Can the UK follow the Netherlands as a successful utility cycling country? - Student project.

[hoppy58]

My Daughter asked me to post this:

'I am currently undertaking an Extended Project Qualification as part of my A-levels with the title being 'can the UK follow the Netherlands as a successful utility cycling country?'

I have come up with 6 assumptions against us changing our ways to follow the Dutch model and the aim of my project is to discuss these and prove them wrong. These include:
• We can’t afford to make the relevant changes to our road network to accommodate cyclists safely.
• It would be dangerous for cyclists to share the road with vehicles. In terms of accidents and illnesses relating to pollution.
• Britain hasn't got the right climate to cycle regularly as a mode of transport.
• Our existing infrastructure is adequate- not enough people use it to justify improving it.
• An increase in cyclists on the roads would be an inconvenience.
• Our cultures are too different, children in the Netherlands learn to cycle from a very young age- it’s intuitive for them to continue cycling as much as they can.

I would be grateful for your opinions on the above assumptions.
Thanks, Hannah.'

[foxyrider]

There is only one thing preventing the move and that is political will.

To some extent all the listed proposals are true but no amount of bleating by the converted will change things without the government actually wanting the change.

It could be done and the proposed 'Bikeability' insurance discount is certainly in the right direction. Unless all drivers have to undertake such training it will be of limited benefit however.

[pjclinch]

My Daughter asked me to post this:

'I am currently undertaking an Extended Project Qualification as part of my A-levels with the title being 'can the UK follow the Netherlands as a successful utility cycling country?'

I have come up with 6 assumptions against us changing our ways to follow the Dutch model and the aim of my project is to discuss these and prove them wrong. These include:
• We can’t afford to make the relevant changes to our road network to accommodate cyclists safely.

But we can. Cycling is an investment that pays back, it isn't money down the drain. It's an investment because we get money back via better health, better environment and less congestion.

• It would be dangerous for cyclists to share the road with vehicles. In terms of accidents and illnesses relating to pollution.

Check out the actual accident rates and cycling is quite safe. Cyclists are, if anything, less prone to pollution issues than drivers. And who's making the pollution in any case? Get more people out of cars and on to bikes and everybody breaths in less pollution (even with electric cars, particulates from tyres and brakes pollute far more than bikes, plus the overhead of creating the electricity to start with).

• Britain hasn't got the right climate to cycle regularly as a mode of transport.

It's not really that different from the Netherlands.

• Our existing infrastructure is adequate- not enough people use it to justify improving it.

Our existing cycle-specific infrastructure is, with a few exceptions, dreadful. That's why people don't use it. Most of it treats cyclists as second class citizens who have less priority and just less significance than motor traffic. Look at cycle infrastructure done properly (i.e., in NL) and cyclists are primary road users considered from the top down, not bolted on as an afterthought if anyone can be bothered. The original London "Superhighways" were paint. They were not well thought of or used. Done properly, fully segregated, they have had a huge amount of traffic.

• An increase in cyclists on the roads would be an inconvenience.

Since cycles take up much less space than cars they can carry a lot more people through a congested space than cars. That means more room for everyone, including the remaining cars

• Our cultures are too different, children in the Netherlands learn to cycle from a very young age- it’s intuitive for them to continue cycling as much as they can.

When I was growing up in the 70s it was very unusual for children not to ride a bike. It was very unusual for children to travel to school by car. It hans't taken long for that to change, and it won't take it long to change back, given a suitable selection of sticks and carrots.

I would be grateful for your opinions on the above assumptions.

For stuff covering all of this in greater detail and including references to follow, get Peter Walker's "Bike Nation", Yellow Jersey Press, ISBN 978-1-911-21494-6.

The fundamental point stopping the UK being a cycling culture is an utter dearth of real political leadership on the matter. We would, as a nation, be happier, healthier and richer if we lost our habit of driving everywhere as a default way of getting about, but because it is the default and change to people's existing preferred habits is required there aren't easy votes available.

Pete.

[Canuk]

Not unless there's a fundamental and dramatic shift in driver attitudes towards cyclists. And a step towards presumed liability. From my experience is just too dangerous for commuting, when I rode to work, just outside London I was having a near off the bike potential accident every day. Were it not for my bike riding skills and quick wittedness I'd probably be in a wheelchair by now.

Those are pretty fierce odds. As it stands commuting is just not worth the risk in the UK in 2018.

[eileithyia]

Shift in driver attitudes is fundamental. As has been highlighted, we all rode bikes, we walked or cycled to school (a new bike to go to grammar school if you passed your 11+ was a big coup). We used public transport or bikes to go to our first jobs. Now kids are taken to school in cars, taken to after school activities in cars etc. Not so long back I followed (got caught up in) a whole convoy of cars of parents carrying kids.. it was obvious the way they were following each other and all came off the motorway at the same point, all with a junior football club sticker in the back window.... so they weren't even sharing transport to an away match but all going in their separate vehicles.....

Until we change that sort of mentality nothing will happen other than being treated as second class citizens on the appauling cycle infrastructure that is already there.

Some years ago i used to bike, train , bike to work from coventry to solihull. One day while waiting to load the bike I was told I soon wouldn't be able to travel with bike as they were changing the rolling stock. A little conversation ensued in which the guard informed me... 'never mind you will have saved up for a car by then' He then could not really understand that I did indeed already have a car but opted to leave it at home and commute by bike. These are the attitudes we need to overcome.

[PT1029]

Not an easy subject, lots of things come into play here.

• We can’t afford to make the relevant changes to our road network to accommodate cyclists safely.

Its political will. We can afford £300m or so of central government road/transport funding on cycling so over 5 - 6 years, while at the same time its £15 billion (if my memory is correct) on trunk roads. Political will.
If you do a cost benefit analysis of the health/environment benefits of cycling vs the pollution/obiesety/congestion cost of motor vehicles, cycling then becomes a huge money saver/investment. Current figures are the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20:1.

• It would be dangerous for cyclists to share the road with vehicles. In terms of accidents and illnesses relating to pollution.

Better driver training, deterrent sentences for bad driving (long driving bans/siezure of vehicles would focus minds somewhat) would improve driving standards and so road safety. If the roads really are too dangerous, then segregated facilities should be provided.

• Britain hasn't got the right climate to cycle regularly as a mode of transport.

In a talk on cycling by Patrick Lingwood some years ago, he raised this point, then showed a slide of cycle commuters in the middle of winter (snow) in northern Finland where the cycling rate was much higher than the UK. It is the north European countries - Germany/Belgium/Netherlands/Scandinavia - with a similar climate to ours except for colder winters) who have high utility cycling rates.

• Our existing infrastructure is adequate- not enough people use it to justify improving it.

Some current cycle infrastructure helps those who already actually cycle (though some cases the infrastructure is actually a disbenefit for those cycling). The vast majority of UK cycling infrastructure completely fails to tempt/attract those who currently don't cycle as they consider the roads too dangerous.

All the above not helped by :-
Local Hightway Authorities (usually "the council", usually the county council, not the district council) having transport policies* that say lovely green things at the front, the all the specific guidelines at the back being out dated/contradicting the green wash in the front/promoting congestion reduction (= greater trafic flow > people more likely to drive). *Local Transport Policy, usually the LTP - Local Transport Plan.
Transport planners/engineers adding cycle facilities late in the design in the detailed design stage - by which point the budget is set/road spaced ued up to allow the inclusion of good quality cycle facilities.
Transport planners/engineers not having the knowledge/skill to know what a good design is when it comes to cycle facilities.
Transport planners/engineerrs get no pressure/support from elected councillors to provide good facilities (ours say they never get pressure from coucillors).
The planning process for developments is outdated, the planning guidence is outdated when compared to guidence for public road design. The planning process may demand cycle facilities in a development, by make minimal/no effort for cycle/walkingh links to other neighbourhoods/business centers.
On road cycle training not being as wide spread as it should be.
Driver training does not cover how to deal with cyclists on the road when driving.

It would be good if, as the next generation you survey pupils in your school about if they do/do not cycle, and the reasons why they do/do not.
They might come up with answers that support your 6 assumptions. Then it is all about how "The system" can be altered to over come these assumptions - you could end up with a life time career doing that! As a volunteer, I've been at it about 30 years.
So, How do we (UK) start to end up like the Neatherlands? - the Dutch answer is "40 years ago"

[atlas_shrugged]

@Hannah

Please read the book Bike Boom by Carlton Reid. This book suggests we were going in the direction set by the Netherlands in the 1930s. In fact the UK built some high quality 9ft wide segregated cycle-only lanes in the 1930s. There are a few pictures of these cycle lanes in the book.

However WWII interrupted this effort and then came the oil craze after this.

[Psamathe]

There is only one thing preventing the move and that is political will.
.....

+1

Ian

[reohn2]

As has already been posted,political will would need to change,decent infrastructure needs building and motorists attitude toward cyclists would need to change and all three dramatically for the bike to be used anywhere near the amount it is in NL.
As pjclinch states such moves pays back society as a whole in many ways,not least health due to improved fittness both physical and equally as important mental health,and less pollution.
The UK is a backward country on it's way down a dead end street of gridlock because of it's total reliance on the private motor car.

[Psamathe]

• We can’t afford to make the relevant changes to our road network to accommodate cyclists safely.

We can easily afford the changes. It's just that our politicians wont.

• It would be dangerous for cyclists to share the road with vehicles. In terms of accidents and illnesses relating to pollution.

Depends on the road and the drivers. It can be "dangerous" where the cyclist is sentenced to a few inches in a rubbish filled gutter with potholes and drain covers (several inches below the road surface). But in the UK I hardly ever use cycle paths.

• Britain hasn't got the right climate to cycle regularly as a mode of transport.

Many people already do so climate not an issue

• Our existing infrastructure is adequate- not enough people use it to justify improving it.

a) Not adequate. b) Chicken and egg c) Indirect benefits (e.g. air pollution reduction, health benefits (lower NHS costs), etc.

• An increase in cyclists on the roads would be an inconvenience.

I'd guess not as fewer cars would mean fewer hold-ups and queues, easier car parking, lower air pollution, shorter NHS waiting limes, etc.

• Our cultures are too different, children in the Netherlands learn to cycle from a very young age- it’s intuitive for them to continue cycling as much as they can.

a) cultures are not that different b) people can and do start cycling at any time of life c) schools seem to be discouraging cyclists with all sorts of daft rules appearing

ps - this is a far more sensible way to ask a question than the rather limited pre-formatted questionnaires appearing here which do nothing more than demonstrate the person doe snot understand cycling (from that the questions never seem to fit with anybodies cycling).

Ian

[Bez]

Fortunately there's a ready-made resource full of responses to these and many other popular but fallacious arguments and misconceptions:

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/

Viz:

• We can’t afford to make the relevant changes to our road network to accommodate cyclists safely.

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/23/it%E ... or-cycling

• It would be dangerous for cyclists to share the road with vehicles. In terms of accidents and illnesses relating to pollution.

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/4/cycli ... 0%99t-safe
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/42/cycl ... lluted-air

• Britain hasn't got the right climate to cycle regularly as a mode of transport.

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/8/the-w ... %99t-right

• Our existing infrastructure is adequate- not enough people use it to justify improving it.

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/10/peop ... eady-exist

• An increase in cyclists on the roads would be an inconvenience.

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/12/cycl ... congestion

• Our cultures are too different, children in the Netherlands learn to cycle from a very young age- it’s intuitive for them to continue cycling as much as they can.

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/26/we%E ... -or-danish

[mjr]

Not an easy subject, lots of things come into play here.

• We can’t afford to make the relevant changes to our road network to accommodate cyclists safely.

Its political will. We can afford £300m or so of central government road/transport funding on cycling so over 5 - 6 years, while at the same time its £15 billion (if my memory is correct) on trunk roads. Political will.

£28bn announced on major roads in the budget just gone. Meanwhile, Sustrans's recent audit leading to the "Paths for Everyone" report estimates just £3.2bn to bring the National Cycle Network up to standard and in a recent post, I calculated an estimate that it would cost about the same again to add good standard cycleways to all the remaining A/B roads that need them.

As I understand it, Sustrans are expecting it to take at least 22 years to do their £3bn

If anyone has seen Political Will, please could you send him to Whitehall because he's missing from there!

[thirdcrank]

In addition to what's been said, I would add that we don't have the systems in place to deliver a policy like this. Over the years, there have been all sorts of policies to promote cycling, most based on exhortation. However, in 1996, the then government launched the National Cycling Strategy which was intended to change transport modes to cycling for journeys under 5 miles ie your utility cycling. Much of this was based on the Netherlands' experience. Steering parties steered and working groups worked but to no avail, largely because the relevant transport policy is delivered at the local rather than the national level. In local government, appointed officials - in this case the highways engineers - decide a lot of policy and it suits them to build big roads for motor traffic.

https://www.thenbs.com/PublicationIndex ... cId=258653

One example of what I'm saying was the fate of Cycle Audit and Cycle Review. Had these policies been universally followed we'd have been doing well know, but the senior highways people in local government declared that they would apply only to schemes specifically for cyclists rather than to all roads. Nobody had the authority to tell them to get on with it.
http://www.ukroads.org/webfiles/TAL%207 ... review.pdf

[Ben@Forest]

... I would be grateful for your opinions on the above assumptions.
Thanks, Hannah.'

There is another reason why cycling infrastructure is difficult in the UK - hedges. We have a lot in the UK and some are part of the historical record (The Enclosure Acts). On many country roads widening them to incorporate cycle lanes/pavement would mean losing the maybe 200 or 400 year old hedge on one or both sides. You can imagine the uproar if this was done widely (even if cyclists can be ambivalent about hedges!).

There are of course other countries with hedges but it is notable that in a book about European landscapes I'm looking at now the feature of the UK they've singled out is Devon hedges.

[thirdcrank]

The presence or otherwise of hedges doesn't seem to have hindered the development of the motorway network. IIRC, at one point people were getting grants to root up hedgerows and that was the fate of plenty in Yorkshire. Anyway, for utility cycling, most of what we are talking about is in urban areas, where it's broken glass rather than hedge trimmings which is the problem.