You can forget about your Dutch-style cycling facilities

[horizon]

Stevenage has finally nailed the old chestnut that good cycling facilities separated from dangerous cars will get people cycling. Well, they won't. And we have a sixty year experiment to prove it:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017 ... -stevenage

I'm going to stick my neck out here and suggest that it isn't the fear of roads that stops people cycling. It's probably hills but also the convenience, carrying potential and weather protection of cars. Have car, won't cycle.

When cycling facilities do get used, it's usually because the desire to cycle was already well established (such as in London). Yes, by all means improve the lot of cyclists but don't expect it to get bums on seats.

[[XAP]Bob]

There are two things...

One is inertia. It takes effort to change habits.
The other is the convenience of the modes. It's not enough to make the healthier mode subjectively safer than it was, or more pleasant. It has to be *more* convenient in order to overcome the inertia...

When they built stevenage they put in a decent (I assume) cycle network, but an even better road network...
No wonder people use the road network...

[meic]

There is a map there showing the cycle priority lane, there is just one going each way, compared to two motorways and many joint use paths. Add to that it goes around the sides of many squares, making it near to 50% longer than the straight line (followed by the motorways and most joint use paths).

If I lived there I would only be using the cycle provision if I happened to traveling to and from some rather specific locations. It reminds me of Luxembourg's cycling provision rather than the Netherlands, I soon got fed up of being led all over the place by Luxembourg's cycling provision.

[pwa]

I wonder if one reason cycling remained popular in the Netherlands, with facilities provided perhaps because of that popularity, is because the place is mostly flat. And do flatter UK cities stand more chance of getting commuters on bikes? For a novice a hilly route to work must be a deterrent.

(Edit: Having said that, Stevenage doesn't look hilly.)

[Si]

In our experience, there is a whole sack load of stuff that can put people off cycling, and different people will choose different reasons not to, just like people on this forum have different reasons to cycle.

For instance if your parents didnt cycle and your friends dont then how are you going to learn how and where to ride? This is where weve concentrated our work - putting on lots of adult learn to ride courses, putting on rides, giving people information, and even giving people from deprived areas free bikes if they needed them.

Coupled with this has been improvements in infra, but not to dutch standards, most has been more leisure cyclist oriented ( parks and canals) We've found that people are more likely to start riding for fun thsn utility, but then, once theyget the hang of it, a number will start to explore utility cycling.

Our jobs would have been a lot easier with top notch infra, but you can get some people riding some of the time without it. The challenge of course is to get all the people riding all of the time...and in our city the areas with highest utility usage tend to be the areas with the best infra links to the centre (and also the middle class hipster areas).

Hills are more of an excuse than a reason not to cycle....once you get people going they will grumble about hillsnbut they wont be put off by them. Remember that to many new cyclists a small slope thst we wouldnt even give the time of day to will seem like a monster hill......thus there are many places that we'd czll flat thst a newbie would see as mountainous!

[PH]

The Guardian article is taken (Somewhat selectively) from Carlton Reid's full article from a few years ago.
http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/stevenage/

I can't see how anyone can take one example and consider it proof as horizon has done in the OP.
Carlton gives a a good analysis of the reasons it's failed, things that could be learnt to make future schemes successful if only there was the political will...
If you want to make comparisons with the Netherlands the three main reasons would be:
Timing - Stevenage was largely built at at time of aspiration when many people had more disposable income than ever before and owning a motor car was a huge symbol of that new found wealth. I understand much of the Netherlands infrastructure came about in the 70s as a result of the oil crisis, when people were open to the idea of change. Stevenage, along with the rest of the UK missed that opportunity.
Scale - however extensive the Stevenage plan was, it was pretty much an isolated pocket, You're not going to change a culture one town at a time (Unless that town is London maybe), people are influenced by what's going on further afield than their own back yard.
Alternatives - people choose the transport option that best suites their needs, there does have to be some stick to go along with the carrot.

[horizon]

I can't see how anyone can take one example and consider it proof as horizon has done in the OP.

It's because I have a very low threshold of proof when it comes to this issue. I have never been convinced that the bleatings about traffic danger are what genuinely prevent people from cycling. The same people are probably the ones who drink to excess on holiday, cut me up when they are driving and have little time for protecting the environment if it involves effort on their part.

That isn't to say that the roads aren't dangerous or that better facilities, road layouts and speed restrictions aren't a good thing. But they aren't what is at the heart of the matter: Stevenage is a good example of reasonable efforts to make a town cycle-friendly. It isn't perfect by any means but neither is it groaning with cyclists. I am sure there are people who are genuinely put off by traffic and have never had the opportunity to build the confidence to deal with it but that isn't the whole picture by any means. I didn't see people rushing out to vote for the Green party last June either.

The best thing we can do to get people to cycle is to stop building new roads, to dismantle traffic schemes in towns and allow congestion to build up to a natural level. Then people will cycle. London turned its back on new motorway boxes and has finally got its cycling levels nearer to where they should be.

[axel_knutt]

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.

[reohn2]

People will go with the least line of resistance,ifusing the car is more convenient that's what they'll use.
Make the car less convenient and things will change,it seems from reading the article that's the problem in Stevenage.Whilst cycling facilities were well provided for,car facilities were/are provided for better.
Claxton is quoted a couple of times in the article as complaining car owners are selfish,no surprise there.
People generally are selfish in that regard,they look after themselves and their own first,in trying to achieve that end the car wins out every time,make cycling more convenient by delibrately obstructing car use for short journey use and it'll be a different story.
Groningen:- https://vimeo.com/76207227

[Wanlock Dod]

I have to agree that whilst Stevenage may have been reasonably well provided for in terms of cycling infrastructure, by UK standards anyway, that does no mean that it was designed for cycling to be the most convenient mode of transport for short distances. Whilst I don't really have any experience of the place I can well imagine that, just as with everywhere else that I have ever seen in the UK, it has been designed first and foremost for cars to be the most convenient mode of transport for all journeys longer than across a car park. If you just try to fit cycling infrastructure around that it probably isn't going to be especially convenient, however well it is catered for. I also imagine that once you reach the limit of the town you run out of any provision for cycling, so unless you're only going about within the town it's not all that useful either.

...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.

[reohn2]

......

...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

[Vorpal]

Convenience is everything.

[reohn2]

Convenience is everything.

+1

[horizon]

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.

[reohn2]

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.

Because it's so convenient to do so....