Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2734
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

Postby Bmblbzzz » 14 Aug 2019, 1:26pm

reohn2 wrote:
I’m still looking forward to hearing about some examples of places which have achieved high levels of cycling without segregated infrastructure

You may be in for a long wait :wink:

Thousands of examples if you go back to before ~1950. Thousands of examples today if you look beyond the UK. Also thousands of examples of towns and cities with high levels of walking despite a lack of pavements. The key factors common to all are a large population unable to afford private motorised transport.

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 2212
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

Postby Cugel » 14 Aug 2019, 1:32pm

mjr wrote:
Cugel wrote:As I keep trying to say - the causes and effects are complex. It's not really possible to disentangle them all.

That's great, but later you fall back to
The roads are already there and just need the loonies removing.

which contradicts it, doesn't it?


No, the roads are demonstrably fit for cycling as we do 99% of cycling, nationally, on those roads. We merely dislike the danger of car-loons being allowed the same facility despite their criminal behaviour.

mjr wrote:I also think the later statement is not true. If we keep the current dangerously-bad-for-cycling road layouts, then no amount of policing will solve all the problems.


There are few of those compared to the vast amount of road space that's very suitable for cycling. The cost of fixing a few bad-for-cyclists road bits would be teeny-weeny compared to a whole new cycling infrastructure replicating the extant roads.

My overarching point is that improving the behaviour of motorised traffic by a significant degree of policing will, by it's very nature, make more drivers conform more often to the rules.

mjr wrote:I ask again, is there any evidence for that?


Are you seriously suggesting that better policing will fail to have an effect on conformity to law? Perhaps we should scrap policemen altogether, eh?

(snip)

mjr wrote:Also, many current UK infrastructure inadequacies have little to do with money. In some cases, better infrastructure like reallocating one of three carriageway lanes to a two-way cycleway and erecting kerb islands with posts would be cheaper than the substandard stuff that was actually built. In others, things like approach angles at crossings don't cost any different.



(snip)


At bottom I feel those pushing for cycling infrastructure are being a bit selfish - as well as consumerist in assuming an "at last, a new product" will solve everything. What about the remaining problems of all those car loons charging about?


mjr wrote:I feel you are arguing against people that do not exist, some sort of infrastructure absolutists who say it will cure everything and we do not need any other measures, when most of us involved in the Space For Cycling campaigns have also been involved in other campaigns getting more policing, such as Road Justice, 20's Plenty, RDRF and Stop The Killing. This has been pointed out often enough that your continued use of Aunt Sally arguments and refusal to answer questions for evidence on the so-called "tried and tested" policing is pretty disingenuous.


Is it an Aunt Sally to question the cost and practicality of cycling infrastructure as an effective solution? Let's face it - the provisions so far have been a waste of money .... according to Chris Boarman and several others of the pro-cyclist interest groups, not just the likes of me. Nor do I completely dismiss cycling infrastructure as useful in limited circumstances - but not as a replacement for our right to ride the roads in safety; and not at any cost.

The problem is that the more you advocate cycling infrastructure as the main solution to the problem, the more you encourage those who want to avoid fixing the car problem. Indeed you tacitly encourage them to get cyclists off the roads altogether. Many are the tales of cyclists riding roads next to a wholly inadequate cycle path being screamed at, or even driven at, by car loons telling them to "get on the cyclepath".

And your complaint that I don't provide evidence that improved traffic policing reduces car-harm on the road sounds like a bit of desperation, frankly. In addition, I've already told you that there is little evidence available as traffic policing is not being increased anywhere that I know off. I can't give you evidence if none is generated either way.

But, as mentioned above, the logical implication that increased policing of existing law does not reduce crime is that we don't get any benefit from any policing and that we should therefore scrap the lot. Is that a reasonable position, do you think?

****
Would increased policing result in more cycling though? I don't know, as there are many other factors (as I keep trying to explain) that effect the attractiveness or otherwise of cycling to the great British public mind. The same applies to the provision of cycling infrastructure. But cycling infrastructure is very very expensive; and it doesn't do anything of itself to reduce the other widespread harms of carmageddon. Efforts to fix carmageddon offer a far greater payback, if they succeed, than does cyclepath provision.

Cugel

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13326
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

Postby mjr » 14 Aug 2019, 1:56pm

Cugel wrote:
mjr wrote:I also think the later statement is not true. If we keep the current dangerously-bad-for-cycling road layouts, then no amount of policing will solve all the problems.


There are few of those compared to the vast amount of road space that's very suitable for cycling. The cost of fixing a few bad-for-cyclists road bits would be teeny-weeny compared to a whole new cycling infrastructure replicating the extant roads.

Great, so let's do it then. Our opinions may differ on how many of them there are (given that the bad-for-cycling designs have been allowed for a few decades) but obviously they are surely much smaller than all extant roads.

My overarching point is that improving the behaviour of motorised traffic by a significant degree of policing will, by it's very nature, make more drivers conform more often to the rules.

mjr wrote:I ask again, is there any evidence for that?


Are you seriously suggesting that better policing will fail to have an effect on conformity to law? Perhaps we should scrap policemen altogether, eh?

No, I'm suggesting that traffic policing would have to increase by much more than "a significant degree" to improve driver conformance. Moreover, I suggest there are probably cheaper non-policing methods including cameras and retests which would be more efficient.

Is it an Aunt Sally to question the cost and practicality of cycling infrastructure as an effective solution?

No, but that's not what you've been doing.

Let's face it - the provisions so far have been a waste of money .... according to Chris Boarman and several others of the pro-cyclist interest groups, not just the likes of me.

I think you may have misinterpreted things like https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... missioners or have they said more?

Nor do I completely dismiss cycling infrastructure as useful in limited circumstances - but not as a replacement for our right to ride the roads in safety; and not at any cost.


The problem is that the more you advocate cycling infrastructure as the main solution to the problem, the more you encourage those who want to avoid fixing the car problem. Indeed you tacitly encourage them to get cyclists off the roads altogether. Many are the tales of cyclists riding roads next to a wholly inadequate cycle path being screamed at, or even driven at, by car loons telling them to "get on the cyclepath".

Yeah, and some of the tales are mine, including from many places where there was no cycle path... and additionally, I've even been screamed by a driver at to "get on the road" when I was on a cycleway that was OK for my roadster. Basically, the UK has a big problem with road rage drivers that needs tackling but it has very little to do with advocating road infrastructure being designed for cycling. We could remove all cycleways tomorrow and we would still get screamed at to get off the road. That is the sort of stuff that cannot be solved by infrastructure change and does need policing.

And your complaint that I don't provide evidence that improved traffic policing reduces car-harm on the road sounds like a bit of desperation, frankly. In addition, I've already told you that there is little evidence available as traffic policing is not being increased anywhere that I know off. I can't give you evidence if none is generated either way.

So stop calling it "tried and tested" please.

But, as mentioned above, the logical implication that increased policing of existing law does not reduce crime is that we don't get any benefit from any policing and that we should therefore scrap the lot. Is that a reasonable position, do you think?

That's not logical. It's a logical fallacy. Most likely, a false dilemma.

But cycling infrastructure is very very expensive; and it doesn't do anything of itself to reduce the other widespread harms of carmageddon. Efforts to fix carmageddon offer a far greater payback, if they succeed, than does cyclepath provision.

Cycling infrastructure is not expensive (you can keep saying it without it becoming so) and is a necessary part of efforts to fix carmageddon.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13326
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

Postby mjr » 14 Aug 2019, 1:59pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
I’m still looking forward to hearing about some examples of places which have achieved high levels of cycling without segregated infrastructure

You may be in for a long wait :wink:

Thousands of examples if you go back to before ~1950. Thousands of examples today if you look beyond the UK. Also thousands of examples of towns and cities with high levels of walking despite a lack of pavements. The key factors common to all are a large population unable to afford private motorised transport.

Oh well maybe Brexit taking us back to the 1950s and putting us all in the poor house will have a silver lining ;)

More seriously, could the request be interpreted as any motoring-dominated places which have achieved high levels of cycling without segregated infrastructure?

Pointing out places that have never motorised seems rather like a "if I wanted to go there, I wouldn't start from here" answer - possibly interesting but not that useful.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 453
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

Postby Wanlock Dod » 14 Aug 2019, 2:09pm

Cugel wrote:... This is especially so when the infrastructure is very expensive and doesn't pay for itself (as policing would, via fines)...


The recently completed Lancaster bypass is less than 5 km long and cost £123,000,000, that's a cost of nearly £25,000,000 per km.

The upgrading of part of the M4 motorway is expected to cost up to £862,400,000 for a 51 km length of existing road, that's a cost of up to £16,900,000 per km.

Some estimates suggest that the overall cost of roads to society is considerably greater than the costs which are taken into account in construction and subsequent taxation of users, whereas the provision of cycling infrastructure is estimated to provide a net benefit to society of between £5 and £20 for each £1 spent on construction, with much of the cost savings being associated with reduced healthcare do to higher levels of exercise in the population, despite the low standard of cycling infrastructure that is typical of Little Britain.

Would you care to provide any examples of the expensive cycle infrastructure projects that you refer to?

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 453
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

Postby Wanlock Dod » 14 Aug 2019, 2:11pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
I’m still looking forward to hearing about some examples of places which have achieved high levels of cycling without segregated infrastructure

You may be in for a long wait :wink:

Thousands of examples if you go back to before ~1950. Thousands of examples today if you look beyond the UK. Also thousands of examples of towns and cities with high levels of walking despite a lack of pavements. The key factors common to all are a large population unable to afford private motorised transport.


Perhaps you would care to explicitly identify a small selection of examples from amongst the many thousands that are available, as we still seem to be waiting for them. It is all very well to claim that examples exist, but if you cannot name them then how are they to be demonstrated to stand up to scrutiny?

reohn2
Posts: 35314
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

Postby reohn2 » 14 Aug 2019, 4:54pm

Cugel wrote:
Some dedicated cycle paths make sense, especially when they reduce the cost of making them via reuse of old stuff such as canal towpaths and old railway lines. But even these have their problems: such as sharing + overcrowding with pedestrians; few in number and often avoiding the populated areas that people want to do A to B journeys between. Still, they can be useful.

You seem to be complaining about the popularity of those routes which says to me there aren't enough of them,where there aren't more need building.

But imagine if all the road routes between the places that people typically drive needed to be replicated with cyclepath (and separate pedestrian path). It would cost zillions! It would eat even more land. There will be the disputes and delays that you mention, of various kinds. It will never happen

I suffer no illusion that all roads should have dedicated cyclepaths along side them but there are many that do,especially fast busy A and some B roads.
As for cost,you're joking right?
I'm sure you're aware of the road building projects and their extortionate cost for ever more one occupant motors that I witness every day,when a decent public transport system would carry 50+ people per vehicle,and that's before we get into the gross pollution and roads and streets clogged up with on street parking.

Meanwhile, even a slight provision of so-called cycling infrastructure will tend to encourage the car-loon organisations and advocates to call even louder for a ban on cyclists from the roads .... where carmageddon will continue less a few cyclist deaths & maimings
.
There needs to be a serious and long objective look at the way we organise travel in this country as well as taking away some of the clout the motoring bodies have.
It's choking us and more importantly our children,motor traffic is killing us both slowly and instantly not to mention those it's maiming and disabling in ome form or another.
People need to get that through their thick heads but it can only be done with decent government.

It might be politically difficult but heavy-duty changes to the motoring dominance we all suffer from in so many ways is the only cost-effective, practical and achievable way to move people en-masse from cars to bikes. (Assuming that's the objective). Car policing and reduction will also contribute significantly to perhaps the much more serious problems of pollution and CO2 generation; and several other car-caused ills.

And the roads are then for everyone.

Cugel

I knew we were in agreement :wink:
Last edited by reohn2 on 14 Aug 2019, 5:10pm, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

reohn2
Posts: 35314
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

Postby reohn2 » 14 Aug 2019, 4:56pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
I’m still looking forward to hearing about some examples of places which have achieved high levels of cycling without segregated infrastructure

You may be in for a long wait :wink:

Thousands of examples if you go back to before ~1950. Thousands of examples today if you look beyond the UK. Also thousands of examples of towns and cities with high levels of walking despite a lack of pavements. The key factors common to all are a large population unable to afford private motorised transport.

I think we're in agreement :wink:
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

mike whittaker
Posts: 5
Joined: 1 Aug 2019, 10:31am

Re: Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

Postby mike whittaker » 14 Aug 2019, 6:12pm

TrevA wrote:Locally, Nottm City Council is very pro-cycling and spent a lot of money on some very good cycling infrastructure...


If you say so

IMG_2502.JPG


My OP lists issues with the Nottm infrastructure I use. I think it is terrible. But I also concede it is better than many. But to say it's mostly just gone in, it is woeful. And no intention of extending castle boulevard facilities past the brand 'new' shopping centre being built (sorry i mean yet another flipping car park). :cry:
Last edited by mike whittaker on 14 Aug 2019, 8:49pm, edited 1 time in total.

reohn2
Posts: 35314
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

Postby reohn2 » 14 Aug 2019, 6:22pm

Mike Whittaker
You've got the wrong man,that's not my quote
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2734
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

Postby Bmblbzzz » 14 Aug 2019, 6:39pm

mjr wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:
reohn2 wrote:You may be in for a long wait :wink:

Thousands of examples if you go back to before ~1950. Thousands of examples today if you look beyond the UK. Also thousands of examples of towns and cities with high levels of walking despite a lack of pavements. The key factors common to all are a large population unable to afford private motorised transport.

Oh well maybe Brexit taking us back to the 1950s and putting us all in the poor house will have a silver lining ;)

More seriously, could the request be interpreted as any motoring-dominated places which have achieved high levels of cycling without segregated infrastructure?

Pointing out places that have never motorised seems rather like a "if I wanted to go there, I wouldn't start from here" answer - possibly interesting but not that useful.

Yes. That's pretty much my point. We are here and we can't really get back to there.

Can places which are motoring-dominated truly be said to have high levels of cycling? They obviously have high levels of driving! Even those held up as the best examples, such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen, are still motoring-dominated. Meanwhile there are eg Chinese cities which still have broad, smooth bicycle lanes but also huge numbers of cars, some of them using the bicycle lanes, thanks to their economic boom. And the pattern repeats from Mumbai to Maputo, poor people cycling or walking regardless of infrastructure or its lack, rich people driving and not tempted to cycle or walk even if the conditions are lovely.

A quick google finds that over two thirds of transport in both London and New York is not by car, they're still both motoring-dominated. https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default ... e-2016.pdf (figures from 2014, chart p19). Cars have the ability to dominate areas out of all proportion to their numbers. :(

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 453
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

Postby Wanlock Dod » 14 Aug 2019, 7:27pm

Cugel wrote:...Are you seriously suggesting that better policing will fail to have an effect on conformity to law?...


Perhaps a bit of an aside from the issue of benefit to experienced cyclists is the question of whether or not this improvement in driver behaviour could potentially lead to an increase in overall levels of cycling. So far I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that it would, so any increase in regulation might be perceived as only benefiting the existing population of cyclists which is very small.

In my, admittedly limited, experience the most considerate and careful drivers around cyclists are the Germans, and whilst Dutch drivers are much better than those from Little Britain they are perhaps less careful around cyclists than Germans (as a generalisation German drivers leave more space but pass at higher speeds whereas Dutch drivers pass more slowly but much more closely in some cases). Despite the careful law abiding nature of the German drivers levels of cycling are much lower in Germany than in Netherlands, and are perhaps driven by other factors.

More cyclists would benefit existing cyclists through the safety in numbers effect.

User avatar
TrevA
Posts: 2082
Joined: 1 Jun 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

Postby TrevA » 14 Aug 2019, 8:50pm

Duplicate post removed - see below.
Last edited by TrevA on 14 Aug 2019, 8:53pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TrevA
Posts: 2082
Joined: 1 Jun 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

Postby TrevA » 14 Aug 2019, 8:51pm

mike whittaker wrote:
TrevA wrote:Locally, Nottm City Council is very pro-cycling and spent a lot of money on some very good cycling infrastructure...


If you say so

IMG_2502.JPG

My OP lists issues with the Nottm infrastructure I use. I think it is terrible. But I also concede it is better than many. But to say it's mostly just gone in, it is woeful. And no intention of extending castle boulevard facilities past the brand 'new' shopping centre being built (sorry i mean yet another flipping car park). :cry:


I did say some!

The idea behind the Castle Boulevard route is good, but perhaps not that well executed. I agree about Broad Marsh, although there are plans to close Canal Street to through traffic, which will make it a more pleasant cycling environment (provided that they don’t also ban cycling along there. There is an issue with joining up the routes across the centre itself. There’s a convoluted through route via Hollowstone, High and Low Pavement, which doesn’t really work - in fact it might only be usable in the E-W direction due to one-way streets.

I used to commute into Nottingham from Bingham (now happily retired) - the cycle path beside the A52 is barely 3 feet wide in places, with 60mph traffic flying past your elbow.
Last edited by TrevA on 14 Aug 2019, 9:02pm, edited 1 time in total.

reohn2
Posts: 35314
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

Postby reohn2 » 14 Aug 2019, 8:59pm

-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.