The joys of Cambridge



In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>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.

Though that presumably also makes driving in London less unpleasant than
it used to be for those who do choose to pay the charge.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>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.

Though that presumably also makes driving in London less unpleasant than
it used to be for those who do choose to pay the charge.
 
This is spot on in my opinion especially motoring law.

Certainly in Holland and Germany if a vehicle collides with a
pedestrian/cyclist and the police appear the driver knows there is a high
risk of jail which is going to be a major inconvenience to him-hence
care-generally being the norm.
Tam

> 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
>
 
This is spot on in my opinion especially motoring law.

Certainly in Holland and Germany if a vehicle collides with a
pedestrian/cyclist and the police appear the driver knows there is a high
risk of jail which is going to be a major inconvenience to him-hence
care-generally being the norm.
Tam

> 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
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Though that presumably also makes driving in London less unpleasant than
> it used to be for those who do choose to pay the charge.
>

There is no charge if you drive an electric or hybrid vehicle.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Though that presumably also makes driving in London less unpleasant than
> it used to be for those who do choose to pay the charge.
>

There is no charge if you drive an electric or hybrid vehicle.

--
Tony

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

> [email protected] says...

>>Though that presumably also makes driving in London less unpleasant than
>>it used to be for those who do choose to pay the charge.

> There is no charge if you drive an electric or hybrid vehicle.

And soon, AIUI, there will be no charge for one of this household's
two non-electric and non-hybrid vehicles, though there will still be a
charge for the other one.

Presumably, one of them causes more congestion than the other, despite
its being only a few centimetres longer (and actually doing quite a
few more mpg).

It's a funny old world, isn't it?
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> [email protected] says...

>>Though that presumably also makes driving in London less unpleasant than
>>it used to be for those who do choose to pay the charge.

> There is no charge if you drive an electric or hybrid vehicle.

And soon, AIUI, there will be no charge for one of this household's
two non-electric and non-hybrid vehicles, though there will still be a
charge for the other one.

Presumably, one of them causes more congestion than the other, despite
its being only a few centimetres longer (and actually doing quite a
few more mpg).

It's a funny old world, isn't it?
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
[email protected]lid says...

> 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.
>
Both get a similar response from me. If someone's actions endanger me I
tend to turn the threat around - what difference does it make whether
it's stupidity or malice that puts me in a hospital bed or a box?
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
[email protected]lid says...

> 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.
>
Both get a similar response from me. If someone's actions endanger me I
tend to turn the threat around - what difference does it make whether
it's stupidity or malice that puts me in a hospital bed or a box?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
> [email protected]lid says...
>
> > 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.
> >
> Both get a similar response from me. If someone's actions endanger me I
> tend to turn the threat around - what difference does it make whether
> it's stupidity or malice that puts me in a hospital bed or a box?
>

From you maybe although if its stoopidity I try to take the educational
and Cyclecraft approach and which is somewhat a waste of time against
malevolence where I take the self preservation and get out of the firing
line approach.

Otherwise though its the difference between educational programmes to
make the stoopid less stoopid and law enforcement to remove the
malevolent from the roads.

YMMV

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
> [email protected]lid says...
>
> > 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.
> >
> Both get a similar response from me. If someone's actions endanger me I
> tend to turn the threat around - what difference does it make whether
> it's stupidity or malice that puts me in a hospital bed or a box?
>

From you maybe although if its stoopidity I try to take the educational
and Cyclecraft approach and which is somewhat a waste of time against
malevolence where I take the self preservation and get out of the firing
line approach.

Otherwise though its the difference between educational programmes to
make the stoopid less stoopid and law enforcement to remove the
malevolent from the roads.

YMMV

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
 
tam wrote:
> This is spot on in my opinion especially motoring law.
>
> Certainly in Holland and Germany if a vehicle collides with a
> pedestrian/cyclist and the police appear the driver knows there is a
> high risk of jail which is going to be a major inconvenience to
> him-hence care-generally being the norm.
> Tam
>
>> 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

( Isn't top-posting annoying ? )

I don't "buy" the law and jail argument. Yes, the law is there (presumed
liability), but given that most drivers do not expect to have an accident,
and are not acting maliciously (or the death rates would be sky-high), I put
most accidents down to ignorance/incompetance/inattention.

So, why are safety margins greater in Germany and Holland ? I would
suggest its tied to the higher rates of cycling; everyone knows someone who
does it (be it granny or fast-rising-young-executive), so they are much more
aware of the issues from the other side. Cycles are seen as "ordinary local
transport for all", and not as either "transport of the poor plebs who can't
afford a car" or "sports/recreation obstructing me on way to work".
Campaigns have existed for years on giving cyclists/pedestrians room and on
their priority.

Culture might have something to do with it; they appear to be countries
where a policy is decided and people go along with the democratic decision.
The UK is more individualistic, so a policy might have been decided, but
people still spend years/decades trying to reverse it rather than make the
policy work (everything from building nuclear power stations, wind farms,
by-passes, hunting....).




- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
 
tam wrote:
> This is spot on in my opinion especially motoring law.
>
> Certainly in Holland and Germany if a vehicle collides with a
> pedestrian/cyclist and the police appear the driver knows there is a
> high risk of jail which is going to be a major inconvenience to
> him-hence care-generally being the norm.
> Tam
>
>> 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

( Isn't top-posting annoying ? )

I don't "buy" the law and jail argument. Yes, the law is there (presumed
liability), but given that most drivers do not expect to have an accident,
and are not acting maliciously (or the death rates would be sky-high), I put
most accidents down to ignorance/incompetance/inattention.

So, why are safety margins greater in Germany and Holland ? I would
suggest its tied to the higher rates of cycling; everyone knows someone who
does it (be it granny or fast-rising-young-executive), so they are much more
aware of the issues from the other side. Cycles are seen as "ordinary local
transport for all", and not as either "transport of the poor plebs who can't
afford a car" or "sports/recreation obstructing me on way to work".
Campaigns have existed for years on giving cyclists/pedestrians room and on
their priority.

Culture might have something to do with it; they appear to be countries
where a policy is decided and people go along with the democratic decision.
The UK is more individualistic, so a policy might have been decided, but
people still spend years/decades trying to reverse it rather than make the
policy work (everything from building nuclear power stations, wind farms,
by-passes, hunting....).




- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> 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


You've missed the bit which I think is missed completely in the UK - overall
approach (P16) with two key targets - raising rates and reducing accidents.
Those are achieved by a coordinated range of measures; just painting a few
lanes here and there doesn't work.

"
The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany all have official

National Bicycling Master Plans .... Each of these plans sets forth the

overall goal of raising levels of cycling for daily travel while improving
cycling safety. They

also propose various strategies to achieve these dual goals: better design
of lanes, paths, and

intersections; more and better bike parking; coordination with public
transport; and cycling

safety and promotion campaigns


"



--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> 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


You've missed the bit which I think is missed completely in the UK - overall
approach (P16) with two key targets - raising rates and reducing accidents.
Those are achieved by a coordinated range of measures; just painting a few
lanes here and there doesn't work.

"
The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany all have official

National Bicycling Master Plans .... Each of these plans sets forth the

overall goal of raising levels of cycling for daily travel while improving
cycling safety. They

also propose various strategies to achieve these dual goals: better design
of lanes, paths, and

intersections; more and better bike parking; coordination with public
transport; and cycling

safety and promotion campaigns


"



--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> Though that presumably also makes driving in London less unpleasant than
>> it used to be for those who do choose to pay the charge.
>
>There is no charge if you drive an electric or hybrid vehicle.

But unless you already had one, that involves spending a lot more money
than a bicycle does.
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> "
> The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany all have official
> National Bicycling Master Plans .... Each of these plans sets forth the
> overall goal of raising levels of cycling for daily travel while improving
> cycling safety. They
> also propose various strategies to achieve these dual goals: better design
> of lanes, paths, and
> intersections; more and better bike parking; coordination with public
> transport; and cycling
> safety and promotion campaigns
>

Is that any different from the UK though? We have a National Cycling
Strategy that was published in 1996 and reviewed in 2005 which "set a
headline target to quadruple cycle trips by 2012 and a number of
subsidiary targets concerning related issues such as land-use planning,
safety and security."

And like the Netherlands the Government sets overall strategy and looks
after the trunk roads while the local governments look after the local
implementation.

What we seem to lack is the will to do anything about it other than the
cheapest lip service.

I would also question his characterisation of the plan. For example the
Dutch Cycle Balance audit does not measure cycle lanes, paths and
intersections at all. It does measure cycle parking.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] says...
> >>
> >> Though that presumably also makes driving in London less unpleasant than
> >> it used to be for those who do choose to pay the charge.
> >
> >There is no charge if you drive an electric or hybrid vehicle.
>
> But unless you already had one, that involves spending a lot more money
> than a bicycle does.
>

True but if you want/need to drive in London, £8 a day times 220 working
days savings would buy you an electric car over four years and you get
the extra savings of free parking too.

However **** Londinii seems to be inseparably wedded to cars that cost
them lots of money.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
 
in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
('[email protected]') wrote:

> 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.

Tony, mate, you haven't.

I repeat that I am personally persuaded that cycle facilities are on the
whole a bad idea, and usually a very bad idea. The argument here, however,
is not whether or not they're safe, but whether or not they encourage
cycling. Again, from my own experience I don't believe they do - the urban
cycle facilities with which I am familiar are almost entirely unused.

But the specific example you quoted of Dublin does not support this. Cycle
use was declining and continued to decline. The rate of decline reduced.
Probably the rate of decline would have reduced anyway, but there's no
evidence whatever that the construction of this network caused or
contributed to the reduction in cycling.

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

;; All in all you're just another hick in the mall
-- Drink C'lloid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
the joys of a recumbent
Replies
7
Views
469
UK and Europe
Peter Clinch
P
A
The joys of night-riding - it's not the beer talking
Replies
28
Views
760
UK and Europe
sam
S
D
The joys of off-road, parts 1 & 2
Replies
3
Views
485
UK and Europe
njf>badger
N
A
The joys of tweaks
Replies
2
Views
430
UK and Europe
Peter B
P
P
Rules of the ride. Traps of the trip. Bits of the bike. Joys of the journey
Replies
4
Views
470
UK and Europe
Congokid
C
Top Bottom Back