You can forget about your Dutch-style cycling facilities

[mjr]

The guardian article calls Claxton the lead designer, but he became lead engineer in 1962, 16 years after the town was designated and three years after its new town centre opened.

It also plays fast and loose with statistics, using modal shares without saying where they came from (cordon counts most likely, which underestimates cycling in towns with cycleway networks), and comparing Stevenage's cycling prevalence with unnamed neighbouring towns' modal shares.

It's a nice myth but the new towns mostly have about average cycling levels. Infrastructure is helpful but neither necessary nor sufficient.

[Vorpal]

Convenience is everything.

For 90% of people. For the remaining 10% there are environmental issues, cost, loss of licence or inability to drive as well of course as health issues. So that could be more than 10%. On the reverse side there are security issues (you cannot easily leave a loaded bike while you go shopping for example) and there can be peer/work pressure. Even just the ability to wear smart clothes can affect choice. Other issues include fear of punctures, not being able to ride a bike and even fear of terrorism (cycling went up after the London bombs). But I haven't included segregated facilities in this at all. I'm also pretty convinced that while cycle campaigners are shouting hard for better facilities, the non-cyclists are thinking "yeah, whatever" and getting into their cars.

All of those things relate to convenience, even the 'fear of terrorism'. I know someone who began cycling then. She didn't want to have walk across London again.

Every place that I have lived where more people cycle more, it has been because it was at least as convenient as other alternatives. Because car parking is limited & expensive while cycle parking is ubiquitous and free. Because cycle routes are good, quick, and not too scary, while routes for cars are circuitous or congested, so that times for cycling are similar to those for driving (and more consistent). Because employers have decent facilites, like indoor/covered cycle parking, storage and changing facilities, basic maintenance equipment, etc.

People don't 'yeah, whatever' when the same journey that takes 20 minutes by car and costs £200 per month for parking, takes 25 minutes by bike and costs nothing for parking.

These 'yeah, whatever' folks can be encouraged to try active travel with free breakfast for thoase who arrive by bike, employers offering free trial on city hire bikes, etc.

Things like peer/work pressure needs to shift from negative to positive. There are also sorts of ways to do that, and none are easy, but I can assure you that it's much nicer to have my colleagues encourage me, and my company give me perqs for being active, than it is to be called a nutter for riding my bike to work.

[pjclinch]

Convenience is everything.

For 90% of people. For the remaining 10% there are environmental issues, cost, loss of licence or inability to drive as well of course as health issues.

Which ultimately boils down to convenience. For example, it's not convenient for me to do stuff I can't afford. It's not convenient for me to do things which damage my health and environment. I'll have my bars at different heights to others, but it's still convenience.

The Guardian article is taken (Somewhat selectively) from Carlton Reid's full article from a few years ago.

If you want the Real Deal then check out CR's Bike Boom, which is arguably the "full version", and IMHO a very good book.

Pete.

[pjclinch]

So Stevenage has finally nailed the old chestnut that good cycling facilities separated from dangerous cars will get people cycling. Well, they won't.

But Stevenage isn't "Dutch style". While the general perception here is "Dutch style" = "segregated fietspad" it really isn't that simple.

Dutch cycling facilities are everything in NL that facilitates cycling. That takes you right back to general planning approaches (which aren't underpinned by the tacit assumption that everything will revolve around cars, and everything must be made as easy for cars as possible) and extends to considerable use of filtered permeability, low speed zones and more. My brother in law and his family live in an old residential street in Den Haag. There is no room for segregated cycle tracks. But despite lots of cars parked, there isn't much moving motor traffic, there's plenty of bicycle traffic, and there are children playing in the street. It's easy to navigate the neighbourhood by bike, it's a pain in the backside by car. But it's easy enough to get out by car to the wider road network for longer journeys.

Pete.

[horizon]

Every place that I have lived where more people cycle more, it has been because it was at least as convenient as other alternatives.
People don't 'yeah, whatever' when the same journey that takes 20 minutes by car and costs £200 per month for parking, takes 25 minutes by bike and costs nothing for parking.

These 'yeah, whatever' folks can be encouraged to try active travel with free breakfast for thoase who arrive by bike, employers offering free trial on city hire bikes, etc.

Things like peer/work pressure needs to shift from negative to positive.

Vorpal: when I talk about the 10%, I'm agreeing with you. Basically people do things for their own utilitarian advantage. It takes a big something to shift them into something else and overcome the inconvenience. For some people that might be a serious health issue, for others passion for the environment. Once it becomes more convenient (practical, utilitarian) to go by bike, they will and the cars won't stop them. Of course, you can butter their paws and make things nicer but that won't be the fundamental driver.

[mjr]

So Stevenage has finally nailed the old chestnut that good cycling facilities separated from dangerous cars will get people cycling. Well, they won't.

But Stevenage isn't "Dutch style". While the general perception here is "Dutch style" = "segregated fietspad" it really isn't that simple.

Dutch cycling facilities are everything in NL that facilitates cycling. That takes you right back to general planning approaches (which aren't underpinned by the tacit assumption that everything will revolve around cars, and everything must be made as easy for cars as possible) and extends to considerable use of filtered permeability, low speed zones and more.

Amen! I feel Stevenage only seems "Dutch-style" to someone who either hasn't cycled in the Netherlands much or has an axe to grind against off-carriageway provision.

I suspect motorists-first was just so ingrained in English planners and designers of the era when the new towns were designed (1946-1970) that even when they tried to be cycle-friendly, they didn't have the skills or knowledge to achieve it. It goes right down to little things like streets having name signs only where motorists can enter them and not where cycleways do. And in most new towns, you end up cycling up and down artificial inclines and being hidden in trenches or behind trees at the edge of the highway corridors, while the motorists generally get the flatter route, central portion of the highways and priority where the routes cross on the same level. Look at even the picture from the Ladybird book in the Guardian article: the NS motorways are straight lines, while the NS cycleway goes E along half a side of a square, then W along half the far side of it: "cycle priority route"? It doesn't look like it. It looks like cyclists are expected to travel the longer/harder route between two points, yet again. That ain't Dutch.

(edited to fix a minor wording goof left by previous editing)

[horizon]

I feel Stevenage only seems "Dutch-style" to someone who either hasn't cycled in the Netherlands much or has an axe to grind against off-carriageway provision.

It looks like cyclists are expected to travel the longer/harder route between two points, yet again. That ain't Dutch.

I take the point. But I would also say that Stevenage would have been a success despite its poor quality if driving had really been a difficult option. The point is that it isn't traffic that is stopping people from cycling, it's the comparative convenience of the two modes. I think all of us who have contributed to this thread actually agree on that.

But if you then say that while the facilities in Holland are better but that driving is also inconvenienced then that is a very different message to the people of this country: it is generally believed that safety is the issue not convenience. I think the distinction is crucial and that is what my OP was about.

[Wanlock Dod]

...would have been a success despite its poor quality if driving had really been a difficult option...

I'm not sure that it actually needs to be difficult, it's just a matter of making it less convenient for short journeys. The description of living on a street in a Dutch city doesn't make driving sound difficult.

...It's easy to navigate the neighbourhood by bike, it's a pain in the backside by car. But it's easy enough to get out by car to the wider road network for longer journeys...

It's certainly not an anti-driving thing, rather it accepts that there are too many general inconveniences caused by making large numbers of short journeys by car, which seems to be about where the UK is at the moment. We are prepared to prioritise individual convenience to the point that it inconveniences the whole of society.

[Vorpal]

Driving isn't necessarily difficult in the Netherlands, but the point is that driving to some places *is* difficult. *And* cycling many places is convenient. Just to take a few little examples that are, or are very similar to actual things I've seen...

A small town rail station in the UK will typically have more parking than demand, and limited cycle parking, as in a handful of Sheffield stands. If the car park is smaller than capacity, people will typically park on adjoining roads.

In the Netherlands, a small town rail station will have lots of cycle parking capacity, and limited and/or expensive car parking spaces. Adjoining roads will have parking for residents only. Most of the people who arrive by car are dropped off by others, who carry on to another destination.

--------

A new housing development in the Netherlands has roads that are accessible for moving, deliveries, disabled residents, and occasional use with cars, but largely reserved for walking, cycling, and play. There is no car parking at the homes, but separate car parks, designed so that every home has a parking space in a community lot or garage within 500 metres. A utility room next to the entrance of each home has parking for several bicycles, laundry basins, a drying cupboard for wet clothes and shoes, and storage for related stuff.

A new housing development in the UK has garages attached to every home that are barely wide enough to get the car in, so everyone parks on the street and the garages are used for storage.

_______

The post office in a residential area in the Netherlands doesn't have much business, so there is discussion of consolidation. The post office is currently located in a community shop with limited parking, so most people walk and cycle there. However, consolidation would put mean the post office is outside of typical walking and cycling distance for many residents, so the decision is made to subsidise the post office to keep it open.

The post office in a residential area in the UK doesn't have much business, so there is talk of consolidation. The post office is currently located in the local co-op which is within walking and cycling distance for many residents. About 10% of their business is people walking and cycling. Other post offices in the area have a similar lack of business, so five post offices are consolidated into the one in the closest town. It is now the only post office within a 5 mile radius, and located in the big shop with free parking, so everyone drives there. The local co-op which was already marginal due to the loss of other businesses in the area is no longer viable and closes two years after the post office moves.

[horizon]

Spot on. And you didn't mention fear of traffic once (AFAICS)!

[The utility cyclist]

Someone posted some research from York university on here a while ago. I've tried numerous times to find it without success, but the gist of it was that if you deny people one excuse for not cycling they'll just find another.

The more money we force motorists to cough up for cycle paths, the sooner we end up with legislation forcing us to use them.

This is why I personally am not overly keen with segregated cycle lanes as the absolute solution.

Of late I've had a heck of a lot more cars giving more space when overtaking, particularly in town, education and restriction of motorists and motor vehicles (as well as changes in how policed/punished) is the way forward, not only does it benefit people on bikes, it benefits pedestrians AND all other motorists. The onus is pushed back onto those creating the harm as opposed to simply pushing the problem aside, if you have no infra outside of any given town, or indeed no infra in x town or city, which is the case currently, (and will continue to be the case for the next 20/30/40/50 years) what then, you will still have uneducated unrestricted motorists that are un-policed still driving like loons killing and maiming.

Even Dutch style segregated infra isn't what i particularly want to use 95% of the time and all we will get is rubbish, even the CS routes in London are stop start, not wide enough and make you go further than if just on an ordinary road. This is also very noticeable in most town and city segragated cycle infra, even in DK and NL.

The stupid thing is that the money that comes from motorists won't make a dent anyway, they/we (ok, those of us that use cars) are already subsidised, the 'extra' money won't even take it close to parity, it certainly won't be paying directly for cycling infra because it will still come from general taxation but the way most people take it is that 'they' will be paying more for those nasty people who ride bikes ...

It's very clever of the government to word it like they have with regards to more taxes for motorists, creates a bigger division and gives them even more reason to push people on bikes off the road further down the line.

[reohn2]

Spot on. And you didn't mention fear of traffic once (AFAICS)!

Nevertheless fear of traffic is a reality in the UK because there's more motor traffic and it travels faster and closer to cyclists because it's so convenient by comparison.
Cyclists on UK roads are treated as an irritant to motor traffic both by motorists and planners alike,rather than a legitimate and equal means of transport.
In NL cycling is given presidence over local motor traffic,with it comes convenience and a normality of cycling not found here,thats why there's so much bullying,which in turn leads to fear,on UK roads.
You can keep saying it isnt fear that stops people using bikes for local utility transport,but I for one don't buy it,local travel in the UK is done by car because it's more convenient and feels safer,even walking is unpleasant due to traffic volume,noise and speed.

[Bmblbzzz]

......

...if you deny people one excuse for not cycling they'll just find another...

That doesn't explain the Dutch situation. The main difference is probably that the Dutch, as a society, are prepared to accept some inconveniences to car use in return for the other advantages that result from it.

I don't believe that to be the case,in fact quite the opposite
The Dutch found the convenience of the bike when they inconvenienced the car,because locally it was causing the same intolerable situation the UK finds itself in now.
The bullet the UK needs to bite is to do the same,the obstacle is political

This in spades. The lesson of Stevenage is that some people will be encouraged to cycle by good facilities but most can only be forced to not drive.

[axel_knutt]

...if you deny people one excuse for not cycling they'll just find another...

That doesn't explain the Dutch situation.

I wasn't suggesting that it does, the York research was conducted in the UK AFAIR.

The main difference is probably that the Dutch, as a society, are prepared to accept some inconveniences to car use in return for the other advantages that result from it.

But that's begging the question though.

I suggest the difference in attitude towards cycles results from greater inequality in society, here in the UK cycles are more likely to be seen like buses: transport for losers who can't afford a car.

[Wanlock Dod]

...Even Dutch style segregated infra...

Personally I think that this is a bit of a myth, much of the increased convenience of cycling in Dutch urban areas is that lots of small streets are one way for cars, all it requires is signage and a change in road users attitudes so that cyclists can comfortably travel in the opposing direction to motor traffic. The segregated infrastructure that they have is really to keep cyclists out of the way on the genuinely fast roads, or especially busy ones in urban areas. Personally I see this as facilitating both modes of transport in a way which shared use certainly doesn't seem to in practice. What the Dutch have, and Little Britain lacks, is a sensible approach towards selecting a mode of travel which is appropriate to the distance to be travelled which is inherent in their planning system.