‘That’s not right...’

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 12363
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Location: Between the woods and the water

Re: ‘That’s not right...’

Postby Cyril Haearn » 3 Feb 2018, 10:33pm

180 dead cyclists in NL seems a lot, when will 'vision zero' be taken up?

I believe things could change a lot, halving motor traffic would be quite possible, and vehicles unable to exceed the maximum speed limit are possible now..
Nice one Cyrille, nice one son..
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on 49" fixed
We love safety cameras, we love life "1330"

Postboxer
Posts: 1543
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: ‘That’s not right...’

Postby Postboxer » 3 Feb 2018, 11:57pm

I think technology will come into play sooner than much else is achieved, driverless cars may be some years off, if they ever happen but hopefully it won't be too long before all new cars have sensors, cameras and collision avoidance systems in place. It will then take years to trickle through so most cars have it though. I wonder what insurance companies will do if that happens?

The easiest thing to achieve is either reduce the number of car drivers by making the test harder, having retests, banning more people, or reduce the number of journeys, probably by making fuel prohibitively expensive or having trackers fitted to cars that charge them for journeys. Less traffic means more room, less congestion, less stress.

reohn2
Posts: 37922
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: ‘That’s not right...’

Postby reohn2 » 4 Feb 2018, 12:05am

The utility cyclist wrote:A lot of miles, my point is that most of those miles are on 23,000 miles of completely segregated cycleways with priority given etc. So how cone despite all that seperation they still have such a high death toll?
It isn't exposure to traffic is it so the number of total miles covered is irrelevant.
So either the Dutch cyclists themselves are qirse than ours re safety, the dutch drivers are worse than ours when it comes to driving around people on bikes (remember safety in numbers mantra) or the segrgation isn't as effective at certain points.

The point is that you can't compare NL cycling deaths to UK because there can be no comparison.
NL cyclists use the bike from 4 to 94 years old and by a very high percentage of the population,which is simply a way of life.UK use of the bike is minimal by comparison and by a much smaller age range.
The total miles covered is relevant because miles per death in NL is much lower than the UK.
Also you give no cause for NL deaths or age range of those deaths so how can we compare the two?

If you think we are going to get seperated infra in the UK to even 5% of what the Dutch have that's pie in the sky it simply isn't going to happen, there's a much better chance of changing driver behaviour and pushing vehicles off certain roads and that having a greater effect than something that simply isn't goung to hapoen nor is there any will to do so even in London where the powers that be have turned yellow in the face of objections by NIMBYS to change.
I won't hold my breath for anything to happen outside of London/Manchester, even Oford, Camvridge and Bristol don't have proper segregated lanes that are truly on a par with NL

Point me to where I claimed an extensive cyclepath system NL was even probable in the UK.
I merely stated that I'm convinced that a seperate system on the busy and congested roads of the UK is better than what we have presently,and that mixing cycling with traffic on such roads is far from ideal.
The only way motorists will treat cyclists as equals on the road is by better driving standards,better law enforcement and stiffer penalties,don't hold your breath.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1681
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: ‘That’s not right...’

Postby Pete Owens » 4 Feb 2018, 12:22am

reohn2 wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:And yet despite that the Dutch still have around 180 fatalities a year.

Out of how many kms cycled?
And did those separated cyclepaths contribute to that death toll?

Absolutely.

Wherever side paths are studied - they contribute to an increase in crashes at junctions where most crashes occur. Pre 1970 the Dutch like the UK had a single minded segregationist approach to get cyclists off the road. They had rather more cyclists than the UK so they were more enthusiastic about getting us out of the way so they had rather more of them - and consequently a poor safety record.

Since then they have been taking safety seriously so you see measures pioneered there that contribute to making the roads safer - rather than simply clearing vulnerable road users out of the way of high speed motor traffic. They were the first to use more integrationist measures that prioritises active travel on the streets rather than motor traffic.

They block through traffic from local streets (something very rare in the UK).
They discourage motor traffic by limiting parking and reallocating space to better uses (where as we do the opposite here)
They were the first to install traffic calming (though we are catching up here).
They have lower and better enforced speed limits - plus a culture that doesn't see entitled motorists whinging about slightly stricter enforcement (though we are just starting to catch up here).
They design junctions to minimise speed, rather than to maximise capacity (in complete contrast to the UK).
They were the first to install woonerf (what we would call play streets and only install here as a bastardised version aimed at creating parking spaces).
They were the first to extend these principle to more busy streets as shared spaces (there are rare examples here - which are always described as controversial).
They are increasingly installing fietstraats (or bicycle streets) a concept that designs the entire street around the needs of cyclists.

All this has contributed to a relatively safe environment for vulnerable road users; pedestrians as well as cyclists. The safety record for cyclists tends to correlate strongly with the safety record for pedestrians - and pedestrian safety obviously has nothing whatever to do with whether cyclists are segregated. The things that actually make the streets safer are those that restrict motorists - the things that they now do in the NL but not in the UK.

This is specifically the case with the incident that sparked this thread with a SMIDSY on a roundabout. The continental and UK approaches to roundabout designs are radically different:
UK roundabouts are designed to optimise speed and capacity. Traffic joins and leaves at a tangent on wide slip roads and circulates on a wide carriageway. If you were to straighten it out it would resemble a series of spear point junctions on a dual carriageway. The whole aim is to enable free flowing traffic to maintain speed and this makes them very hostile for cyclists and pedestrians.
Dutch roundabouts are designed for slow traffic. They have a tight geometry with single lane arms approaching thew narrow circulating carriageway forcing drivers to navigate tight bends. As a consequence roundabouts are preferred the safest junction arrangement. It is this traffic calming geometry that makes the difference not the existence of cycle paths which is common to both UK and dutch designs.
What we need is to remove motorvehicles from many roads particularly in town and city centres, stop up roads for motors in both directions, one lane for bidirectional cycling and one lane for one way motoring traffic and train and police drivers to a far higher standard.
The continual mention of segregated lanes alongside roads is bonkers, we will NEVER ever get Dutch style/std segregated lanes, just forget about it because it isn't going to happen, not in 50 or even a 100 years.

Whilst I agree about stopping private vehicles from entering towns and cities,and a more inventive way of deliveries to shops etc,there is more chance of seperate cycle lanes than there is of stopping up roads for cycle use only.
[/quote]
It just a matter of political priorities.

The previous government set serious targets to improve road safety (which were claimed to be unrealistic, but were actually exceeded). At least at the start they were willing to take on the motor lobby, with things such as allowing road safety partnerships to use speeding fines to fund speed cameras, introducing planning laws to restrict parking, introduced the fuel tax escalator, allowed councils to introduce demand management measures etc. This was paying dividends - road deaths dropped from ~3000 to ~2000 and were on a reducing trend.

The current crowd came in promising to end the "war on motorists". They want to be seen as the friends of the sort of entitled motorists who see a modest parking charge as outrageous One of their first acts was to abandon casualty reduction targerts. They made it more difficult to install speed cameras and supported their removal - they reverted to more autocentric planning policies. This is why the trend for improving road safety has stopped and is starting to reverse.

Now of course when the motorists party is in charge it will be less likely that effective measures to improve safety will be introduced since these necessarily reduce the privileges of motorists; and more likely that measures introduced to segregate us out of the way of motor vehicles - something that the motor lobby has consistently advocated.

The most effective tool we have is to force drivers to drive better (by whatever method that is, training, speed reductions, better enforcement, street/road design etc) or simply remove them altogether.

As for driving standards,again I agree they're substandard and something needs doing about it,an effective police force wouldn't go amiss IMO.[/quote]
We could start with a tougher line on speeding enforcement perhaps:
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=119900&start=105

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17920
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: ‘That’s not right...’

Postby Vorpal » 4 Feb 2018, 8:40am

The Netherlands has 900 cycling kilometers per inhabitant. In England, it's only 75 km per inhabitant.

So, they have 12 times as many cycling kilometers and somewhat less than 2 times as many fatal collisions.

That isn't solely because of segregated infrastructure. In fact most cyclists use much less of that then most people imagine. It is also because of limited motor traffic permeability, low speed limits in residential areas, the design of streets where all modes of transport share, driver attitudes, enforcement and prosecution, etc.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2949
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: ‘That’s not right...’

Postby The utility cyclist » 4 Feb 2018, 12:34pm

Vorpal wrote:The Netherlands has 900 cycling kilometers per inhabitant. In England, it's only 75 km per inhabitant.

So, they have 12 times as many cycling kilometers and somewhat less than 2 times as many fatal collisions.

That isn't solely because of segregated infrastructure. In fact most cyclists use much less of that then most people imagine. It is also because of limited motor traffic permeability, low speed limits in residential areas, the design of streets where all modes of transport share, driver attitudes, enforcement and prosecution, etc.

You should't compare per inhabitant, how about per individual who cycles at all because that is the true value isn't it?
Actually it's 85km per inhabitant as of 2106 but only 12% of the population cycle once per week even if for a very short distance so that brings it to 708km per person who actually cycles 'regularly', man woman or child.

Also what rates of vehicles per hour, that also has a huge influence on how safe roads are. Given the approx 23000 miles of segregated lanes in NL and at least 23 times less than that in the UK, UK cyclists are exposed far far more to motorised traffic, by a factor greater than that of the multiplier of how many more miles the Dutch cycle per individual. Even if you ignore the per person (who actually cycles) distance per year you have approx 1.8x more deaths in a country that has an extensive segregated system so the exposure to the single main reason cyclists get KSI is massively, massively less than in the UK, this proves that despite the Dutch cycling further per inhabitant that due to the lack of exposure to the main threat/cause of KSI their roads/drivers in NL are worse than ours, the cyclists are worse at taking risks or there is an inherent flaw in the infra.
Again I ask, which is it?
Hint, NL road deaths per million population stands at 28, so actually not safer than the UK at all is it.

reohn2
Posts: 37922
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: ‘That’s not right...’

Postby reohn2 » 4 Feb 2018, 5:42pm

Pete Owens
We're are in agreement other than one small point in that pedestrians are segregated from motor traffic in both NL & UK,but for the most part cyclists in the UK aren't segregated from motor traffic.
The standard of driving around cyclists and acceptance of cycling in NL is far higher than in the UK,that and segregation has a great bearing on what makes cycling less safe in the UK than in NL.

EDITED for clarity
Last edited by reohn2 on 4 Feb 2018, 10:36pm, edited 2 times in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17179
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: ‘That’s not right...’

Postby [XAP]Bob » 4 Feb 2018, 8:00pm

But surely you can’t use deathsnper population...

Deathsnper mike is actually a reasonable measure - sonreally you ought to multiply the per person by the population in each case...

Of course, unless it’s leisure riding, in which case hourly exposure is more relevant...

Then you need to deal with those who have abheartbattack whilst cycling...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

MikeF
Posts: 3825
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: ‘That’s not right...’

Postby MikeF » 4 Feb 2018, 10:28pm

The utility cyclist wrote:
Vorpal wrote:The Netherlands has 900 cycling kilometers per inhabitant. In England, it's only 75 km per inhabitant.

So, they have 12 times as many cycling kilometers and somewhat less than 2 times as many fatal collisions.

That isn't solely because of segregated infrastructure. In fact most cyclists use much less of that then most people imagine. It is also because of limited motor traffic permeability, low speed limits in residential areas, the design of streets where all modes of transport share, driver attitudes, enforcement and prosecution, etc.

You should't compare per inhabitant, how about per individual who cycles at all because that is the true value isn't it?
Actually it's 85km per inhabitant as of 2106 but only 12% of the population cycle once per week even if for a very short distance so that brings it to 708km per person who actually cycles 'regularly', man woman or child.

Also what rates of vehicles per hour, that also has a huge influence on how safe roads are. Given the approx 23000 miles of segregated lanes in NL and at least 23 times less than that in the UK, UK cyclists are exposed far far more to motorised traffic, by a factor greater than that of the multiplier of how many more miles the Dutch cycle per individual. Even if you ignore the per person (who actually cycles) distance per year you have approx 1.8x more deaths in a country that has an extensive segregated system so the exposure to the single main reason cyclists get KSI is massively, massively less than in the UK, this proves that despite the Dutch cycling further per inhabitant that due to the lack of exposure to the main threat/cause of KSI their roads/drivers in NL are worse than ours, the cyclists are worse at taking risks or there is an inherent flaw in the infra.
Again I ask, which is it?
Hint, NL road deaths per million population stands at 28, so actually not safer than the UK at all is it.
I'm not sure what point you are making. Is your quoted road deaths figures for cyclists, pedestrian, or car occupants or all of those? Have you a source for your figures?
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

Pete Owens
Posts: 1681
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: ‘That’s not right...’

Postby Pete Owens » 7 Feb 2018, 1:55pm

reohn2 wrote:Pete Owens
We're are in agreement other than one small point in that pedestrians are segregated from motor traffic in both NL & UK,

That is not as disagreement but the whole nub of the argument.

In the NL pedestrians are very much safer than they are in the UK. And since the level of segregation is the same the explanation for that safety is clearly nothing whatsoever to do with segregation - and everything to do with measures to control the volume and speed of motor traffic.
All vulnerable road users benefit from these measures so to try and see the effect of cycle facilities alone you need to treat this as the baseline against which cycle specific measures are judged.

The level of risk to pedestrians in the NL is roughly a quarter of that in the UK - so that is what you would expect to see for cyclists given a similar degree of cyclist segregation. However, the level of risk to cyclists is higher than that at about 30%. (in the UK cycling is slightly safer than walking whereas in the NL the opposite is true). This means that there is roughly a 5% increased risk to cyclists due to the greater dergee of segregatation over that which you would expect from the safer traffic environment.

nez
Posts: 1768
Joined: 19 Jun 2008, 12:11am

Re: ‘That’s not right...’

Postby nez » 7 Feb 2018, 2:05pm

I’ve just seen this thread. Sorry to hear you have been knocked over Bob. Good luck!

reohn2
Posts: 37922
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: ‘That’s not right...’

Postby reohn2 » 7 Feb 2018, 8:24pm

Pete Owens wrote:
reohn2 wrote:Pete Owens
We're are in agreement other than one small point in that pedestrians are segregated from motor traffic in both NL & UK,

That is not as disagreement but the whole nub of the argument.

In the NL pedestrians are very much safer than they are in the UK. And since the level of segregation is the same the explanation for that safety is clearly nothing whatsoever to do with segregation - and everything to do with measures to control the volume and speed of motor traffic.
All vulnerable road users benefit from these measures so to try and see the effect of cycle facilities alone you need to treat this as the baseline against which cycle specific measures are judged.

The level of risk to pedestrians in the NL is roughly a quarter of that in the UK - so that is what you would expect to see for cyclists given a similar degree of cyclist segregation. However, the level of risk to cyclists is higher than that at about 30%. (in the UK cycling is slightly safer than walking whereas in the NL the opposite is true). This means that there is roughly a 5% increased risk to cyclists due to the greater dergee of segregatation over that which you would expect from the safer traffic environment.

That only counts if that increase in cycling injuries and fatalities are caused by other vehicles,so far no facts and figures to illustrate that point have been produced by yourself or The Utility Cyclist to back up such claims,to simply blaim this anomaly on segregated facilities without concrete proof won't do,please point me to facts and figures to back up your claims .
I posted previously the age range of cyclists in NL is far greater than in the UK which also could have a bearing on the issue not to mention much harsher winters causing greater risk to two wheelers on untreated cyclepaths are but two possible reasons for increased KSI cycling injuries that spring to mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1681
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: ‘That’s not right...’

Postby Pete Owens » 8 Feb 2018, 2:17am

reohn2 wrote:
Pete Owens wrote:
reohn2 wrote:Pete Owens
We're are in agreement other than one small point in that pedestrians are segregated from motor traffic in both NL & UK,

That is not as disagreement but the whole nub of the argument.

In the NL pedestrians are very much safer than they are in the UK. And since the level of segregation is the same the explanation for that safety is clearly nothing whatsoever to do with segregation - and everything to do with measures to control the volume and speed of motor traffic.
All vulnerable road users benefit from these measures so to try and see the effect of cycle facilities alone you need to treat this as the baseline against which cycle specific measures are judged.

The level of risk to pedestrians in the NL is roughly a quarter of that in the UK - so that is what you would expect to see for cyclists given a similar degree of cyclist segregation. However, the level of risk to cyclists is higher than that at about 30%. (in the UK cycling is slightly safer than walking whereas in the NL the opposite is true). This means that there is roughly a 5% increased risk to cyclists due to the greater dergee of segregatation over that which you would expect from the safer traffic environment.

That only counts if that increase in cycling injuries and fatalities are caused by other vehicles,

The segregation results in an increased casualty rate - whether or not motor vehicles are involved in those casualties is immaterial - the cyclists are just as dead. (though it is likely that serious crashes do involve motor vehicles)
so far no facts and figures to illustrate that point have been produced by yourself or The Utility Cyclist to back up such claims,to simply blaim this anomaly on segregated facilities

There is no anomaly. We have known for a long time that segregation increases the risk of collisions at junctions - where most crashes occur. It is exactly what you would expect to see.
without concrete proof won't do,please point me to facts and figures to back up your claims .

I don't think there is anything controversial about the NL being the safest country in the World for pedestrians.
I posted previously the age range of cyclists in NL is far greater than in the UK which also could have a bearing on the issue

Indeed so - cycling in the UK is skewed towards young males - the demographic most strongly correlated with crashes. (and if you want evidence try asking for a quote to add a male teenage driver to your car insurance). Yet another feature that should mean that Dutch cyclists should experience lower risks than pedestrians rather than higher.
not to mention much harsher winters causing greater risk to two wheelers on untreated cyclepaths

Certainly the poorer maintenance encountered on cyclepaths is one of the reasons that they are less safe than roads - though the main problem is junction danger.
are but two possible reasons for increased KSI cycling injuries that spring to mind.

You also mentioned the greater consideration of drivers in an earlier post (the Safety in Numbers effect) which should also contribute to fewer cycle crashes.

Vulnerable road users are safer in the NL despite the cycle paths not because of them.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17179
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: ‘That’s not right...’

Postby [XAP]Bob » 8 Feb 2018, 9:21am

Pete Owens wrote:Vulnerable road users are safer in the NL despite the cycle paths not because of them.


Possibly - but maybe the existence of the facilities is what encourages and allows the wide range of cyclists which generates the safety in numbers effect...
It's never as clear cut as a single cause/effect relationship.

You also have to consider that the junctions on NL cycle facilities are not the same as junctions on those in the UK. They are much better designed, with sight lines, and clear priority (respected in both directions in the videos I have seen).
They have their own traffic light sequences where appropriate, they completely bypass major motorised traffic junctions.

Are they perfect? probably not, but they are orders of magnitude better than anything we have.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: ‘That’s not right...’

Postby mjr » 8 Feb 2018, 10:03am

Pete Owens wrote:
so far no facts and figures to illustrate that point have been produced by yourself or The Utility Cyclist to back up such claims,to simply blaim this anomaly on segregated facilities

There is no anomaly. We have known for a long time that segregation increases the risk of collisions at junctions - where most crashes occur. It is exactly what you would expect to see.

And Pete has "known for a long time" this based on research by the likes of Jensen of Trafitek (which presented a decrease as an increase because it didn't decrease as much as expected), so don't expect this to ever be satisfied:
reohn2 wrote:without concrete proof won't do,please point me to facts and figures to back up your claims .


Pete Owens wrote:Indeed so - cycling in the UK is skewed towards young males - the demographic most strongly correlated with crashes. (and if you want evidence try asking for a quote to add a male teenage driver to your car insurance).

:lol: Why should the price of insuring a male teenage driver prove that they're more likely to crash when cycling than, say, pre-teens or the very old? If nothing else, pre-teens can't have a driving licence so can't be insured - should we regard that as a zero price or infinite?

You also mentioned the greater consideration of drivers in an earlier post (the Safety in Numbers effect) which should also contribute to fewer cycle crashes.

And there's the elephant in the vehicularist room - how do you ever get "Safety in Numbers" without some cycleways to encourage the numbers to increase?

Vulnerable road users are safer in the NL despite the cycle paths not because of them.

Is that an attempt at proof by assertion, or proof by vigorous handwaving (aka proof by [inappropriate word removed])?
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.