Getting ̶1̶0̶0̶,̶0̶0̶0̶ 50,000 people back on their bikes.

Psamathe
Posts: 12261
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Getting 100,000 people back on their bikes.

Postby Psamathe » 13 Jan 2015, 4:58pm

CJ wrote:... The trouble with Britain is that people drive in a most impatient manner, that could not be better calculated to put people off cycling! It's probably not deliberate - not most of the time. It's because we have half the motorway mileage of any comparable country, so there's a lot more people driving on the same general-purpose roads as we must also cycle on, and because English-speaking culture holds cycling in contempt....

I don't think the driving in an impatient manner is only with regard to cyclists. I suspect it comes down to the capitalist Thatcherism/greed ethic where "time is money" and get there, get it done, get on with next job ... drives people to be impatient in their cars as they see that as wasted/unprofitable time.

Cyclists probably frustrate an already impatient person when they get held up for 20 seconds ... (that might be 20 seconds of their life spent travelling at 20 mph when they could have been going at 30 mph !!!).

If people only considered the extra petrol cost of going faster and how little time they actually save.... they'd appreciate that being impatient is just not worth it.

Ian

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Getting 100,000 people back on their bikes.

Postby beardy » 13 Jan 2015, 5:03pm

I am always happy to blame Maggie for anything evil but this behaviour pre-dates her years in power.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Getting 100,000 people back on their bikes.

Postby TonyR » 13 Jan 2015, 5:14pm

PH wrote:
UK is more than TWICE as lethal for cycling, per km cycled, compared to any comparable but more cycle friendly country such as Germany, which as a consequence has FIVE times as much cycling.

Where is the evidence that that the cycling rate is a consequence of the lower death rate and not the other way round?
We can argue chicken and egg all day, but where cycling has increased accident levels have reduced. I think there's plenty of evidence to support that.


The evidence is with cycling numbers resulting in safer cycling, not the other way round. There is the well known "Safety in Numbers" effect [1] by which a doubling in cycling only increases injuries by 32% while the injury risk for the individual decreases by 34%. There is also the fact that in those countries such as the Netherlands which put a lot of resource into increasing the perception or reality of cyclist safety saw no increase in the numbers cycling resulting (the Dutch "Bicycle Master Plan" major infrastructure build started around the 8th data point below and ended around the 18th and cost £10Bn).

Screen Shot 2015-01-13 at 16.07.21.png
From Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany John Pucher , Ralph Buehler Transport Reviews Vol. 28, Iss. 4, 2008

[1] Jacobsen P. Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling. Injury Prevention vol. 9 pp 205-209, 2003

SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2037
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Getting 100,000 people back on their bikes.

Postby SA_SA_SA » 13 Jan 2015, 6:24pm

Half as dangerous as dangerous thing probably stills sounds dangerous to most people so:

shouldn't Germany be at least be an order of magnitude safer than the UK per km?
I was really surprised at only 2 times difference.

I suppose alternatively half as safe as a very safe thing is still safe :)
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 50984
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Getting 100,000 people back on their bikes.

Postby Mick F » 13 Jan 2015, 8:14pm

My experience of cycling in Italy is very different to yours, CJ
Have you cycled in Naples? :shock:
Mick F. Cornwall

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18752
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Getting 100,000 people back on their bikes.

Postby Vorpal » 13 Jan 2015, 8:18pm

TonyR wrote:
Vorpal wrote:What we do have some evidence for, is that reducing thre number of people who die on the roads is a matter of engineering.

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/11/ ... em/382995/


Not really. From the linked article:

When Vision Zero first launched {1997], Sweden recorded seven traffic fatalities per 100,000 people; today, despite a significant increase in traffic volume, that number is fewer than three.


Except in the UK recorded traffic fatalities fell from 6.2 per 100,000 in 1997 to 2.75 per 100,000 in 2012, the same percentage fall as in Sweden and an end result which is better. And all done without the benefit of a Vision Zero programme, or, most here would probably suggest, any programme at all, and very much higher levels of traffic. Which indicates that whatever they did, either it was copied in the UK or it actually didn't achieve anything. Even the US has fallen over that period, although not by as much, from 15.7 to 10.7 deaths per 100,000 population.

Which is a big part of the problem in this space. Lots of claims are made but few stand up to scrutiny.


If you look only at the traffic fatality rates, you are correct. If you look at fatality rate per billion km travelled, the two countries are even closer together.

Where they differ, is the composition of those numbers. The biggest beneficiaries of Vision Zero are vulnerable road users. Sweden is the safest country in the world for child pedestrians, when exposure is taken into account, and falls just behind the Netherlands and Denmark for cyclist safety. That is because they have prioritised safety for vulnerable users, over other things such as traffic flow, and accident reduction.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Getting 100,000 people back on their bikes.

Postby TonyR » 13 Jan 2015, 8:47pm

Vorpal wrote:If you look only at the traffic fatality rates, you are correct. If you look at fatality rate per billion km travelled, the two countries are even closer together.

Where they differ, is the composition of those numbers. The biggest beneficiaries of Vision Zero are vulnerable road users. Sweden is the safest country in the world for child pedestrians, when exposure is taken into account, and falls just behind the Netherlands and Denmark for cyclist safety. That is because they have prioritised safety for vulnerable users, over other things such as traffic flow, and accident reduction.


It was the Vision Zero champion who chose that metric to illustrate how good it was, I simply showed that by his metric, Sweden had done no better than the UK and possibly worse despite much lower traffic levels and speed limits. And if their chosen metric is used that misleadingly then it probably means the rest of the claims are equally suspect.

Your figures on child pedestrian deaths don't appear to be correct either.

ImageUploadedByTapatalkHD1421182026.766919.jpg

ImageUploadedByTapatalkHD1421182051.433973.jpg


http://www.travelindependent.org.uk/cas ... opean.html

{Edit] I've found a claim that it is lowest in Sweden for under 7's rather than the standard 0-14 or 0-16 age definition for children. But that may be as much down to children not starting school until the age of seven in Sweden rather than five or younger as in the UK. So there will be far fewer 5-7 year olds out on the streets at peak times in Sweden.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18752
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Getting 100,000 people back on their bikes.

Postby Vorpal » 13 Jan 2015, 10:36pm

It is unfortunate that the author of that article focused so much on road traffic death rates. It is not that 'their metric is so misleading', but what the author of an article decided to include. Vision Zero is about prioritising safety for vulnerable users.

I stated in my post that I was including exposure in the child pedestrian rates. Yours are according to population.

Swedish children begin school later, but most attend preschool during similar hours from about 2 years of age. More children under the age of 7 are on the streets at peak times in Sweden. Furthmore, Swedish children travel further each year by active travel, and for a greater proportion of the distance they travel each year.

I wasn't able to link my source directly for the exposure data, but you can download it from https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/search ... t-children
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Getting 100,000 people back on their bikes.

Postby TonyR » 13 Jan 2015, 11:29pm

Vorpal wrote:I wasn't able to link my source directly for the exposure data, but you can download it from https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/search ... t-children


From the exposure [1] data in the article you link, UK child pedestrians (10-14yrs) have 44% greater exposure[1] than Swedish ones (Table 1: UK children walk 396km p.a., Swedish 275km)

If you then combine [2] that with the child pedestrian deaths per capita from my post above, Sweden, exposure adjusted, comes out about 10% worse than the UK.

[1] That is not really an exposure correction. An exposure correction would not only include the amount chidlren exposed themselves to traffic but also the amount of traffic they were exposed to. In the UK traffic density is about ten times that in Sweden i.e on an average 1km walk a child pedestrian in the UK will encounter ten times as many cars as a Swedish child would
[2] accepting that the exposure data is for 10-14 yr olds and the death rates are for 0-14 yre olds

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18752
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Getting 100,000 people back on their bikes.

Postby Vorpal » 14 Jan 2015, 6:26am

Sorry, I was including child cyclists, and you are correct that I did not include traffic density. I looked at the data for car usage, and saw that Swedish drivers travel further per year, but did not consider the density of traffic.

But the point remains, that the greatest benficiaries of the reduction in road traffic fatalities in Sweden are vulnerable users, while in the UK, it comes from the occupants of cars. The proportion of vulnerable road users that make up the British fatality http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafet ... t.pdfrates are consequently increasing, even if the overall numbers show improvement.

The reason for this is that in the UK obtains most of the fatality rate reduction from improved technology, and an engineering approach that targets RTC reduction. I'm not saying that is all bad, but it won't get more people on bikes.

Vision Zero has also been successful in reducing the casualties amongst vulnerable users in other places.

This is slightly dated, now (2002), but it's a SWOV study, comparing Road Safety policies in the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafet ... report.pdf
This is a paper looking at the implementation of Vision Zero in the UK http://www.sei-international.org/mediam ... arch06.pdf

I've got a couple more references if you are interested, but no time to post them, now. Off to work!
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1262
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:27pm
Location: Lancing, West Sussex
Contact:

Re: Getting 100,000 people back on their bikes.

Postby admin » 14 Jan 2015, 9:32am

Speaking as a parent, and long-term keen cyclist, and a member of the only family who cycles to our primary school of 400 pupils, I can tell you that just "persuading people that cycling is safe" will not, and cannot, ever work. While cycling is an activity that is seen to require helmets, high visibility clothing, and specialist training (even for adults) there is no way you can persuade ordinary people that it's a safe every-day mode of transport. While the experience of cycling on UK streets and roads is so frightening, there is no way you can persuade ordinary people not to be frightened.

I would like to cycle the 1.5 miles to and from school with our nine-year old twins on their lovely Islabike Beinn 24 bikes they got for Christmas. But there are problems:

  1. The school actively discourages cycling, and will not provide bike parking. They do provide scooter parking, as scooting can be done legally on the footway (one parent now scoots to and from school too!).
  2. Other parents already think we're being reckless enough cycling with a U+2 child trailerbike.
  3. We would probably get reported to the Social Services for child abuse, and have the Police knocking on our door.
  4. My wife who rides a Dutch bike for transport, but who is not a long-term cyclist, refuses to allow it.
  5. Even I would suffer serious anxiety on every trip, given that we are almost always cut up by at least one impatient motorist per trip.

And, as Chris has pointed out, even if you do persuade someone to try cycling for transport, they only need to make one trip to find how scary it is, and how indifferent (or even downright aggressive) motorists are on our roads and streets. Think about when you go out cycling on UK roads: is it really completely care free, or do you have to "keep your wits about you" and "take the lane" and "be assertive" in order to try to stay safe? The problem is that, while cycling on its own is perfectly safe, cycling amongst heavy and/or fast-moving motor vehicles is most demonstrably not safe. Statistics are no use if a lorry turns left and crushes you, or a motorist absorbed with a mobile phone conversation crashes into you from behind. Look at all those helmet camera videos: people on bicycles are being almost "attacked" by motorists on a worryingly frequent basis.

In fact CTC and others have been trying to persuade people to drive less and cycle more for decades. We have "National Bike Week" and "Bike to Work Day" and "TravelWise" and "Workplace Cycle Challenges" yet none of these has made the blindest bit of difference to the modal share of cycling as transport. They do, however, support a large number of cycle training organisations, which I suppose is some positive benefit.

Meanwhile, where there are motor-vehicle-free cycleways, cycling is booming. Here on NCN2 along the south coast we're seeing regular year-on-year growth, of all types of cyclist including commuters, the elderly, families, shoppers, and tourists who've driven some way to cycle here. The route has doubled cycling counts in six years (that's a 100% increase, for zero cost) and now carries several hundred commuters all year round, and well over a thousand bikes per day on pleasant summer days. Build decent infrastructure to keep the motor vehicle danger away, and cycling is extremely popular for all types of people. No persuasion or training needed!

Psamathe
Posts: 12261
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Getting 100,000 people back on their bikes.

Postby Psamathe » 14 Jan 2015, 9:56am

admin wrote:...While the experience of cycling on UK streets and roads is so frightening, there is no way you can persuade ordinary people not to be frightened....

I agree. There is one stretch of ordinary road I use when visiting the supermarket (a stretch anybody else would have to use as well) and it is horrific. Every trip there I come home seriously considering giving up cycling. Does not matter where you ride (primary, secondary, in the gutter) you either get very close fast passes or cars swerving in before they have completed their pass (something unexpected like a traffic island). And there is a Police Station (big one) on the road so plenty of Police cars around, but it is scary. Most people starting cycling and poping-out to the local supermarket would almost certainly stop cycling.

admin wrote:...In fact CTC and others have been trying to persuade people to drive less and cycle more for decades. We have "National Bike Week" and "Bike to Work Day" and "TravelWise" and "Workplace Cycle Challenges" yet none of these has made the blindest bit of difference to the modal share of cycling as transport....

All that is in the past 'cos the new guy knows how to get 100,000 people back on their bikes (but somebody has to give the CTC £1m before he'll tell anybody how!). Although, if you read his claim, he does not even need the money, just to go through the process of asking the DfT for it; and even if they say "no" he will then tell us how
All I have to do is ask those nice people in the Department of Transport to give us £1m and we’ll show them how we can get 100,000 people back on their bikes!"


Ian

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Getting 100,000 people back on their bikes.

Postby TonyR » 14 Jan 2015, 12:27pm

Vorpal wrote:But the point remains, that the greatest benficiaries of the reduction in road traffic fatalities in Sweden are vulnerable users, while in the UK, it comes from the occupants of cars. The proportion of vulnerable road users that make up the British fatality http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafet ... t.pdfrates are consequently increasing, even if the overall numbers show improvement.



Again not true. That report is from 2002. The up to date data (2008-12) shows that the total number of child and all road deaths per million population are the same in the UK and Sweden. For children the pedestrian proportion of road deaths is about the same as the UK, for all ages, its about a third lower in Sweden but it started lower before Vision Zero.

The reason for this is that in the UK obtains most of the fatality rate reduction from improved technology, and an engineering approach that targets RTC reduction. I'm not saying that is all bad, but it won't get more people on bikes.


Actually most of it has come from improvements in medical approaches to those injured in RTAs

Vision Zero has also been successful in reducing the casualties amongst vulnerable users in other places.


Which places and what evidence?

This is slightly dated, now (2002), but it's a SWOV study, comparing Road Safety policies in the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafet ... report.pdf

This is a paper looking at the implementation of Vision Zero in the UK http://www.sei-international.org/mediam ... arch06.pdf


The latter is just a speculative study. Over the period before and since the UK has done no worse than Sweden with its Vision Zero in reducing fatalities. The Department of Transport issued an interesting report in 2004 comparing many different countries and particularly vulnerable children by many segmentations. I can see very little in there that shows Sweden did any better than any one else and nothing that shows a difference in Sweden before and after 1997 when Vision Zero started. Check the charts starting on p45. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1211/1/2004_4.pdf

As I said earlier, Vision Zero makes a lot of bold claims but they don't seem to stand up to examination. The UK has done just as well without Vision Zero as Sweden has with it despite the UK exposing its population to much higher levels of traffic.

PH
Posts: 9973
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Getting 100,000 people back on their bikes.

Postby PH » 14 Jan 2015, 12:49pm

Admin, what persuades you to cycle? A simple question, if you believe it's so dangerous why do it?
And if you're persuaded why would you think it impossible to persuade others?

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18752
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Getting 100,000 people back on their bikes.

Postby Vorpal » 14 Jan 2015, 1:18pm

TonyR wrote:
The reason for this is that in the UK obtains most of the fatality rate reduction from improved technology, and an engineering approach that targets RTC reduction. I'm not saying that is all bad, but it won't get more people on bikes.


Actually most of it has come from improvements in medical approaches to those injured in RTAs

Well, actually I was including that in improved technology. I realise it is non-specific, but I didn't want to get bogged down in the detail, because I don't think that is central to the point.

TonyR wrote:Which places and what evidence?

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/p ... nov/01.cfm
http://thecityfix.com/blog/how-zero-bec ... ben-welle/
http://www.ruralsafety.umn.edu/research ... 12-39t.pdf


TonyR wrote:Over the period before and since the UK has done no worse than Sweden with its Vision Zero in reducing fatalities. The Department of Transport issued an interesting report in 2004 comparing many different countries and particularly vulnerable children by many segmentations. I can see very little in there that shows Sweden did any better than any one else and nothing that shows a difference in Sweden before and after 1997 when Vision Zero started. Check the charts starting on p45. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1211/1/2004_4.pdf

As I said earlier, Vision Zero makes a lot of bold claims but they don't seem to stand up to examination. The UK has done just as well without Vision Zero as Sweden has with it despite the UK exposing its population to much higher levels of traffic.

Something that all of these statistics do not and cannot capture is that children in Sweden not only have higher levels of active travel, they do it, for the most part, unsupervised by parents after the age of about 6 or 7. They also play outside independently at much higher rates than British children. I am not convinced that exposure levels are higher in the UK. I am only convinved that traffic density is higher. Where exposure levels are actually higher in the UK, in economically deprived areas, the traffic fatality rates are also higher, especially for children.

Has the UK really done as well? Where are all the cyclists? Where are the children playing outside? Where are the children riding their bikes to school?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom