The joys of Cambridge

[Membrane]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>1. I haven't said you made the claim. I asked for evidence

You asked /me/ to provide evidence, by doing so you are suggesting that
I support the claim.

>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.

Your evidence relies on the causal relationship that you now admit
cannot be established, therefore you have shown exactly nothing.

>So do you believe that cycle facilities lead to more people cycling?

The issue is the value of cycle paths, this includes more than just the
question if they encourage more people to cycle.

IMO cycle paths have pros and cons. Whether on balance they are a
positive or negative depends on a number of variables.

For one cyclists are not a homogeneous group with the same needs, the
needs of a competent racer whizzing along at 40km/h and those of
families out with a couple of kids learning how to cycle can be very
different. For that reason I believe that it is important that the use
of cycle paths should never be mandatory, and that cycling on the road
must remain not only a right, but that policy aims to make cycling on
the road both safe and enjoyable regardless of whether there is a cycle
path on that same stretch or not.

Location introduces a number of other variables. The value of a cycle
path that is constructed on its own for example through a wood is likely
to be different than a path constructed in conjunction with a road. The
number of side roads is another location related variable that
affects the value.

There are quite a few more variables such as traffic speeds, space
available, money available, number of cyclists, distances involved, etc.
etc.

I respect your apparent universal dislike for them. What I object to is
your claim that they are a universally flawed concept, when you have
failed to submit anything more than your opinion of them, not backed up
by fact.

--
Membrane

 

[raisethe]

On 10 Nov, 23:53, Tony Raven <j=>
>
> > 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.
>
>

So the congestion charge is also a polution tax. Out of interest, do
diesel buses have to pay the congestion charge?

 

[JNugent]

raisethe wrote:
> On 10 Nov, 23:53, Tony Raven <j=>
>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>
>
> So the congestion charge is also a polution tax. Out of interest, do
> diesel buses have to pay the congestion charge?

Of course they don't. Neither do taxis or diesel-powered hire cars.

 

[Martin Dann]

Tony Raven wrote:

> 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.

One **** Londinii start using electric/hybrid vehicles en mass, Red Ken
will introduce a congestion charge for these.

 

[Rob Morley]

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

> Once **** Londinii start using electric/hybrid vehicles en mass, Red Ken
> will introduce a congestion charge for these.
>
Don't you mean Blue Boris?

 

[Tony Raven]

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

No it didn't. If you look at it the decline continued at the same rate.
The data presented of pairing figures six years apart just gives you
lots of volatile numbers but do a proper trend fit or a rolling average
over six years and you find there is no slowing of the rate of decline.

Should you wish to inspect it I have charted the data with a six year
and three year rolling average at
http://cycling.raven-family.com/Dublin Cycle Network.htm
and the best fit trend has an average of -3.8% and is changing at a rate
of -0.1% per annum.

Do you still think the rate of decline was 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.



Sorry Simon, your logical subroutines need some realigning. Saying that
there is no evidence that they have a positive effect is not saying
there is evidence of a negative effect. Whichever way you choose to
interpret the Dublin data does not support the proposition that cycle
facilities encourage cycling. Whether they do nothing or discourage
cycling is another debate. Neither does any of the other data support it
and yet the best the farcility addicts can come up with in response is
that it would have done if only they'd built them properly (properly
being the set of cycle farcilities that excludes all the ones that have
been built)

Its good to get back to old times ;-)

--
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...
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >1. I haven't said you made the claim. I asked for evidence
>
> You asked /me/ to provide evidence, by doing so you are suggesting that
> I support the claim.
>

Not at all. But you are arguing that my proposition is false. If you
want to do that, produce some evidence to back your assertion up. The
fact you still fail to do so tells its own story

> >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.
>
> Your evidence relies on the causal relationship that you now admit
> cannot be established, therefore you have shown exactly nothing.

Not at all. I suggest you read up on scientific methods. To prove a
hypothesis is impossible. To disprove it needs but one piece of data.
Since we are dealing epidemiologically one piece is insufficient to rule
out confounding factors but when you start to look at multiple sources
from different countries at different times using different approaches
you quickly rule out most of the confounding factors other than the
Flying Spaghetti Monster.

>
> For one cyclists are not a homogeneous group with the same needs, the
> needs of a competent racer whizzing along at 40km/h and those of
> families out with a couple of kids learning how to cycle can be very
> different. For that reason I believe that it is important that the use
> of cycle paths should never be mandatory, and that cycling on the road
> must remain not only a right, but that policy aims to make cycling on
> the road both safe and enjoyable regardless of whether there is a cycle
> path on that same stretch or not.

But even for your Russell's Teapot group you have no evidence other than
faith that cycle facilities encourage cycling in a family with a couple
of kids learning to cycle. So on what evidence are you proposing that
these facilities are installed for them?

And if you have ever tried to ride on a road with a parallel cycle
facility you will know full well that they absolutely impact on the
competent racer whizzing along at 40km/hr with the motorist behind
trying to go faster while shouting abuse about getting on the cycle path
and sometimes worse.

>
> Location introduces a number of other variables. The value of a cycle
> path that is constructed on its own for example through a wood is likely
> to be different than a path constructed in conjunction with a road. The
> number of side roads is another location related variable that
> affects the value.

I have no problem with cycle routes that offer alternative routes to
where the road network goes. Its the ones that follow the same route
but seek to segregate cyclists I object to.

>
> I respect your apparent universal dislike for them. What I object to is
> your claim that they are a universally flawed concept, when you have
> failed to submit anything more than your opinion of them, not backed up
> by fact.
>

ROFLMAO. You have produced zero evidence to support your opinions and
yet you accuse me, who has produced multiple sources of research and
data to back mine up, of submitting nothing more than opinion. You
truly are a troll. Goodbye.


--
Tony

?The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd.?
Bertrand Russell

 

[Brendan Halpin]

Membrane <[email protected]> writes:

> For that reason I believe that it is important that the use
> of cycle paths should never be mandatory, and that cycling on the road
> must remain not only a right, but that policy aims to make cycling on
> the road both safe and enjoyable regardless of whether there is a cycle
> path on that same stretch or not.

Unfortunately, in Ireland they are mandatory, and there is no right
to ride on the road if a "facility" exists. About 20% (and rising)
of my commute therefore involves me breaking the law. I've spoken
to the county roads engineer about it and he assures me that this
"will never be enforced". He's probably right, but it's not good
enough.

Brendan

--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
mailto:[email protected] http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

 

[Membrane]

Brendan Halpin <[email protected]> wrote:

>> For that reason I believe that it is important that the use
>> of cycle paths should never be mandatory, and that cycling on the road
>> must remain not only a right, but that policy aims to make cycling on
>> the road both safe and enjoyable regardless of whether there is a cycle
>> path on that same stretch or not.
>
>Unfortunately, in Ireland they are mandatory

Some might be, from the 2007 ROTR:
--------------
Cycle tracks

A cycle track or lane is a reserved part of a roadway for bicycles (not
motorcycles) and can be either:
mandatory
non-mandatory

A mandatory cycle track is bordered by a continuous white line on the
right-hand side. It is only for bicycles and motorised wheelchairs, so
no other drivers may use it or park in it.

A non-mandatory cycle track has a broken white line on the right-hand
side. The cyclist may leave this type of cycle track if:
they have already indicated they want to change direction
a bus is letting passengers on or off at a bus stop located beside the
track, or
a vehicle is parked in the track while loading or unloading (see Section
10)

Mandatory cycle tracks are reserved 24 hours a day, unless an upright
information sign at the start of and/or the side of the track shows
another period of time.

A cycle track can also be a reserved part of a footpath or other area
off the road. A cyclist must use a cycle track if it is provided.
--------------

Note the contradiction: the last sentence claims that _all_ cycle tracks
(including ones demarcated with a broken white line) are mandatory.

But the above text from the ROTR has no legal status. The most recent
amendments of the actual laws are:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0273.html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0274.html
Mandatory use is covered by:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a28

--
Membrane

 

[Brendan Halpin]

Membrane <[email protected]> writes:

> Brendan Halpin <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Unfortunately, in Ireland they are mandatory

> Some might be, from the 2007 ROTR:

I'm aware of the legislation, and even the advisory ones are
mandatory to the extent that you can only leave them to avoid
obstacles and to turn.

> http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0274.html

+-------------------------------------------------------------------
|(3) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a pedal cycle must be driven on a
|cycle track where one is provided.
|
|(b) Paragraph (a) shall not apply in the case of a cycle track on
|the right-hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 023 has been
|provided,
|
|(i) where a person driving a pedal cycle intends to change
|direction and has indicated that intention, or
|
|(ii) where a bus is stopped in the cycle track at a point where
|traffic sign RUS 031 (bus stop) is provided, or
|
|(iii) where a vehicle is parked in the cycle track for the purpose
|of loading or unloading.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------

Translation: if the lane/track is bounded by a broken white line
you can leave it to avoid obstacles. Implication: if there's an
obstacle on a continuous-line bounded lane/track you get off and
walk.

The Rules of the Road also state that you "must not" cycle in the
door zone, which means the cities here are full of streets where
you cannot legally cycle either in or outside the cycle lanes.

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
mailto:[email protected] http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

 

[POHB]

On 11 Nov, 12:14, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> raisethe wrote:
> > On 10 Nov, 23:53, Tony Raven <j=>
>
> >>>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.
>
> > So the congestion charge is also a polution tax. Out of interest, do
> > diesel buses have to pay the congestion charge?
>
> Of course they don't. Neither do taxis or diesel-powered hire cars.

There's also a new additional pollution charge coming in Feb, the
London Low Emission Zone: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/lez/default.aspx

 

[Membrane]

Brendan Halpin <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>Unfortunately, in Ireland they are mandatory
>
>> Some might be, from the 2007 ROTR:
>
>I'm aware of the legislation, and even the advisory ones are
>mandatory to the extent that you can only leave them to avoid
>obstacles and to turn.
>
>> http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0274.html
>
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------
>|(3) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a pedal cycle must be driven on a
>|cycle track where one is provided.
>|
>|(b) Paragraph (a) shall not apply in the case of a cycle track on
>|the right-hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 023 has been
>|provided,
>|
>|(i) where a person driving a pedal cycle intends to change
>|direction and has indicated that intention, or
>|
>|(ii) where a bus is stopped in the cycle track at a point where
>|traffic sign RUS 031 (bus stop) is provided, or
>|
>|(iii) where a vehicle is parked in the cycle track for the purpose
>|of loading or unloading.
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Translation: if the lane/track is bounded by a broken white line
>you can leave it to avoid obstacles.

Strictly speaking it doesn't apply to parked vehicles when that vehicle
hasn't been parked for the purpose of loading or unloading. Ridiculous
obviously, how on earth are we to determine that, but that's Irish law
for you.

>Implication: if there's an
>obstacle on a continuous-line bounded lane/track you get off and
>walk.

There is a more general exemption:

""5. (1) These Regulations shall apply save where compliance is not
possible as a result of an obstruction to traffic or pedestrians or
because of an emergency situation confronting a road user which could
not reasonably have been expected or anticipated."

Although I'm not sure if it supersedes the rule you quoted and if it
applies to all cycle paths.

>The Rules of the Road also state that you "must not" cycle in the
>door zone, which means the cities here are full of streets where
>you cannot legally cycle either in or outside the cycle lanes.

Again: the ROTR have no legal status. It is a well intended but deeply
flawed publication that contains many instances of factually incorrect
information. The rule you refer to is an example of that. Only the
actual legislation counts and there is no law that says that you must
obey a "Do allow extra space when overtaking parked vehicles as the
doors may open suddenly." rule (how could it as it doesn't define what
"extra space" means).

For the purpose of arguing with an attempt to enforce mandatory cycle
path use by the Gardai or fighting a court case where an attempt is made
to argue that failure to comply with this rule constitutes contributory
negligence, there might be a loophole. The laws state that for a cycle
path to be legal it "shall" have both the white line /and/ either a blue
sign with a white bicycle on it (RUS 009), or a white sign with a black
bicycle on it with a red border (RUS 009A).

I haven't paid much attention to signage myself, but I'm told that these
signs are often missing.

--
Membrane

 

[John Clayton]

"Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Paul Boyd" <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> tam said the following on 07/11/2007 02:02:
>>
>>> I just cannot get used to the UK agro bike thing.
>>
>> It isn't helped by the steady drip-feeding by the media of anti-cycling
>> articles. If politicians had any real interest in encouraging people out
>> of their cars they would be a little more assertive in dealing with these
>> sorts of problems.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Boyd
>> http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
>
> What can the Government do about the media?
>
Obviousely I'm a cyclist, but even when I'm in a vehicle the aggression and
possible danger does terrify me.
On my bike I find the weight of aggression from motorists really oppressive.
When I/ we encounter traffic free raods (yes we seek them out) it is just
such a relief to escape the noise and the potential danger.
Going to work - as I posted here a while ago I count about 400 motors (all
sorts), perhaps 4 or 5 bikes.
But lately most/ all of those are off the road and on the pavement. As a
really occasional ped. I don't want commuting bikes on my pavement - and at
this rate motorists are never going to learn how to deal with cyclists.
And don't , please don't get me started on our media.
Except perhaps that as a nation with our minds in the gutter, the press we
have reflects just that.
John
www.calder-clarion.co.uk

 

[John Clayton]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> >>
>> 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,
I don't know if your "10%" was a typo but I'd guess at 95% are idiots ,
unaware of HC guidance since at least 1973 about peds. rights.
which naturally they attempt to limit / eliminate.

John

 

[Martin Dann]

John Clayton wrote:
> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> >>
>>> 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,
> I don't know if your "10%" was a typo but I'd guess at 95% are idiots ,
> unaware of HC guidance since at least 1973 about peds. rights.
> which naturally they attempt to limit / eliminate.

Well over 10% is just a guestimate of the time I have to take avoiding
action. (I have not tried counting this).
I am certain though, that when I am on my bike, I give far more
consideration to pedestrians than the average car driver.

Martin.

 

[tam]

>>>> I just cannot get used to the UK agro bike thing.
I was making a point about the real anti cyclist "atmosphere" on the road
when I am out on my recumbent trike.
The attitude of road users in built up environments is positively
medieval-its as if there s a war on for space on the road.
The situation is cetainly not helped by calculated loutishness-I mean to
make loadsamoney-by programs like Top Gear.
As a punter who has built and raced cars for years I have nothing but
contempt for the cultural values displayed by the horsepower fanatics.
Certainly the media has a big part to play in this anti cycle culture I
believe it is calculated - fueled by the powerfull diesel/petrol lobby who
try and squeeze any competition for transport resources.
We have among the highest fuel prices on the planet but people just will not
consider cycling as a viable transport method.
In Berlin my trike is faster point to point than the bus underground train
or car for about a 15 mile range-its a lot faster in the rush hour-sailing
by cars on the cycle path.
Certainly for a commute to Edinburgh in the rush hour its 30 minutes faster
than bus or car.
A lot of that time is saved because you are travelling the moment you hit
the street as against walking to the underground-waiting etc.
Tam

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> >>
> >> 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,
> I don't know if your "10%" was a typo but I'd guess at 95% are idiots ,
> unaware of HC guidance since at least 1973 about peds. rights.
> which naturally they attempt to limit / eliminate.
>

You've misattributed that quote. I didn't say that.

--
Tony

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

 

[MJ Ray]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...] 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.

I suspect a properly built cycle path is under 5 metres long and connects
two roads. If one of those roads is *totally* inaccessible to motorists,
so much the better. TTBOMK, no-one has bothered to study such a path,
but one has just been built not far from me, so I'll give it a year
and then ask for the accident data if anyone wants.

A second class probably consists of railway line conversions and totally
grade-seperated new builds, like Norwich Marriotts Way, but I'd expect
ye olde motorbike barriers on many to cause a few crashes.

> 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.

Now who's exceeding the statistics? Most of the studies aggregate lots
of facilities of varying designs. There may be good design in there, but
it gets lost by aggregation or aliasing.

[...]
> 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"

However, I'd generally agree with that, particularly in urban areas.

There is too much evidence that cycling will come off worst in any design
compromise - at junctions, with surfacing, with cleaning - to keep
supporting new builds. Current highway infrastructure should be made
more cycle-friendly instead (and no, that doesn't just mean gutter lanes
and stop boxes - think bikes!).

--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

 

[MJ Ray]

[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
> 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? [...]

Bristol, last Tuesday. They're also on the Spatial Metro (.org)
scheme which seems to work pretty well, in my two tests so far. I was
shocked: if they carry on like that, they'll soon remove their notorious
tree-infested cycle paths and stop offensive motorists...

King's Lynn still had Play Streets, but I think they died out elsewhere.
I wonder if they'll be turned into home zones.

--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Now who's exceeding the statistics? Most of the studies aggregate lots
> of facilities of varying designs. There may be good design in there, but
> it gets lost by aggregation or aliasing.

Russell's Teapot.

>
> There is too much evidence that cycling will come off worst in any design
> compromise - at junctions, with surfacing, with cleaning - to keep
> supporting new builds. Current highway infrastructure should be made
> more cycle-friendly instead (and no, that doesn't just mean gutter lanes
> and stop boxes - think bikes!).
>

Hear, hear!

--
Tony

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