Ofo and YouGov study press for segregated tracks

[atlas_shrugged]

An Ofo study carried out by YouGov has raised safety as a major barrier to cycling:

https://cyclingindustry.news/local-auth ... -director/

Ofo the cycle hire company are calling for segregated tracks for cyclists.

[horizon]

We've been here before:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=117377

Frankly I find it unbelievable if not laughable. All those eager but frightened would-be cyclists? I don't think so. Did Ofo test the veracity of the replies? I don't think so. Did cycling attract more cash than motoring in the budget? I don't think so. It appalls me that these surveys take the answers for granted and at face value.

And the view that is reinforced by these absurd surveys is: get bicycles off the roads. Why? Why shouldn't cars be segregated off? There are lots of ways at least partially to remove cars from roads (we have done it with predestrianisation). But I have the feeling that the very same people are are scared to cycle are those that might protest the loudest should their use of their car be restricted.

[gaz]

Would you prefer evidence based research from the Institution of Civil Engineers: http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/10 ... u.15.00001

The aims of this article are to demonstrate the successes and failures of the £100 million London Cycle Network plus project and to discuss the standard of the highway engineering schemes delivered, particularly in relation to their overall effect on ride quality as defined by the cycling level of service assessment set out in the 2014 London cycling design standards. ... From the analysis, the project is shown to have had a positive impact on promoting cycling growth in central London but little identifiable impact on collisions. The article also shows how a reliance on shared-use footways as a design practice could reduce the propensity for people to cycle.

Providing segregated cycle lanes promotes growth in cycling and it promotes greater growth than shared-use footways.

[horizon]

I'm simply not convinced that the major impediment to cycling is fear of traffic. But I do accept that for some people it is true. I also accept that many people fear for others (for example, their children); I also accept that it's generally an issue (for everyone) and that cycling without traffic is more pleasant (due to reduced danger). I also accept that there are roads where even I shudder to cycle, so you could argue that my own cycling is reduced through fear of traffic.

But, as we have discussed before, you really have to dig through the layers of other factors to find where fear of traffic really lies. I think that what cyclists have to put up with is monstrous but vast improvements could be made without any segregation at all. However I really do question whether those people who voice concern over traffic have a real intention to cycle (the survey notes several other issues mentioned by respondents). There is very little political will expressed to meet the concerns of this vast army of would-be cyclists.

Segregation offers two significant problems: firstly it is unlikely to happen on a sufficient scale and therefore creates a pre-condition that will never be met. Secondly it removes cyclists from the normal street/road pattern that offers the best means of getting around by bike (were it not for cars and lorries). Taking these vehicles out of the equation is a much better way forward.

[reohn2]

IMO UK roads are a hostile environment for cyclists,at best we're tolerated and at worst despised by motorists.
I wittness this on a daily basis when I ride a bike on the road,this situation leads to fear to a greater or lesser extent and I'm a seasoned cyclist of many years standing.
How such a situation would frighten new cyclists or potential cyclists I fully understand,especially if such potential cyclists drive and wittness the appalling driving stands on UK roads,roads that are practically unpoliced and unregulated in any practical sense.

[horizon]

IMO UK roads are a hostile environment for cyclists,at best we're tolerated and at worst despised by motorists.

True. But the best response to this is surely to segregate the motorists not punish the cyclists by removing them from our streets. By the way, there are lots of intermediate steps that we can take, like 20 mph speed limits, wider bike lanes and so on.

Note: we may have differing ideas as to what "segregation" actually means so apologies if I am muddying the water here.

[reohn2]

IMO UK roads are a hostile environment for cyclists,at best we're tolerated and at worst despised by motorists.

True. But the best response to this is surely to segregate the motorists not punish the cyclists by removing them from our streets. By the way, there are lots of intermediate steps that we can take, like 20 mph speed limits, wider bike lanes and so on.

Note: we may have differing ideas as to what "segregation" actually means so apologies if I am muddying the water here.

The whole point to this which would make UK roads a safe environment for all road users is effective policing and harsh sentences for offenders of the vehicles that are causing all the trouble fear and injury,until that measure is acted upon nothing will change IMHO.

[thirdcrank]

As I keep saying, the impetus for segregated farcilities won't come from any desire to promote cycling: as always, it's to get riders "out of the road" and the moves to driverless vehicles will increase the pressure.

[Stevek76]

I'm simply not convinced that the major impediment to cycling is fear of traffic.

I can only suggest you're suffering from a lack of empathy, people's fears vary considerably, just because you are not fearful of traffic does not mean others aren't. There is plenty of incidental evidence that the average person perceives cycling to be a far more risky activity than it actually is even before you directly ask their opinion on it, from the obsession about plastic hats and high vis to lack of parents that allow children to cycle to school. Cycling to places is something I've had people express surprise over, utterly unprompted other than the fact that I mentioned I cycled to wherever it was, as they think it's dangerous.

And you can also see it in the way that where there is decent cycling infrastructure, people are willing to detour to use it, this has been demonstrated in London with the east/west route (and some of the others now they've stopped being blue paint on the ground) and it's been apparent in bristol for years by the usage on the bristol-bath path.

Perhaps try getting somewhere capping your speed to 12mph and peak power output to 150W or so, you might find it's a little different on the roads when you don't have the power or fitness to zip off the lights and generally keep up with urban traffic speeds.

And the view that is reinforced by these absurd surveys is: get bicycles off the roads. Why? Why shouldn't cars be segregated off? There are lots of ways at least partially to remove cars from roads (we have done it with predestrianisation)

I think you're being a little cynical on this. I see no suggestion in that article that bikes should get off the roads. The Ofo director calls for both segregated lane and safe routes and the latter (which is essentially segregation by route) is a key element as the experience on the continent shows but there's no easy term for filtered permeability and it's rather less intuitive concept so it's not particularly surprising that the public are going to mostly volunteer segregated lanes as what would get them on their bikes. Other surveys have shown that significant majorities in cities are willing to see these, even when it's made clear that such things would come at the expense of existing general traffic road space.

[MikeF]

I'm simply not convinced that the major impediment to cycling is fear of traffic. But I do accept that for some people it is true. I also accept that many people fear for others (for example, their children); I also accept that it's generally an issue (for everyone) and that cycling without traffic is more pleasant (due to reduced danger). I also accept that there are roads where even I shudder to cycle, so you could argue that my own cycling is reduced through fear of traffic.

You admit you have a fear of traffic on some roads. Now put yourself in the position of someone who's a weak cyclist lacking your leg strength, your confidence in handling a bike, etc and you will find that fear applies to what you would consider "ordinary" roads. I spoke to a friend I see occasionally and he remarked "I wouldn't cycle where I live" and he rides a motor cycle.

Segregation offers two significant problems: firstly it is unlikely to happen on a sufficient scale and therefore creates a pre-condition that will never be met. Secondly it removes cyclists from the normal street/road pattern that offers the best means of getting around by bike (were it not for cars and lorries). Taking these vehicles out of the equation is a much better way forward.

That doesn't seem to be the case in Holland and some other European countries. It's a political will that is the problem. If you remove cars and lorries from where you want to cycle then you've created segregation. However segregation wouldn't be possible on every road, but the government raising speed limits on rural roads, because it supposedly benefits the economy doesn't help promote cycling.

[Ron]

Segregation offers two significant problems: firstly it is unlikely to happen on a sufficient scale and therefore creates a pre-condition that will never be met. Secondly it removes cyclists from the normal street/road pattern that offers the best means of getting around by bike (were it not for cars and lorries).

There will never be a need for 100% segregation, all modes of transport co-exist quite happily on much of our road network at present. Segregation is only required where there are high volumes of motorised traffic, or speed differentials are high.
I welcome the options offered by segregation, the present road network places many restrictions on my movement as a result of it being designed to suit motorised traffic. I welcome the options of taking short cuts by cycling against the motorised flow on One Way streets, and using direct line of travel routes unsuitable for motorised traffic due to limited width or headroom.

[MikeF]

An Ofo study carried out by YouGov has raised safety as a major barrier to cycling:

https://cyclingindustry.news/local-auth ... -director/

Ofo the cycle hire company are calling for segregated tracks for cyclists.

The quote was “The message to urban planners and local authorities is clear: we must make cycling safer, easier and more accessible – starting with segregated cycle lanes, safer routes and more options for cyclists.” and not just calling for segregated tracks. Yes urban planners must do that, but they don't know how to because they themselves don't cycle! (contrast Boris and Khan) The thought of curbing motor traffic is an anathema to nearly every local authority.

[horizon]

I'm simply not convinced that the major impediment to cycling is fear of traffic.

I can only suggest you're suffering from a lack of empathy, people's fears vary considerably, just because you are not fearful of traffic does not mean others aren't. There is plenty of incidental evidence that the average person perceives cycling to be a far more risky activity than it actually is even before you directly ask their opinion on it, from the obsession about plastic hats and high vis to lack of parents that allow children to cycle to school. Cycling to places is something I've had people express surprise over, utterly unprompted other than the fact that I mentioned I cycled to wherever it was, as they think it's dangerous.

Note: I think we've got two lines of argument running here, one being "are people fearful?" and the other being "does segregation work?".

I want to say again that I'm completely sympathetic to people who are genuinely fearful of cycling on the road. What I'm questioning is surveys or points of view that take people's expession of fear at face value. What we do know is that many people won't cycle due to inconvenience, dislike of exercise, hills, inability to deal with punctures, the weather and the sheer availability of much more preferable alternatives. That cycling is awkward (appalling cycle lanes for instance), cyclists are subjected to abuse and employers are unwilling to provide facilities only adds to the woes of a would-be cyclist. What we don't really know IMV is how much fear of traffic plays in all this. It's both to easy for surveys to ask and too easy for respondents to say that fear is the major factor.

Why I guess that people's expression of fear may sometimes be ingenuous is that their wanting to cycle rarely gets expressed by them or their political representatives. If the desire amongst the population to cycle was so strong then the Greens would have won several seats at the last election and good quality cycle facilities would be sprouting up everywhere. But they didn't and they aren't.

[fatboy]

People who don't cycle are often scared of what's not scary! I often talk with work colleagues who tell me this bit or other on my commute must be scary which usually is completely at odds with the bits that are scary!

[PRL]

IMO UK roads are a hostile environment for cyclists,at best we're tolerated and at worst despised by motorists.

True. But the best response to this is surely to segregate the motorists not punish the cyclists by removing them from our streets. By the way, there are lots of intermediate steps that we can take, like 20 mph speed limits, wider bike lanes and so on.

Note: we may have differing ideas as to what "segregation" actually means so apologies if I am muddying the water here.

Indeed - segregating motorists by making town centre streets access only looks like a very good form of segregation. The best cycle routes tend to be roads which are "closed" due to a hole being dug which leaves a small space for cyclists, and pedestrians, to get through.
The problem is that some roads that have to be retained as major through routes for freight etc do not have convenient alternative cycle routes. In that circumstance a Superhighway type track seems to be the only solution.