250 Miles

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14741
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: 250 Miles

Postby mjr » 12 Feb 2020, 4:46pm

Psamathe wrote:Details have been vague (and conflicting) but now a government press reslease apparently quotes
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/12/1bn-pledged-for-cycling-and-walking-routes-across-england-boris-johnson wrote:Details were vague, but a government press release promised “over 250 miles of new, high-quality separated cycle routes and safe junctions”, as well as pilots of low-traffic neighbourhoods – the so-called mini-Hollands – which prioritise people over cars.

So, with 48 counties that gives us 5.2 miles of cycle path per county. So were are those 5.2 miles most needed in your county and will 5.2 miles of cycle path really make much difference ?

And it's over 5 years, remember, so it's basically 1 mile per county per year.

Another way of looking at it is that this is roughly £1.20 per person per year. The "Get Britain Cycling" parliamentary group report called for £10/person/year, rising to £20 - the Cycle City Ambition Grants temporarily raised spending in some cities to £10/person/year, which is why we actually saw new stuff built in places like Norwich, Cambridge, Leeds and Bradford, but I feel that even building twice as fast (or twice as good in the case of Leeds and Bradford IMO!) would only just start to cause change.

"Get Britain Cycling" called the default national level back then of £2/p/yr "far too low" and now Boris is announcing even less and expecting it to be welcomed! :evil:
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.

Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 794
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: 250 Miles

Postby Marcus Aurelius » 12 Feb 2020, 5:11pm

Vorpal wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Vorpal wrote:based upon what?


Scroll down to the article here

https://road.cc/content/news/271051-jer ... item-12723

Actually Holland is the second worst, only behind Ireland, my bad.

The article says
A study by the European Transport Safety Council charting cycling fatalities over the last decade has found that the Netherlands is second only to Ireland in terms of the number of cyclist's deaths and the rate of increase; although considering the rates of cycling is so much higher than anywhere else in Europe, the figure of 228 deaths in 2018 is relatively lower than the 170 who died in Ireland, considering the latter's total number of cyclists is far lower.

This seems to refer to https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/PIN- ... _FINAL.pdf an except of which is here https://etsc.eu/how-safe-is-walking-and ... -flash-38/

Which means 228 is the total number of cyclist deaths. Given the difference in exposure (how often & how far people ride), that makes for a better outcome than the UK and most other countries.

The same report says
For example, countries where cycling is common, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, have a higher proportion of cyclist deaths compared to countries where cycling is not as widespread. However, this does not imply that cycling in the Netherlands and Denmark is unsafe. In fact, these countries are some of the safest places to cycle with extensive cycling infrastructure networks. In the Netherlands, for example, on average, a person cycles 865 km annually


Well yes and no. The figure was total number of cyclist deaths in a ten year period, but it matters not a jot what percentage of the total number of cyclists that represents, because they’re still dead.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14741
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: 250 Miles

Postby mjr » 12 Feb 2020, 5:35pm

Marcus Aurelius wrote:Well yes and no. The figure was total number of cyclist deaths in a ten year period, but it matters not a jot what percentage of the total number of cyclists that represents, because they’re still dead.

1. Why doesn't it matter? Absolute numbers are bunk - if there are loads more people cycling more there, then of course more cyclists are going to die there than here even if cycling is 50% safer there.
2. It's not comparing like with like anyway because if you fall over getting onto an e-bike, the Netherlands would class that as a cycling fatality but the UK would not.
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.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17747
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: 250 Miles

Postby Vorpal » 12 Feb 2020, 7:54pm

Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Well yes and no. The figure was total number of cyclist deaths in a ten year period, but it matters not a jot what percentage of the total number of cyclists that represents, because they’re still dead.

Will you say the same about the 70,000 deaths in the UK each year linked to physical inactivity? https://www.localgov.co.uk/Inactivity-l ... year/47128

Given the average distance travelled per year per person, a cyclist is is more likely on a per mile basis to die cycling in Great Britain than the Netherlands.

The risk is really quite low in either country, though there is still room for improvement.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 794
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: 250 Miles

Postby Marcus Aurelius » 12 Feb 2020, 7:58pm

Vorpal wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Well yes and no. The figure was total number of cyclist deaths in a ten year period, but it matters not a jot what percentage of the total number of cyclists that represents, because they’re still dead.

Will you say the same about the 70,000 deaths in the UK each year linked to physical inactivity? https://www.localgov.co.uk/Inactivity-l ... year/47128

Given the average distance travelled per year per person, a cyclist is is more likely on a per mile basis to die cycling in Great Britain than the Netherlands.

The risk is really quite low in either country, though there is still room for improvement.


Theoretically, yes, but for various reasons the theory doesn’t hold water.

whoof
Posts: 2019
Joined: 29 Apr 2014, 2:13pm

Re: 250 Miles

Postby whoof » 12 Feb 2020, 9:22pm

Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Vorpal wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Scroll down to the article here

https://road.cc/content/news/271051-jer ... item-12723

Actually Holland is the second worst, only behind Ireland, my bad.

The article says
A study by the European Transport Safety Council charting cycling fatalities over the last decade has found that the Netherlands is second only to Ireland in terms of the number of cyclist's deaths and the rate of increase; although considering the rates of cycling is so much higher than anywhere else in Europe, the figure of 228 deaths in 2018 is relatively lower than the 170 who died in Ireland, considering the latter's total number of cyclists is far lower.

This seems to refer to https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/PIN- ... _FINAL.pdf an except of which is here https://etsc.eu/how-safe-is-walking-and ... -flash-38/

Which means 228 is the total number of cyclist deaths. Given the difference in exposure (how often & how far people ride), that makes for a better outcome than the UK and most other countries.

The same report says
For example, countries where cycling is common, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, have a higher proportion of cyclist deaths compared to countries where cycling is not as widespread. However, this does not imply that cycling in the Netherlands and Denmark is unsafe. In fact, these countries are some of the safest places to cycle with extensive cycling infrastructure networks. In the Netherlands, for example, on average, a person cycles 865 km annually


Well yes and no. The figure was total number of cyclist deaths in a ten year period, but it matters not a jot what percentage of the total number of cyclists that represents, because they’re still dead.

The number of people dying in England as a result of smoking is approximately 80,000 per year. In India it's 10,000,000 and in Luxembourg is 600. People in England should therefore switch to smoking the same cigarettes as they have in Luxembourg as they are over 100 times safer than English ones. Whereas Indian cigarettes are over 16,000 times more dangerous than those from Luxembourg.

awavey
Posts: 112
Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:04am

Re: 250 Miles

Postby awavey » 12 Feb 2020, 10:44pm

London apparently only has 22.5miles of segregated cycle ways, whilst alot of towns and cities around the rest of the UK actually have none.

So is 250 miles alot ? probably not really in the grand scheme of things, but its a start isnt it ?

TfL are currently in consultation for a new segregated path from Woolwich to Charlton,that segment is 2.5km long, it was self claimed in its own PR as a "bold" plan, thats 2.5km, probably announced in km because it sounds more than miles, eventually following more consultations it will eventually be 10km and link into Greenwich,which links in to Tower bridge route, and thats how you build infrastructure, in small bits piece at a time, because its a big problem and you can approve and build small bits quickly.

2.5km could equate to maybe 160 projects in towns or cities around the UK, if it was planned correctly to link proper desire lines up, gave the most bang for buck per metre, link into some existing schemes as well, yes it could transform alot of peoples journeys by bike.

and it will be 2.5km more than alot of people have at the moment, so I think people are focussing too much on what its not, rather than what it is, looking for the gold plated solution that will never come, and the fact its government backed makes the whole job of convincing councils its the right thing to do alot easier.

my local council at the moment theyve decided the way to improve cycling in their area is to fill in the gaps of paint on an advisory cycle lane to make it mandatory instead, and thats it, a bit of a paint on an existing cycle lane, no new schemes, no additional bikeability lessons, no promoting cycling as an alternative, no car free days, just a bit of paint, oh and cutting the price of car parks and letting more space to them because motorists complain they cant park near the shops they want and its too expensive

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14741
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: 250 Miles

Postby mjr » 13 Feb 2020, 10:48am

awavey wrote:London apparently only has 22.5miles of segregated cycle ways, whilst alot of towns and cities around the rest of the UK actually have none.

What's the source of that?

Using cycle.travel to check:
CS2 has 2.8 miles protected,
CS3 has 7.2 miles protected,
CS5/CS7 has another 1 mile,
C6 has 3.1 miles,
C23 has 2.7 miles,
A10 has 4.7 miles in London (1930s I think but it is kerb protected),
A1055 has 7.2 miles (1930s...),
A114 has 1.5 miles,
B179 and links has 2.9 miles,
and I'm at 33.1 miles already and I've only done a few headline inner London routes and a few northeastern roads and I know there's long stretches of neglected old substandard kerb-protected routes in West London. I suspect the total could approach 100miles.

And then you think of all the routes not by carriageways which might also be included in this 250 miles of new "cycle paths". Spread over all of England, that's tiny. I think King's Lynn alone has about 25 miles of half-decent protected or non-carriageway cycleways (and about 10m of crap narrow cycle lanes) and I think we need about 40 miles so I reckon this 250 miles would equip one midsize 70,000-inhabitant town per county with an eighth of a cycle network... Maybe 5 miles would be enough to fit out one 10,000-inhabitant large village per county, but 20mph and roads closed to through motorists would probably do that better.

I agree that if targetted at difficult junctions and missing links then it could have a big impact but generally the reason why those links are missing and junctions aren't simplified is that highway authorities are variously gutless or cheapskate and I don't think £1.20/person/year is enough to make them spend or grow spines to tackle those difficult problems.
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: 550
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: 250 Miles

Postby Wanlock Dod » 13 Feb 2020, 8:03pm

Marcus Aurelius wrote:Theoretically, yes, but for various reasons the theory doesn’t hold water.

Are you trying to suggest that cycling in Little Britain is safer than it is in The Netherlands?

niggle
Posts: 3386
Joined: 11 Mar 2009, 10:29pm
Location: Cornwall, near England

Re: 250 Miles

Postby niggle » 13 Feb 2020, 10:19pm

Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Vorpal wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Well yes and no. The figure was total number of cyclist deaths in a ten year period, but it matters not a jot what percentage of the total number of cyclists that represents, because they’re still dead.

Will you say the same about the 70,000 deaths in the UK each year linked to physical inactivity? https://www.localgov.co.uk/Inactivity-l ... year/47128

Given the average distance travelled per year per person, a cyclist is is more likely on a per mile basis to die cycling in Great Britain than the Netherlands.

The risk is really quite low in either country, though there is still room for improvement.


Theoretically, yes, but for various reasons the theory doesn’t hold water.

What reasons?

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 4755
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: 250 Miles

Postby RickH » 14 Feb 2020, 1:20am

The Greater Manchester Bee Network proposals are for 1800 miles of routes (link).

So maybe just give us all the money here as a contribution! :twisted:

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 2963
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: 250 Miles

Postby Cugel » 14 Feb 2020, 8:12am

Mike Sales wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:“Little Hollands” :shock: The Netherlands had the worst death rates for cyclists, in Europe last year.


This sort of analysis leads logically to the conclusion that the surest way of eliminating cyclist casualties would be to ban cycling.


And everything else.

On the other hand, one could consider fundamental causes. Ban cars and the rates of all sorts of deaths & maimings will plunge, as well several other damaging syndromes of modern life. All those currently employed in designing and making death traps might be redirected to making bicycles instead. Or their own furniture. (No hand-eating American table saws allowed, though). :-)

Cugel

PS Banning cars also automatically creates hundreds of thousands of miles of safe cycleways aka "the roads". Actually, I find them fairly safe now - more so than them shared-use paths full of, well, everything not a car, van, truck or bus. (I have seen cars & vans parked on them, mind).

Mike Sales
Posts: 4202
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: 250 Miles

Postby Mike Sales » 14 Feb 2020, 12:37pm

Cugel wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:“Little Hollands” :shock: The Netherlands had the worst death rates for cyclists, in Europe last year.


This sort of analysis leads logically to the conclusion that the surest way of eliminating cyclist casualties would be to ban cycling.


And everything else.

On the other hand, one could consider fundamental causes. Ban cars and the rates of all sorts of deaths & maimings will plunge, as well several other damaging syndromes of modern life. All those currently employed in designing and making death traps might be redirected to making bicycles instead. Or their own furniture. (No hand-eating American table saws allowed, though). :-)

Cugel

PS Banning cars also automatically creates hundreds of thousands of miles of safe cycleways aka "the roads". Actually, I find them fairly safe now - more so than them shared-use paths full of, well, everything not a car, van, truck or bus. (I have seen cars & vans parked on them, mind).


Ban cars! Surely you jest?

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 2963
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: 250 Miles

Postby Cugel » 15 Feb 2020, 9:23am

Mike Sales wrote:
Cugel wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:
This sort of analysis leads logically to the conclusion that the surest way of eliminating cyclist casualties would be to ban cycling.


And everything else.

On the other hand, one could consider fundamental causes. Ban cars and the rates of all sorts of deaths & maimings will plunge, as well several other damaging syndromes of modern life. All those currently employed in designing and making death traps might be redirected to making bicycles instead. Or their own furniture. (No hand-eating American table saws allowed, though). :-)

Cugel

PS Banning cars also automatically creates hundreds of thousands of miles of safe cycleways aka "the roads". Actually, I find them fairly safe now - more so than them shared-use paths full of, well, everything not a car, van, truck or bus. (I have seen cars & vans parked on them, mind).


Ban cars! Surely you jest?


The jest is the black joke of the car - although other high-tech consumerist items of a droll nature may also be found; consider the prattlebox. Or TV.

A mental experiment I conducted this morning - in an idle moment whilst staring out the window into the current storm of high winds and rain lashing the landscape, yet no valid excuse for huddling indoors as far as the collies are concerned - goes thusly:

Imagine a country without bicycles (banned or otherwise discouraged into oblivion by, say, Toryism). Would this reduce the overall "accident" rate on the roads? Answer: no, because those who would have cycled will turn to the car, there being no viable public transport for A to B in vast swathes of the nation. The "accident" rate would probably go up, as cars are much more likely to engender accidents than are bicycles.

Conduct the same mental experiment with cars and many other motorised vehicles being banned or otherwise discouraged to oblivion (perhaps by general penury amongst the population at large, wrought by Toryism). Would the "accident" rate on the roads decrease? Yes indeed - by loads. Along with the pollution, CO2 generation and a long list of other modern ills. There would even be a large benefit to the NHS, as lots of healthy cyclists find themselves less frail than when they crouched, all anxious, behind a steering wheel in a fume-choked jam. And not car-mangled.

Therefore ... the only sensible transport policy is to ban cars. Obvious really.

Of course, it might require that general penusry. :-) Another mental experiment. Would the overall benefits of a general penury actually outweigh the harms of being too well-orf? Perhaps we need a Macmillanesque slogan such as, "You've recently had it far too good".......?

Cugel

Oldjohnw
Posts: 2893
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: 250 Miles

Postby Oldjohnw » 15 Feb 2020, 9:44am

Cugel wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:
Cugel wrote:
And everything else.

On the other hand, one could consider fundamental causes. Ban cars and the rates of all sorts of deaths & maimings will plunge, as well several other damaging syndromes of modern life. All those currently employed in designing and making death traps might be redirected to making bicycles instead. Or their own furniture. (No hand-eating American table saws allowed, though). :-)

Cugel

PS Banning cars also automatically creates hundreds of thousands of miles of safe cycleways aka "the roads". Actually, I find them fairly safe now - more so than them shared-use paths full of, well, everything not a car, van, truck or bus. (I have seen cars & vans parked on them, mind).


Ban cars! Surely you jest?


The jest is the black joke of the car - although other high-tech consumerist items of a droll nature may also be found; consider the prattlebox. Or TV.

A mental experiment I conducted this morning - in an idle moment whilst staring out the window into the current storm of high winds and rain lashing the landscape, yet no valid excuse for huddling indoors as far as the collies are concerned - goes thusly:

Imagine a country without bicycles (banned or otherwise discouraged into oblivion by, say, Toryism). Would this reduce the overall "accident" rate on the roads? Answer: no, because those who would have cycled will turn to the car, there being no viable public transport for A to B in vast swathes of the nation. The "accident" rate would probably go up, as cars are much more likely to engender accidents than are bicycles.

Conduct the same mental experiment with cars and many other motorised vehicles being banned or otherwise discouraged to oblivion (perhaps by general penury amongst the population at large, wrought by Toryism). Would the "accident" rate on the roads decrease? Yes indeed - by loads. Along with the pollution, CO2 generation and a long list of other modern ills. There would even be a large benefit to the NHS, as lots of healthy cyclists find themselves less frail than when they crouched, all anxious, behind a steering wheel in a fume-choked jam. And not car-mangled.

Therefore ... the only sensible transport policy is to ban cars. Obvious really.

Of course, it might require that general penusry. :-) Another mental experiment. Would the overall benefits of a general penury actually outweigh the harms of being too well-orf? Perhaps we need a Macmillanesque slogan such as, "You've recently had it far too good".......?

Cugel


You might have a suggestion as to how, with an injured back and no public transport (or a four hour three bus plus walk) I get to a hospital appointment.
John