The joys of Cambridge

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> 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 could say exactly the same of London but cycle lanes and paths have
had nothing to do with it - it was virtually all down to the congestion
charge making it much more pleasant to cycle on the roads. Cycling up
over 83% and accidents down 28% since 2000.

Meanwhile the pinnacle of the achievement of the cycle lane addicts, the
Bloomsbury segregated cycle track, was recently named London's worst
place to cycle by the Evening Standard. Of course the addicts now
counter that the Council didn't build it correctly and if only they
had.....(cont on p93)

--
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]lid says...
> >
> >Ah the "I don't agree; let's rubbish the statistics" gambit.
>
> Straw man argument.

So switching to the "lets rubbish the argument" gambit. Proof by
assertion as well.

>
> >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?

Perhaps if you were to look up what "example" means it might help.

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

I have never claimed that cycle paths cause a reduction in cycling. I
have claimed that there is little evidence they encourage people to
start cycling as has been repeatedly claimed here. Dublin is just one
example of where they have failed to do that. Louisse's study of
Delft's construction of a cycle facilities network is another. He found
"There is more bicycle use in Delft than in other medium-sized towns,
but this was also the case before the introduction of the bicycle route
network. The conclusions in the evaluation study were not very positive:
bicycle use had not increased, neither had the road safety. A route
network of bicycle facilities has, apparently, no added value for
bicycle use or road safety." TRL said essentially the same after their
review of ten English towns. It is very difficult to find anything that
shows a benefit to cycling numbers from building facilities.

>
> 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.

How about you doing what I have consistently asked for and producing
evidence of the main claim of cycle facility proponents that cycle
facilities, despite their safety issues, are worth it because they will
encourage more people to cycle. I have cited plenty of studies where
they have failed to do so. Lets see your evidence that spending
£700k/mi will actually increase cycling. You are supporting making the
intervention and spending the money. Lets see a justification beyond "I
like cycle lanes so lots of other people surely will and will start to
cycle because of them" or "one million lemmings can't be wrong"

--
Tony

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

 

[Martin Dann]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> 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.

I find about 30-50% of motorists will accelerate past peds. on zebra
crossing in Bristol during the rush hour. If traffic is queuing, a
similar amount will pull onto a pelican crossing when the road in front
is blocked, so when the lights change for peds, the crossing is blocked.

This week I had a driver hooting and yelling at me for crossing a zebra
crossing in front of him, when the queue in front would not have given
him room to pull fully off it.

And you don't want to be crossing a side road when someone pulls into
it, well over 10% of drivers assume they have the right of way.

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I find about 30-50% of motorists will accelerate past peds. on zebra
> crossing in Bristol during the rush hour. If traffic is queuing, a
> similar amount will pull onto a pelican crossing when the road in front
> is blocked, so when the lights change for peds, the crossing is blocked.
>
> This week I had a driver hooting and yelling at me for crossing a zebra
> crossing in front of him, when the queue in front would not have given
> him room to pull fully off it.
>
> And you don't want to be crossing a side road when someone pulls into
> it, well over 10% of drivers assume they have the right of way.
>

But are most of those malicious as opposed to not thinking or just plain
ignorant of the correct rules?

--
Tony

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

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
[email protected]lid says...
>
> But are most of those malicious as opposed to not thinking or just plain
> ignorant of the correct rules?
>
Is that relevant? It's a requirement of holding a driving license that
you keep up to date with the Highway Code.

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
> [email protected]lid says...
> >
> > But are most of those malicious as opposed to not thinking or just plain
> > ignorant of the correct rules?
> >
> Is that relevant? It's a requirement of holding a driving license that
> you keep up to date with the Highway Code.
>

It is relevant because if you read back up the thread the claim was that
a lot of it was malevolence rather than unthinking. The responses you
would deploy to deal with the problem would be different for the two.

--
Tony

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

 

[Membrane]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>> If not please demonstrate the cause and effect relationship that you
>> claim exists between construction of cycle paths and reduction in
>> cycling in Dublin.
>
>I have never claimed that cycle paths cause a reduction in cycling. I
>have claimed that there is little evidence they encourage people to
>start cycling as has been repeatedly claimed here. Dublin is just one
>example of where they have failed to do that.

Again: there are many more variables that determine peoples choice of
transport. To further complicate the matter these variables cannot
simply be added up, they interact in complex ways. To claim that no
positive effect has been demonstrated is to claim that a causal
relationship can be determined, this you have failed to demonstrate.

>> 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.
>
>How about you doing what I have consistently asked for and producing
>evidence of the main claim of cycle facility proponents that cycle
>facilities, despite their safety issues, are worth it because they will
>encourage more people to cycle.

Another straw man argument, I have never made such a claim. Back to the
question that the straw man argument was meant to hide: what is the
evidence that a causal relationship between the construction of cycle
facilities and cycling can be established as you claim?

--
Membrane

 

[Membrane]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>> If not please demonstrate the cause and effect relationship that you
>> claim exists between construction of cycle paths and reduction in
>> cycling in Dublin.
>
>I have never claimed that cycle paths cause a reduction in cycling. I
>have claimed that there is little evidence they encourage people to
>start cycling as has been repeatedly claimed here. Dublin is just one
>example of where they have failed to do that.

Again: there are many more variables that determine peoples choice of
transport. To further complicate the matter these variables cannot
simply be added up, they interact in complex ways. To claim that no
positive effect has been demonstrated is to claim that a causal
relationship can be determined, this you have failed to demonstrate.

>> 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.
>
>How about you doing what I have consistently asked for and producing
>evidence of the main claim of cycle facility proponents that cycle
>facilities, despite their safety issues, are worth it because they will
>encourage more people to cycle.

Another straw man argument, I have never made such a claim. Back to the
question that the straw man argument was meant to hide: what is the
evidence that a causal relationship between the construction of cycle
facilities and cycling can be established as you claim?

--
Membrane

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]lid says...
>
> Again: there are many more variables that determine peoples choice of
> transport. To further complicate the matter these variables cannot
> simply be added up, they interact in complex ways. To claim that no
> positive effect has been demonstrated is to claim that a causal
> relationship can be determined, this you have failed to demonstrate.
>

I haven't claimed and don't need to demonstrate a causal relationship.
The proposition being advanced in support of cycle facilities is that
they encourage more people to cycle. I have now given multiple examples
that show the proposition to be false and so far no-one has been able to
advance any evidence to the contrary.

> >> 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.
> >
> >How about you doing what I have consistently asked for and producing
> >evidence of the main claim of cycle facility proponents that cycle
> >facilities, despite their safety issues, are worth it because they will
> >encourage more people to cycle.
>
> Another straw man argument, I have never made such a claim. Back to the
> question that the straw man argument was meant to hide: what is the
> evidence that a causal relationship between the construction of cycle
> facilities and cycling can be established as you claim?
>

Are you a troll because you are starting to look very much like one?

1. I haven't said you made the claim. I asked for evidence, that has
been consistently avoided in this thread, that cycle facilities
encourage cycling.

2. I didn't say that a causal relationship existed. I said that no-one
has been able to show any evidence that cycle facilities encourage
cycling against the wealth of evidence I have presented showing it does
not.

So do you believe that cycle facilities lead to more people cycling? If
no, why are you arguing about it. If yes, where is your evidence to
support it? If you believe without any evidence is that a good basis to
invest the significant sums needed to build them? Time to put up or
shut up.

--
Tony

"I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box
when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it."
- Terry Pratchett

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]lid says...
>
> Again: there are many more variables that determine peoples choice of
> transport. To further complicate the matter these variables cannot
> simply be added up, they interact in complex ways. To claim that no
> positive effect has been demonstrated is to claim that a causal
> relationship can be determined, this you have failed to demonstrate.
>

I haven't claimed and don't need to demonstrate a causal relationship.
The proposition being advanced in support of cycle facilities is that
they encourage more people to cycle. I have now given multiple examples
that show the proposition to be false and so far no-one has been able to
advance any evidence to the contrary.

> >> 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.
> >
> >How about you doing what I have consistently asked for and producing
> >evidence of the main claim of cycle facility proponents that cycle
> >facilities, despite their safety issues, are worth it because they will
> >encourage more people to cycle.
>
> Another straw man argument, I have never made such a claim. Back to the
> question that the straw man argument was meant to hide: what is the
> evidence that a causal relationship between the construction of cycle
> facilities and cycling can be established as you claim?
>

Are you a troll because you are starting to look very much like one?

1. I haven't said you made the claim. I asked for evidence, that has
been consistently avoided in this thread, that cycle facilities
encourage cycling.

2. I didn't say that a causal relationship existed. I said that no-one
has been able to show any evidence that cycle facilities encourage
cycling against the wealth of evidence I have presented showing it does
not.

So do you believe that cycle facilities lead to more people cycling? If
no, why are you arguing about it. If yes, where is your evidence to
support it? If you believe without any evidence is that a good basis to
invest the significant sums needed to build them? Time to put up or
shut up.

--
Tony

"I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box
when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it."
- Terry Pratchett

 

[Martin Dann]

Tony Raven wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
x
>> And you don't want to be crossing a side road when someone pulls into
>> it, well over 10% of drivers assume they have the right of way.
>>
>
> But are most of those malicious as opposed to not thinking or just plain
> ignorant of the correct rules?
>

It is hard to tell, but I suspect a lot if not thinking or ignorance,
but there still seems to be too much "My car is bigger than you" syndrome.

 

[Martin Dann]

Tony Raven wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
x
>> And you don't want to be crossing a side road when someone pulls into
>> it, well over 10% of drivers assume they have the right of way.
>>
>
> But are most of those malicious as opposed to not thinking or just plain
> ignorant of the correct rules?
>

It is hard to tell, but I suspect a lot if not thinking or ignorance,
but there still seems to be too much "My car is bigger than you" syndrome.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>I could say exactly the same of London but cycle lanes and paths have
>had nothing to do with it - it was virtually all down to the congestion
>charge making it much more pleasant to cycle on the roads.

The anecdotal evidence I've seen has been more along the lines of
"with the congestion charge making driving more expensive I gave cycling
a try and found it nothing like as unpleasant as I had feared".
That it's more pleasant to cycle could be an indirect effect of the
increased numbers of cyclists (but could in turn encourage more potential
cyclists as they hear its more pleasant).

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>I could say exactly the same of London but cycle lanes and paths have
>had nothing to do with it - it was virtually all down to the congestion
>charge making it much more pleasant to cycle on the roads.

The anecdotal evidence I've seen has been more along the lines of
"with the congestion charge making driving more expensive I gave cycling
a try and found it nothing like as unpleasant as I had feared".
That it's more pleasant to cycle could be an indirect effect of the
increased numbers of cyclists (but could in turn encourage more potential
cyclists as they hear its more pleasant).

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>The proposition being advanced in support of cycle facilities is that
>they encourage more people to cycle. I have now given multiple examples
>that show the proposition to be false and so far no-one has been able to
>advance any evidence to the contrary.

This looks as if it might be interesting - I've only just seen the link
to the abstract though, haven't looked at the paper:
http://www.recumbentblog.com/archives/2007/11/making_cycling.html
"John Pucher of Rutgers University has just completed a paper titled, Making
Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany
(to be published in the July 2008 issue of Oxford's Transport Reviews)."

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>The proposition being advanced in support of cycle facilities is that
>they encourage more people to cycle. I have now given multiple examples
>that show the proposition to be false and so far no-one has been able to
>advance any evidence to the contrary.

This looks as if it might be interesting - I've only just seen the link
to the abstract though, haven't looked at the paper:
http://www.recumbentblog.com/archives/2007/11/making_cycling.html
"John Pucher of Rutgers University has just completed a paper titled, Making
Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany
(to be published in the July 2008 issue of Oxford's Transport Reviews)."

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> The anecdotal evidence I've seen has been more along the lines of
> "with the congestion charge making driving more expensive I gave cycling
> a try and found it nothing like as unpleasant as I had feared".
> That it's more pleasant to cycle could be an indirect effect of the
> increased numbers of cyclists (but could in turn encourage more potential
> cyclists as they hear its more pleasant).
>

I think there is a strong element of truth in that helped along by the
Tube bombs followed by a period of good weather that got people out and
cycling rather than using public transport. A big part though of the
"more pleasant" was the fewer cars and queues as a result of the
congestion charging. I can cycle a considerable distance across central
London these days and meet very few cars on my journey provided I steer
clear of the usual hot spots like Picadilly Circus.

--
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...
>
> The anecdotal evidence I've seen has been more along the lines of
> "with the congestion charge making driving more expensive I gave cycling
> a try and found it nothing like as unpleasant as I had feared".
> That it's more pleasant to cycle could be an indirect effect of the
> increased numbers of cyclists (but could in turn encourage more potential
> cyclists as they hear its more pleasant).
>

I think there is a strong element of truth in that helped along by the
Tube bombs followed by a period of good weather that got people out and
cycling rather than using public transport. A big part though of the
"more pleasant" was the fewer cars and queues as a result of the
congestion charging. I can cycle a considerable distance across central
London these days and meet very few cars on my journey provided I steer
clear of the usual hot spots like Picadilly Circus.

--
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...
> In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
> >The proposition being advanced in support of cycle facilities is that
> >they encourage more people to cycle. I have now given multiple examples
> >that show the proposition to be false and so far no-one has been able to
> >advance any evidence to the contrary.
>
> This looks as if it might be interesting - I've only just seen the link
> to the abstract though, haven't looked at the paper:
> http://www.recumbentblog.com/archives/2007/11/making_cycling.html
> "John Pucher of Rutgers University has just completed a paper titled, Making
> Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany
> (to be published in the July 2008 issue of Oxford's Transport Reviews)."
>

Its a recast of a lot of stuff he had published before. He makes
assertions that cycle facilities are essential to encouraging cycling
but doesn't back that up with any research evidence. Indeed Figures 6,7
and 11 are very illuminating covering as they do a period from the mid
80's where the Dutch invested a large amount of money in doubling their
cycle facilities network and the UK didn't (Germany trebled theirs).
Yet the trends in their cycling levels and fatalities over the period
since are very similar. Its clear that the difference in current levels
between the two countries was that cycling in the UK plunged much more
rapidly post war and has essentially plateaued since 1970 while the
Dutch decline was much slower and plateaued out at a higher level around
1980.

What he does get right is the many other factors most people miss -
restricted city centres for motor vehicles, priority for bikes and
pedestrians in residential neighbourhoods, residential area design,
traffic calming, bike parking, integration with public transport,
motorist liability laws, training etc

--
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...
> In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
> >The proposition being advanced in support of cycle facilities is that
> >they encourage more people to cycle. I have now given multiple examples
> >that show the proposition to be false and so far no-one has been able to
> >advance any evidence to the contrary.
>
> This looks as if it might be interesting - I've only just seen the link
> to the abstract though, haven't looked at the paper:
> http://www.recumbentblog.com/archives/2007/11/making_cycling.html
> "John Pucher of Rutgers University has just completed a paper titled, Making
> Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany
> (to be published in the July 2008 issue of Oxford's Transport Reviews)."
>

Its a recast of a lot of stuff he had published before. He makes
assertions that cycle facilities are essential to encouraging cycling
but doesn't back that up with any research evidence. Indeed Figures 6,7
and 11 are very illuminating covering as they do a period from the mid
80's where the Dutch invested a large amount of money in doubling their
cycle facilities network and the UK didn't (Germany trebled theirs).
Yet the trends in their cycling levels and fatalities over the period
since are very similar. Its clear that the difference in current levels
between the two countries was that cycling in the UK plunged much more
rapidly post war and has essentially plateaued since 1970 while the
Dutch decline was much slower and plateaued out at a higher level around
1980.

What he does get right is the many other factors most people miss -
restricted city centres for motor vehicles, priority for bikes and
pedestrians in residential neighbourhoods, residential area design,
traffic calming, bike parking, integration with public transport,
motorist liability laws, training etc

--
Tony

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