Crap cyclepaths

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Crap cyclepaths

Postby TonyR » 7 Aug 2013, 10:20pm

Si wrote:Yet, our feedback is that the cyclepaths get more people to cycle, both on the road and off. Without them many people woundn't have had to confidence to try cycling (or let their children try cycling) or to join our programme, and thus benefit from the rest of it.


If that's the case why isn't the evidence there when people set out to objectively measure it?

Ron
Posts: 1200
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 9:07pm

Re: Crap cyclepaths

Postby Ron » 8 Aug 2013, 12:25am

TonyR wrote:If that's the case why isn't the evidence there when people set out to objectively measure it?

You suggest there is no evidence, but how meticulously have you searched for evidence?

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Crap cyclepaths

Postby TonyR » 8 Aug 2013, 7:42am

Ron wrote:
TonyR wrote:If that's the case why isn't the evidence there when people set out to objectively measure it?

You suggest there is no evidence, but how meticulously have you searched for evidence?


I think I'm aware of most that is out there and have created some of my own by correlating official cycling counts with major construction programmes.

Flinders
Posts: 3022
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Crap cyclepaths

Postby Flinders » 8 Aug 2013, 8:56am

Cycle paths round here are usually on the footpath, and cyclists have to give way multiple times, with terrible sight lines, whenever a road joins from the left. The textured paving on them is at angles that make it difficult to stay upright. These paths are lethal, I wouldn't want a child using one.
The paths in the road are just used by residents as a parking lane.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15114
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Crap cyclepaths

Postby Si » 8 Aug 2013, 9:26am

TonyR wrote:
Ron wrote:
TonyR wrote:If that's the case why isn't the evidence there when people set out to objectively measure it?

You suggest there is no evidence, but how meticulously have you searched for evidence?


I think I'm aware of most that is out there and have created some of my own by correlating official cycling counts with major construction programmes.


You still seem to be confusing projects of building infrastructure with projects where infrastructure is one part of many strands. Can you link to cases where a multi-strand approach was enacted and it was proven that the cyclepath part made no difference?

User avatar
Mr. Viking
Posts: 371
Joined: 6 Jun 2012, 9:29pm
Location: Liverpool

Re: Crap cyclepaths

Postby Mr. Viking » 8 Aug 2013, 12:03pm

I remember a cyclepath north of Charing Cross in Glasgow which led to some stairs for a bridge. Didn't have a camera to get a picture, and it could well bee gone now. They've been doing some work like finishing the bridge to nowhere

Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Crap cyclepaths

Postby Mark1978 » 8 Aug 2013, 12:07pm

Mr. Viking wrote:I remember a cyclepath north of Charing Cross in Glasgow which led to some stairs for a bridge. Didn't have a camera to get a picture, and it could well bee gone now. They've been doing some work like finishing the bridge to nowhere


Not as uncommon as you might think. Until the Metro was built in Sunderland the official Coast to Coast route went across Cox Green bridge, which has steps at one end.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Crap cyclepaths

Postby TonyR » 8 Aug 2013, 12:26pm

Si wrote:You still seem to be confusing projects of building infrastructure with projects where infrastructure is one part of many strands. Can you link to cases where a multi-strand approach was enacted and it was proven that the cyclepath part made no difference?


That's a tobacco industry tactic. Prove it wasn't their diet or clothing or drinking that caused their lung cancer. Any such study would not produce valid results because of confounding - you can't separate out which strand(s) were responsible for the increase and which weren't so people tend not to do them. What I can say is that I know of a number of very successful multi-stranded programmes that involved almost no infrastructure changes. There is also research that concludes that if you could build a perfect segregated cycle network in the UK that went everywhere people wanted to go it would not increase cycling by more than 50% above its current level. Anything less than perfect will achieve much less than that because you are teaching people that they should avoid the roads and most cycle journeys cannot be completed without using the road for at least a part of it. Therefore most of the journeys are percieved as being off-limits for cycling.

Last if you look at the Dutch Cycle Balance audit scheme where the Cycle Balance score correlates with the levels of cycling, the only infrastructure considered in the scoring is cycle parking. What also features is whether the routes are direct (pay attention Sustrans) and the cycling surfaces smooth. But nothing at all about it being on or off road, segregated or not segregated.

Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Crap cyclepaths

Postby Mark1978 » 8 Aug 2013, 12:37pm


User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15114
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Crap cyclepaths

Postby Si » 8 Aug 2013, 2:57pm

TonyR wrote:
Si wrote:You still seem to be confusing projects of building infrastructure with projects where infrastructure is one part of many strands. Can you link to cases where a multi-strand approach was enacted and it was proven that the cyclepath part made no difference?


That's a tobacco industry tactic. Prove it wasn't their diet or clothing or drinking that caused their lung cancer. Any such study would not produce valid results because of confounding - you can't separate out which strand(s) were responsible for the increase and which weren't so people tend not to do them. What I can say is that I know of a number of very successful multi-stranded programmes that involved almost no infrastructure changes. There is also research that concludes that if you could build a perfect segregated cycle network in the UK that went everywhere people wanted to go it would not increase cycling by more than 50% above its current level. Anything less than perfect will achieve much less than that because you are teaching people that they should avoid the roads and most cycle journeys cannot be completed without using the road for at least a part of it. Therefore most of the journeys are percieved as being off-limits for cycling.

Last if you look at the Dutch Cycle Balance audit scheme where the Cycle Balance score correlates with the levels of cycling, the only infrastructure considered in the scoring is cycle parking. What also features is whether the routes are direct (pay attention Sustrans) and the cycling surfaces smooth. But nothing at all about it being on or off road, segregated or not segregated.


So, in essence you can't show that the cycle paths in a multi-strand approach, such as the one I'm talking about, do not help.

Make no mistake - this is not about avoiding roads altogether, but making enticing places for the newcomer to start. Once they have started, and have started to gain confidence, we give them the tools to ride on the road.

You can view our group rides in the same way....riding in a group normally doesn't take them to a destination that they were wanting to go to as part of their daily lives, it's quite slow, the group often goes all around the houses, it's not a tactic that the Dutch used to promote cycling AFAIK, etc etc. But it gives experience, confidence and enjoyment, and we certainly don't expect them to only ride with a group for the rest of their cycling lives. And, again, you can say the same about cycle-training.....they might have an instructor looking after them for their first rides, but that instructor won't be needed for the rest of their cycling lives.
What is Sir Dave's motto? "Marginal gains"...and lots of them.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Crap cyclepaths

Postby TonyR » 8 Aug 2013, 3:05pm

Si wrote:So, in essence you can't show that the cycle paths in a multi-strand approach, such as the one I'm talking about, do not help.


No, and neither can you prove that wearing a lucky rabbits foot as part of a multi-strand approach doesn't help. Your point is?

Henry741
Posts: 16
Joined: 31 May 2013, 12:04pm

Re: Crap cyclepaths

Postby Henry741 » 8 Aug 2013, 3:17pm

Roads with speed limits over 40mph to have separate cycle path (not shared with peds)
This could be intoduced to roads when roadworks are undertaken.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15114
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Crap cyclepaths

Postby Si » 8 Aug 2013, 3:17pm

TonyR wrote:
Si wrote:So, in essence you can't show that the cycle paths in a multi-strand approach, such as the one I'm talking about, do not help.


No, and neither can you prove that wearing a lucky rabbits foot as part of a multi-strand approach doesn't help. Your point is?


I think that point is pretty clear don't you? You've argued that you can quote various cases to show that cycle paths make no difference, yet those cases do not reflect the way that they are being used in my case, so your anti-path view remains unsupported by your evidence.

And so far none of our newcomers has said to me "I decided to try cycling because you were giving out free lucky rabbit feet", yet they have said that one of the major influences on them trying cycling was the arrival of this network of paths. Are they lying?

Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Crap cyclepaths

Postby Mark1978 » 8 Aug 2013, 3:19pm

Henry741 wrote:Roads with speed limits over 40mph to have separate cycle path (not shared with peds)
This could be intoduced to roads when roadworks are undertaken.


The speed limit is a poor qualifier, and one which can be changed easily ;). There are plenty of NSL road which are perfectly fine to cycle on.

My argument has always been that all A-roads need to have cycle facilities, be that decent width lanes on the carriageway, or particularly in the case of dual carriageways, a seperate cycle path running alongside. Obviously there are exceptions but that is what we should be aiming for at a minimum.

Adam S
Posts: 606
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 8:53pm

Re: Crap cyclepaths

Postby Adam S » 8 Aug 2013, 3:52pm

I'm not sure 'A' road classification is great as a qualifier either and this would depend on local circumstances. Sometimes it would be much better to focus on short local links in a town rather than providing a cycle path next to a bypass which takes the long way round. Each case needs to be judged on its merits.