roads since the age of 10, am
> cautious about cycling with my child, how are we going to get others to
> cycle?
>
> > > When flying, I don't have idiots to contend with.
>
> > 90%+ of commercial air accidents are pilot errors.
>
> Go on... How many of those errors are malicious?
>

How many motorists are truly malicious rather than not thinking or
making a stoopid mistake. But since you ask more than you might think.
Egypt Air is the best known example of a malicious pilot but the number
of civilian passenger aircraft accidents based on malicious acts is
pretty significant as we all know - it is after all why you have to
stand in long lines for security at airports and not take any liquids
through with you.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message
<1i7csx3.118o3bv1eprzwfN%[email protected]>, Ekul
Namsob ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>
>> > Eventually they will become experienced cyclists, confident on the
>> > roads, and the initial extra danger it will have all been worthwhile.
>> > Apart from the ones killed or maimed by the additional dangers of
>> > paths, but then the "blame it all on inexperience" theory says they'd
>> > have been worse off on the roads, so it's just a question of whether
>> > it's better overall that they are encouraged to cycle or to keep
>> > driving.
>
>> That's a big IF and as I said there is no evidence that the theory is
>> correct and much to the contrary.
>>
>> Dublin for example has appalling traffic congestion so every incentive
>> to use a convenient alternative. They built 320km of "strategic cycle
>> network" in Dublin between 1997 and 2003 and cycling fell 16%.
>
> For comparison, by what rate did cycling fall between 1991 and 1997?

Is the right question:

Year Number fall, % fall
6 yrs 6 yrs
1994 5954 -2004 -33.66%
1995 5429 -1858 -34.22%
1996 5467 -1470 -26.89%
1997 5628 -1548 -27.51% (Commencement of cycle network)
1998 4579 -2163 -47.24%
1999 5384 -1290 -23.96%
2000 4464 -1490 -33.38%
2001 5122 -307 -5.99%
2002 4675 -792 -16.94%
2003 4715 -913 -19.36% (320km of cycle network in place)

So it's clear that there was already a sharp downward trend, and that the
rate of decline eased during the period. Whether the decline would have
eased anyway as you came down on the hard core of committed cyclists, who
knows. Whatever, these figures do not show that the cycle network made
things worse; if anything it could be argued that the cycle paths may have
contributed to the slowing in the decline of cyclists.

My own prejudice is against the construction of cycle paths, but these
figures do not support that prejudice.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Copyright (c) Simon Brooke; All rights reserved. Permission is
granted to transfer this message via UUCP or NNTP and to store it
for the purpose of archiving or further transfer. Permission is
explicitly denied to use this message as part of a 'Web Forum', or
to transfer it by HTTP.

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> JNugent wrote:

Don't feed him, Dan. He's a troll, and not even a witty one.

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

;; Good grief, I can remember when England won the Ashes.

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:59:15 +0000, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Year Number fall, % fall
> 6 yrs 6 yrs
> 1994 5954 -2004 -33.66%
> 1995 5429 -1858 -34.22%
> 1996 5467 -1470 -26.89%
> 1997 5628 -1548 -27.51% (Commencement of cycle network)
> 1998 4579 -2163 -47.24%
> 1999 5384 -1290 -23.96%
> 2000 4464 -1490 -33.38%
> 2001 5122 -307 -5.99%
> 2002 4675 -792 -16.94%
> 2003 4715 -913 -19.36% (320km of cycle network in place)

>
> So it's clear that there was already a sharp downward trend, and that the
> rate of decline eased during the period. Whether the decline would have
> eased anyway as you came down on the hard core of committed cyclists, who
> knows.

Or the decline could have been eased more effectively and maybe reversed
by spending the millions of euros on something else - like free
training. But the problem is it is hard to give definite answers one
way or the other on complex problems like this - there are just too many
variables affecting human behaviour.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Adam Lea]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> They built 320km of "strategic cycle
> network" in Dublin between 1997 and 2003 and cycling fell 16%.

Was there any other factor around that time that could also have led to a
drop in cycling? In other words, can we rule out the possibility that
cycling would have dropped more than 16% had they not built the facilities?

 

[Membrane]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>> To suggest that the one resulted from the other is foolish. There are
>> many variables that influence people's choice of transport mode. One
>> example: in Ireland we have been and to some extend still are playing
>> catch up on car ownership which has been much lower here than in
>> comparable European countries. Owning a car was/is is a goal people set
>> themselves. This strongly applies to the period cited.
>
>Ah the "I don't agree; let's rubbish the statistics" gambit.

Straw man argument.

>Dublin was just an example (Hint: that's what "for example" means).

Are you now saying that your example didn't have any relation to the
point you were trying to make?

If not please demonstrate the cause and effect relationship that you
claim exists between construction of cycle paths and reduction in
cycling in Dublin.

If you want to cite other studies, please submit ones that have managed
to single out the relationship between cycle paths and cycling out of
the many variables and their complex interactions that determine cycle
use.

>> >http://www.geocities.com/galwaycyclist/news6.html#story1
>>
>> Dead link.
>
>Works for me (last night and just)

Thanks for checking, have fired off a complaint to my ISP.

>> The current policy of the pressure group the "Dublin Cycling Campaign"
>> is to support the construction of (better quality) cycle paths.
>> http://home.connect.ie/dcc/cycletracks/
>
>Yes, the standard response to pointing out the problem is always "they
>didn't build it properly

I had the feeling that you were citing the Dublin anecdote to suggest
that the lesson had been learned here that cycle paths are to be
discouraged. I linked to the stance of the DCC to illustrate that a
large majority in the most prominent cycling campaign organization here
(consisting exclusively of cyclists) have the opposite stance.

--
Membrane

 

[tam]

As a cyclist who has uses the Scottish roads and continental cycle paths for
the last 15 years I want both.
We can afford it.
I keep coming back to Berlin.
15 years ago only hardcore cyclists and the poor cycled.
Cyclists were invisible culturally.
I was there I saw it in the streets.
Now a large cross section of the population cycles.
I rediscovered cycling as a means of transport in Europe then tried to use
it in Scotland-I have failed.
In Berlin I just do not need a car-even in munus 30 centigrade winter.
In Scotland I must have a car the cycle culture/facilities do not exist.
Economically we can build the cycle structure/culture-as a culture we just
do not value it.
I think obesity will drive the need to do something.
I will not be around to see it but I am sure it will happen.
In the meantime I am fortunate enough to travel and enjoy cycling as mass
transport-not intending to go to China tho-----.
Tam


"Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> They built 320km of "strategic cycle
>> network" in Dublin between 1997 and 2003 and cycling fell 16%.
>
> Was there any other factor around that time that could also have led to a
> drop in cycling? In other words, can we rule out the possibility that
> cycling would have dropped more than 16% had they not built the
> facilities?
>
>

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Is the right question:
>
> Year Number fall, % fall
> 6 yrs 6 yrs
> 1994 5954 -2004 -33.66%
> 1995 5429 -1858 -34.22%
> 1996 5467 -1470 -26.89%
> 1997 5628 -1548 -27.51% (Commencement of cycle network)
> 1998 4579 -2163 -47.24%
> 1999 5384 -1290 -23.96%
> 2000 4464 -1490 -33.38%
> 2001 5122 -307 -5.99%
> 2002 4675 -792 -16.94%
> 2003 4715 -913 -19.36% (320km of cycle network in place)
>
> So it's clear that there was already a sharp downward trend, and that the
> rate of decline eased during the period.

Actually its not clear and the latest figures available for 2004 show a
further 21.1% decline over 2003. If you plot the numbers out and try to
trend fit them or do a six year rolling average it comes out pretty much
a straight line trend across the period. Just pairing numbers six years
apart as you have done is misleading particularly because the year on
year change is quite volatile in recent years.

>
> My own prejudice is against the construction of cycle paths, but these
> figures do not support that prejudice.
>

On their own no but together with the other data it is very difficult to
show that cycle facilities have any effect in encouraging more people to
cycle unless you think the decline above was actually many more regular
cyclists giving up offset by new, never cycled before cyclists being
encouraged to start.

Its a bit like helmets really. The first rule of an intervention is
that the onus should be on those proposing it to show a clear benefit.
With cycle paths you can't do that either in safety or getting more
people to cycle. At £700k/mi for a properly built cycle path I think
there are many other things you can do with the money that have a far
greater and demonstrable impact on cycling such as cycle training and
home zones.


--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <1i7csff.1hwmeng1o4hk1kN%
> [email protected]>,

> > If I, as someone who has cycled on the roads since the age of 10, am
> > cautious about cycling with my child, how are we going to get others to
> > cycle?

<big snippage of many valid points>

> How many motorists are truly malicious rather than not thinking or
> making a stoopid mistake.

I would say about 1%: they are the ones who accelerate past pedestrians
on zebra crossings or shout abuse at cyclists while cutting them up.

cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> At £700k/mi for a properly built cycle path I think
> there are many other things you can do with the money that have a far
> greater and demonstrable impact on cycling such as cycle training and
> home zones.

That must surely be the clincher. Has anyone seen a home zone in this
country? I don't expect to see one in Preston in a hurry: our city
centre pedestrian zone is full of drivers who couldn't give two hoots
about road safety.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>