Quality Infra

[Vorpal]

As ive posted elsewhere.
Once you take into account the massive differential in actual usable segregated cycling for UK v NL which reduces the exposure rate to motorvehicles massively in favour to NL (by at least 10:1) then adjust the cycled miles per person to people who actually cycle (not per population head) plus the supposed safety in numbers factor, the segregated Dutch cyclist system appears to have a relatively high death toll and not as effective as people think/push it to be.

Despite the massively reduced exposure rate in a country that supposedly is the leader in cycling safety the death toll is currently 150-180 though many more older deaths bucking the reduction trend due to e-bike use!
Even their iverall road KSI rate per billion miles is higher than the UK, but with segregated cyclists doing a huge share of the miles away from motorvehicles and supposedly better drivers whom are more likely to be cyclists themselves than in the UK how can this possibly be???

Yes, the safety thing has come up several times, and like any statistics, you can slice it many different ways. Per (billion) km travelled seems like a reasonable way to include exposure. Per cyclist may not be a good way to do it because of differing types of trips and populations of cyclists. For example, the population of cyclists in the Netherlands includes many more children, who are bound to have higher crash risk. Furthermore, children who do cycle in the UK seldom have their crashes reported as RTCs because they cycle in parks and school yards, instead of as transport.

Also 'effective' somewhat depends on what you want to accomplish. Getting people to make 25% of trips by bicycle is certainly 'effective' in that it reduces obesity and related health issues, reduces pollution, and improves traffic flow. Both the UK and the Netherlands have relatively low injury risk for cyclists. Which has a nicer environment for cycling?

[tatanab]

Also, like in NL, cyclists are required to use cycling facilities when provided, and some are pretty bad; no better than the UK

Which is one reason Belgium is off my list of preferred places to tour. I went in 2006 and checked the law beforehand. At that time it said "use cycle paths unless they are unsuitable". Some I saw were only suitable for a granny going 200 metres to the shop, not for anybody trying to get anywhere, but I was ok on the road. It was about 2010 (probably even more recently) that the law changed so that I would be forced to use rough, narrow, rubbish paths - just because they are there. In 2006 the on road paths that I saw in the cities were good and well repected, but many outside the towns were plain rubbish.

[PH]

Also would the Dutch segregated infra work for most of the CUK/cycle clubs' runs, no, sure the slower paced rides it would be ok to a point. Would segregated infra work for mass cycle rides for charity, for audax for sportives, maybe some brevet populaire/low distance beginner type rides but the rest would even with current Dutch infra make it totally different, more stop start and unless it were road width extremely difficult with big numbers to travel at many differing speeds, some in excess of 20mph, and on hills 30 and 40mph.

Belgium and the Netherlands both have thriving Audax scenes, I don't know how they work but they obviously do. I'm doing a couple later in the year, I'll report back.

If we are to have such high numbers using bikes of all speeds and types why are we continually trying to cram them into a small space?

When I see films like the one posted by pjclinch above, it's obvious there isn't usually much speed difference between most of the users. This has been my experience of riding in a few European cities. I wish people would follow suite in the UK, I'm sick of being close passed by cyclists riding at twice my speed, just because you can doesn't mean you have to. There are compromises to be made and the unwillingness of a proportion of an already tiny section of the British population who consider themselves cyclists to make them is IMO spoiling it for the majority.

[Vorpal]

There are many roads in the Netherlands & Belgium that have no segregated infrastructure, despite the reputation for it. Some of these are minor, rural and semi-rural roads are ideal for training, Audaxing, and so on. Look at Strava segments there.

[mjr]

It was about 2010 (probably even more recently) that the law changed so that I would be forced to use rough, narrow, rubbish paths - just because they are there.

Hi - can you link to the law, please? I thought it was the same as in NL, that routes signed as defective (like something like "slechte wegdek" meaning failed cycleway surface) become non-obligatory.

[pjclinch]

If we are to have such high numbers using bikes of all speeds and types why are we continually trying to cram them into a small space?

When I see films like the one posted by pjclinch above, it's obvious there isn't usually much speed difference between most of the users. This has been my experience of riding in a few European cities. I wish people would follow suite in the UK, I'm sick of being close passed by cyclists riding at twice my speed, just because you can doesn't mean you have to. There are compromises to be made and the unwillingness of a proportion of an already tiny section of the British population who consider themselves cyclists to make them is IMO spoiling it for the majority.

The trick with most of the scenes in the video posted is it's the cycling equivalent of driving in town during the rush hour. People are going at the same speed because it's either not possible or at least not smart to do much else.

No, those scenes aren't ideal for a club run, but would you have a club run on a busy urban street during rush hour in the UK? My Dutch touring has taken me at times through busy towns (partly I'm visiting people rather than places) and you just slot in with the traffic, just as with busy driving in the UK. if you want to go out for high speed fun and freedom there's plenty of opportunity so long as you don't insist on it being at any time and in any place, just like on roads in the UK.

Pete.

[Bmblbzzz]

Take a look at cycling maps of NL. The routes are direct and functional. That UK routes send you on weird circumnavigations of housing schemes doesn't mean that that is necessary.

This is the other good thing about what we see in the OP's Belgian video; goes with what I described as "accessibility" though. He's cycling along the road even if he isn't cycling on it. Paths for getting to work etc rather than sunny Sunday afternoon leisure routes!

[mjr]

Why the pessimism about infrastructure? Why will only "very little" infrastructure be provided and why will it be inadequate? Why can the Netherlands and Denmark, now Flanders and increasingly more of France do it but the UK generally can't? Why can't we generalise the few places building some decent stuff and spread the good practice nationwide?
......

The pessimism is based in realism. I might quote your own remark from the same post: "Ah, should, should, should... if wishes were horses. How are you going to make it so? By appealing to the powerful cycling lobby which doesn't actually exist - and never will unless we do things to get more people cycling from the current pretty awful starting point"?

Pessimism over infrastructure is not realism because we are now making it so. Only in some small pockets so far, mainly cities, partly due to national government grant goals apparently ignoring solid conservative-voting rural areas in favour of trying to win votes in suburban marginals by simultaneously enabling cycling and reducing congestion.

Also, I asked why can't we do it, not said should - should - should.

This being so, why spend zillions (not that a UK government ever will) on needless cycling infrastructure that may reduce your chance of a serious accident by 0.01% (or even increase it) even if it does cater to the otherwise inept who can't learn to ride a bike in traffic (or, more accurately, won't learn because the mass media, helmet fanatics and other doomsayers frighten their horse)?

That seems to be answered by itself - we should spend more on this because it does cater to those who won't ride in traffic, bringing health, environmental and economic benefits to those cyclists, to existing cyclists and even to those who don't cycle themselves (although less so), at a fraction of the cost of the road-building plans which bring health and environmental harm instead. It's not about accidents directly - except maybe getting rid some of the flat-out dangerous cycleway layouts built around the 1980s.

The government is only spending millions so far and it's having some results in the areas where it's spent. It seems an obvious choice logically to spend more - I feel the main problem now is the emotional "bikelash" backlash from some rump motorists (those who will never cycle, for various reasons) who don't see beyond their windscreen, who won't realise that almost every person switching to cycling is one less car in the queue in front of them... but the wonderful thing about irrational objections is that they can be overcome in surprising ways which don't require much of a critical mass.

Perhaps the zillions could be spent on policing the aggressive antics of Mr Toad, as this will reduce not only cycling deaths & injuries but also those of pedestrians and Toads, probably in great numbers. Yes, I know "should, should, should...., horse-wishes, etc.". But the Toad-catching laws already exist, they merely need to be applied by rozzer & beak.

It could but the "war on the motorist" press campaign is too scary at the moment, so the laws won't be enforced unless we get the numbers cycling and walking up enough to become a believable vote-swinging interest group and the anti-infrastructure cycling crowd have no new ideas likely to do that. Their main demand seems to be a return to the previous CTC "right to ride on roads" rhetoric which failed for 80+ years - it's a bankrupt ideology which seems to have no new ideas.

[tatanab]

Hi - can you link to the law, please? I thought it was the same as in NL, that routes signed as defective (like something like "slechte wegdek" meaning failed cycleway surface) become non-obligatory.

No link because I have no interest in revisiting. I imagine that if a path is signed as defective then the road is fair game, but previously the judgment of suitable or not was for the cyclist to make. There have been a few threads on this forum in the last few years reporting aggressive behaviour if a path is not used (since change of law0 which I believe is much the same in as in NL.

[PH]

The trick with most of the scenes in the video posted is it's the cycling equivalent of driving in town during the rush hour. People are going at the same speed because it's either not possible or at least not smart to do much else.

I understand that Pete, but the experience of riding in rush hour in Amsterdam (Which I was last dong in February) and rush hour along one of the London super Highways (Which I was doing the same month) is completely different and it's the users attitude rather than any facility that makes it so. You're right it's not smart, that was my point, though plenty in London thought it possible.

[Cugel]

.......

If such infrastructure is seen as "the solution" to cyclists being in danger on the roads, we'll eventually end up being banned from the roads, with very little replacement cycling infrastructure provided, which will anyway be inadequate because shared with pedestrians and/or not properly designed or maintained. Look about and see what there is now in the way of such infrastructure... 90% poor and/or inadequate. Much of it is lethal (e.g. painted left hand strips in towns inviting us to be doored, kerb-squashed or left-hooked).

The danger to cyclists from road traffic, even now, is not that great. The mass media (including that put out by Cycling UK) amplifies the seeming danger by going on about every incident. It's more risky to do things in your garden with tools or to go up and down stairs every day. The roads, even now, are best kept as a shared resource for all users, including cyclists, horses, tractors and everything else.

The problem with the above is it takes "roads" and "cyclists" as rather singular in nature. ....... but aside from the roads themselves the people riding on them are very different. I can tackle pretty much anything in Dundee on a bike but the fact is that a typical school child or octogenarian isn't nearly as well equipped to do it as me, and this is why the recent Manchester plans use a 12 year old cyclist as a benchmark. And crucially it's not that a typical 12 year old can use it, it's that they'd choose to use it. Because it's not just about absolute danger, it's about pleasantness (which folds back in to perceived danger) and just having a rubbish time is a good reason not to do something, however safe it may be.

........ Saying we shouldn't bother trying to get life better for folk beyond Enthusiasts is defeatist and perhaps a bit selfish too, though I'd agree we've got to be very careful in benchmarking what goes in. .......

.......

Pete.

On your first point - that some cycling infrastructure can be beneficial and so is worthy of pursuing - I agree, although the type and degree of such infrastructure is not so settled, I think. There are a number of reasons that the difference between "good" and "poor" cycling infrastructure is not yet clear. One reason pertains to your next point, that....

..... all cyclist are not equal therefore we should cater, with cycling infrastructure, to the lowest common demoninator (inexperienced children, the physically weak, the inept, et al) to encourage them to cycle. But if cycling infrastructure is all designed specifically to cater to a physically weak and inept 12 year old, it won't suit the other 99% of cyclists, of all types and abilities.

What would suit all cyclists? Well, the existing roads, since they are tried and tested ... as long as the more obvious dangers are reduced by the perfectly reasonable application of already extant laws to the hunderds of thousands of motorists who routinely break them and get away with it - even if they maim or kill someone, in some cases. Hills or poor surfaces on these roads? Get the technology to cope, even including the electric bike (although I prefer 30X36 ring/sprocket myself).

Of course, I may be exceptional (ha!) but, like every other child in my neighbourhood, I learnt to ride a bike on the ordinary roads and became adept at it with practice, whether the skill was going up and down hills, around corners, on naughty surfaces or dealing with traffic. Call me a reactionary old fool but I have this idea that humans can adapt to the world rather than adapting the world to them; and that this is a valuable skill.

On the other hand, there is certainly a case for adapting the world to the humans in some scenarios. WHo would do without central heating, eh!? Or tarmac roads. But at some point we need to recognise that the world, even the human-constructed world, cannot be ideal and convenient for everyone, particularly those who don't care to adapt. (Let them stay on their sofas gawping at the tele, says I).

Cugel

[mjr]

Hi - can you link to the law, please? I thought it was the same as in NL, that routes signed as defective (like something like "slechte wegdek" meaning failed cycleway surface) become non-obligatory.

No link because I have no interest in revisiting. I imagine that if a path is signed as defective then the road is fair game, but previously the judgment of suitable or not was for the cyclist to make.

Please don't make the claim if you're not willing to check it. I'm off to Belgium again later, so I am interested in revisiting. I looked it up and https://www.code-de-la-route.be/textes- ... e/109-art9 contains the key word "practicable" repeatedly, as well as explicitly not requiring you to use contraflow cycleways where circumstances justify using the road (which I take to mean things like turning right soon). Another article explicitly lets you stray over the dividing line on split cycleway/footways as long as you give way to walkers. So it's actually more liberal than I thought and more liberal than NL, differently liberal to the UK, but maybe you know of a recent law change not reflected there.

There have been a few threads on this forum in the last few years reporting aggressive behaviour if a path is not used (since change of law0 which I believe is much the same in as in NL.

That's not really a surprise, is it? We get enough abuse in the UK whether or not there are cycleways nearby - I've had an irate driver shouting at me to get OFF the cycleway once - and IMO Dutch drivers are no better than ours. Belgians have long been far worse - "Belgians prefer to crash rather than give up their priority when joining traffic from the right, and a casual survey of the number of dented cars adds credence to this seemingly absurd idea. Drivers take their priority under any and all circumstances; the few timid ones who do not simply get their bashes in the rear." -- George McDonald, Thomas Cook Travellers: Belgium, 1994 edition.

[tatanab]

Please don't make the claim if you're not willing to check it.

I did not keep records of the link to law because I knew I was unlikely to need it again. So I would have to do the internet research all over again, to no personal benefit. So my claim was from memory.

[Vorpal]

https://www.belgium.be/nl/mobiliteit/fi ... s/plichten states cyclists rights and obligations. The highway code for cyclists can be downloaded from there for 4.50 euros.

I know it's possible to get a fine for not using a cycle path. I don't know how easy it is to claim that the path wasn't safe, or in too poor condition.

I have heard from other cyclists that if you have not registered a complaint about the condition of the path, you are unlikely to get out of a fine. I do not know anything about the accuracy of this; it could be urban myth.

Belgian drivers are not shy about letting cyclists know when they shouldn't be on the road

edited: I also I looked at mjr's link, and I think that the practicable is meant in terms of access,

Lorsqu'une partie de la voie publique est indiquée par le signal D10, les cyclistes doivent faire usage de celle-ci.

'When part of the public way is marked with sign D10, cyclists must use it' is clear & without any 'when practicable'.

[pjclinch]

..... all cyclist are not equal therefore we should cater, with cycling infrastructure, to the lowest common demoninator (inexperienced children, the physically weak, the inept, et al) to encourage them to cycle. But if cycling infrastructure is all designed specifically to cater to a physically weak and inept 12 year old, it won't suit the other 99% of cyclists, of all types and abilities.

why not? I didn't have any particular problems riding along fietspads that are entirely usable by less experienced or slower riders, any more than drivers of hot cars can't use the same motorways as me.

What would suit all cyclists? Well, the existing roads, since they are tried and tested ... as long as the more obvious dangers are reduced by the perfectly reasonable application of already extant laws to the hunderds of thousands of motorists who routinely break them and get away with it - even if they maim or kill someone, in some cases. Hills or poor surfaces on these roads? Get the technology to cope, even including the electric bike (although I prefer 30X36 ring/sprocket myself).

Suiting someone and not killing them aren't the sane thing.
And it's clear when you get passed by Chain Gangs on rural fietspads that there's no problem sharing with slower riders on more sparsely populated routes outside of urban rush hours.

Of course, I may be exceptional (ha!) but, like every other child in my neighbourhood, I learnt to ride a bike on the ordinary roads and became adept at it with practice, whether the skill was going up and down hills, around corners, on naughty surfaces or dealing with traffic. Call me a reactionary old fool but I have this idea that humans can adapt to the world rather than adapting the world to them; and that this is a valuable skill.

"Ordinary roads" have doom/distance ratios that vary by a factor of over 20. All "ordinary roads" are not the same.

Pete.