Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: vorsprung on 13 March, 2020, 10:12:21 am
-
(https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/368/bmj.m336/F1.medium.jpg)
(https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m336)
-
I read the related article. There is a bit of a flaw in the study...
-
I did my own study on the people falling off their bikes. People who don't ride bikes have a falling off rate of 0. Therefore you are more likely to fall off a bike if you ride one.
Love the visual abstracts though!
-
Presumably, if you take walkers out of the non-cyclist cohort, the benefit for cardiovascular / cancer looks rather better
Broken clavicle vs MI... apples vs oranges
-
Really though, methodological criticisms aside, the point about safer infrastructure is key.
-
... the point about safer infrastructure is key.
Mostly this, although it seems to be a bit of an oversight not to have included the number of diabetes diagnoses that would have been avoided if 1000 people cycled to work, especially in a medical journal (what kind of muppets are doing their peer reviews) ::-)
-
I've been to hospital once for a cycle commuting injury. I hit a pedal hard with my shin and it kept bleeding. I've still got the scar.
I'd take that over cancer, heart attack and death many times over.
(Only read the graphic, hence the shallow reply.)
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
-
I think I’ll take the reduced number of cancers, heart attacked and deaths any day.
-
I think I’ll take the reduced number of cancers, heart attacked and deaths any day.
I think that's effectively what they say, along with cycling ought to be made safer, then there would only be benefits.
Plus a lot more people would be able to do it.
-
What do people think about that study - cycling & risk of hospitalisation, in the light of coronavirus being a massive burden on the NHS, resources stretched beyond breaking point?
I commuted into today by bike, really nice morning. :)
-
In the longer term, the toll of 'lifestyle' afflictions will greatly outweigh coronavirus.
Plus a healthier population is better placed to survive diseases like this (the odds of mortality and severe complications from Covid-19, for instance, are significantly higher if you have cardiovascular issues, diabetes, etc.)
-
Indeed. I was thinking about short term 'risk of hospitalisation event' when cycling, and CV19 battered hospitals. e.g. (anecdote to follow) Friend out for a ride last week, on country road was hit by a car emerging from a junction; cue trip to A&E for scan - some concussion. So fortunately not too bad.
-
Indeed. I was thinking about short term 'risk of hospitalisation event' when cycling, and CV19 battered hospitals. e.g. (anecdote to follow) Friend out for a ride last week, on country road was hit by a car emerging from a junction; cue trip to A&E for scan - some concussion. So fortunately not too bad.
Dr Hutch got knocked off last week: https://twitter.com/Doctor_Hutch/status/1236363436126351362
Even if cycle commuting was twice as dangerous many people would still do it (myself included). It's not about being healthier/etc, it's just easier and nicer than the alternatives for many people.
-
The problem is that many people don't do it. Outside of London, Cambridge and a minority of other places, cycling to work is a non-event.
And of course, it's not just the actual danger, it's the perception. No one is really comfortable cycling down a road full of close-passing vehicles at 40mph, which is pretty much what cycling to work would entail for most people.
-
And of course, it's not just the actual danger, it's the perception. No one is really comfortable cycling down a road full of close-passing vehicles at 40mph, which is pretty much what cycling to work would entail for most people.
I've noticed that non-cyclists assume they'd have to cycle the roue they'd currently drive. Often it's entirely possible to substitute that road full of close-passing vehicles at 40mph for a road with parked cars on both sides and drivers bullying their way to the gaps between the speed cushions...
-
Yes, there's that. Often the same roads as are 'recommended' for cyclists. Have fun, meet your local angry rat-runners.
-
And of course there's sometimes the Sustrans cyclocross option. For anyone who needed reassuring that cycling was slow, muddy and carries a significant risk of falling off or being mauled by dogs.
(This is on topic, as the only time I required hospital treatment following a cycling injury was due to the above.)
-
I have a section of the A22 to navigate to get to the station in the morning. The alternative is a muddy path in the park (on a Brompton, I don't think) followed by a challenging uphill climb (at the other end, to avoid a nasty roundabout, you have to cycle or push the wrong way up two one-way streets while dodging car drivers who are late to drop someone off for their train).
So it's that or close passing cars and lorries on a busy A-road.
There is another chap with a Brompton in the area (and there's another who goes to a different station), and someone turns up with Dahon at the station. That's it, the cycling community here is so small we all know each other.
-
I feel quite lucky that 2/3 of my cycle commute into London is off-road, down the Lea Valley cycle path alongside the River Lea. The final bit mixes quiet side roads, parks and just two sections where buses are around. My biggest issue is the bike being permanently dirty from the path, but that's a small price to pay to be away from vehicles for so long.
-
I'm equally lucky in as much as my cycle commute (when I do it) is just shy of 15 miles of which ~ 8 miles is traffic-free / traffic-lite / parks / riverside path.
That was until someone thought it'd be a good idea to re-locate my workplace a further 8 miles north, just adjacent to the M25.
Those last 8 miles are utter shite for cycling along.
Gah!
-
I feel quite lucky that 2/3 of my cycle commute into London is off-road, down the Lea Valley cycle path alongside the River Lea. The final bit mixes quiet side roads, parks and just two sections where buses are around. My biggest issue is the bike being permanently dirty from the path, but that's a small price to pay to be away from vehicles for so long.
That route is one of the all-too-rare examples of a traffic-free route that's actually quicker and easier than the road. You roll slightly slower on the gravel, but there's no start-stop. :thumbsup:
-
Mine is a bit universally horrible tbh, there's either a straight run down the A23 (Brixton, Streatham, Norbury, Croydon) which isn't quite as bad as it sounds, but the exhaust fumes can be unpleasant. Alternatively, I can follow CS7 down to Tooting and then across Mitcham Common. In theory that ought to be sound, but despite the CS7 moniker, it's really no better than the A23 and adds a couple of additional kilometres and throws in the Lombard Circus of Death. The most pleasant route is down Walworth Road and through Dulwich and over Crystal Palace hill and down the other side. The last bit features the A22 again for added yuk points and a hill that features the sort of potholes you can disappear down and not be found again. In summer though, I wander up over Kenley Airfield or the North Downs. Or sometimes take the Wandle Trail for a more leisurely and mostly traffic-free pootle. Options are better with the long days.
I guess I'm an 'extreme' commuter, but the majority of streets and roads I encounter are reminders of why cycling will never be a popular method of transport.
-
The article is infrastructurist propaganda.
-
And of course, it's not just the actual danger, it's the perception. No one is really comfortable cycling down a road full of close-passing vehicles at 40mph, which is pretty much what cycling to work would entail for most people.
I've noticed that non-cyclists assume they'd have to cycle the roue they'd currently drive. Often it's entirely possible to substitute that road full of close-passing vehicles at 40mph for a road with parked cars on both sides and drivers bullying their way to the gaps between the speed cushions...
Which explains (I assume) the bloke cycling up the dual carriageway A12 the other day, I slowed to pass him without close passing which meant waiting for MR ANGRY to pass me in the right hand lane and creating MR ANGRY 2 behind me. Bloke on bike rather oblivious to my predicament indicated right, then moved into right hand lane to turn at the roundabout. I tucked in behind him for his protection and he merrily carried on. There's a perfectly decent bit of old closed single carriageway A12 behind the hedge for cycling on, he simply had no need to be there.
My commute is slightly unusual in that it is from town into country in rural Suffolk (I live in central Ipswich). The rat runs are horrible on 'quiet' roads, what cycle paths exist are terrible in design and quality and no one gives a shit. If I ride the 15 mile direct route it's generally miserable but there is considerable joy to be found on some of the rural routes although it increases my ride to 18 miles I can actually forget it's a commute and call it a bike ride but I can't go the direct route for that.
-
Cyclists don't automatically know there's a safe and/or better alternative though, especially if you're unfamiliar with the area. (Nor for that matter is twatty driving the fault of the cyclist, that's just blaming the victim as ever.)
The article is infrastructurist propaganda.
Come on, if you're going to troll, at least make some effort.
-
The original post is odd. Conventional medical wisdom has been that the life expectancy benefits of cycling exceed the risks by maybe twenty times (relevant links below). What's interesting in the current crisis is that life expectancy benefits are quite long term, whereas accidents would increase (a little) immediately, so the balance may change a bit. The government is quite clear that we need to keep exercising, and that can't all be indoors, even if it's right that cycling events are being cancelled. And some countries are effectively banning cycling, even though it might actually keep people out of hospital, as opposed to increasing demand?
I'm feeling it because, after a heart bypass, I'm trying extra hard to average ten miles a day and to lose a little weight. Much harder if I can't go to the gym (which is definitely risky owing to cross-contamination) and people are starting to say we shouldn't even use bikes outside at all.
Links:
- NHS (https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/news-analysis-cycling-safety-special-report/) (see last bullet)
- Journal of Transport Reviews (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01441647.2015.1057877) (generally supportive but a bit complex)
- Environmental Health Perspectives (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/) (see conclusions)
- Daily Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/get-bike-statistics-show-should-cycle-work/) (free account needed)
- Cycling UK position statement (https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/health-and-cycling)
-
Generally we are not very good at assessing risks, and tend to overestimate the more immediate and acute risks associated with cycling (although perhaps understandably because it seems scary), whereas the rather more serious risk of mortality associated with inactivity seems to be considerably underestimated, perhaps because it happens over a fairly prolonged period of time. Many more people die every year from diseases associated with inactivity than suffer minor injuries cycling, but cycling is still too scary for the vast majority of people.
-
I've tried the direct route, but being passed too closely by a stream of vehicles travelling at 60 odd mph is not fun. The 'quiet' route has seen me close passed by a fish van from Gateshead every time I've ridden it and the cars move faster on a narrower road. There are people that commute by bike from Harrogate to Leeds, but I'm not one I'm afraid - now if there were infrastructure and I wasn't working from home for the forseeable.
-
The original post is odd. Conventional medical wisdom has been that the life expectancy benefits of cycling exceed the risks by maybe twenty times
yes and the results of the study show this
As Reg and others have said it seems a bit of a conceptually flawed bit of research
Riding a bike is a bit like the lottery. The chances of winning are diminishingly tiny but you have to be in it to win it
The chances of a bike accident are tiny but if you do then hospitalisation is likely. If we didn't go on the road we wouldn't be open to this improbable possibility
If the study says anything it's that like oh so many things in 21st century neo liberal Britain
Socially efficient measures like cycling infrastructure are not used.
-
I wonder if they had < 1 day > 1 day how it would look. How many of the hospitalisations were precautionary “we’d better check you over and clean you up” rather than life saving operations?
-
The bit about new cycle commuters thinking they need to ride their car commute is spot on. Saw it so many times till we helped them with initial commutes by having a mentoring scheme as part of the BUG. Basically an experienced cycle commuter that lived close enough (or their route went close to the newbie) would show them the optimum routes and answer any questions as they rode along to / from work. Sometimes they ended up cycling to work together all the time or the new cycle commuter would get going on their own after a few weeks.
-
...
What's interesting in the current crisis is that life expectancy benefits are quite long term, whereas accidents would increase (a little) immediately, so the balance may change a bit. The government is quite clear that we need to keep exercising, and that can't all be indoors, even if it's right that cycling events are being cancelled. And some countries are effectively banning cycling, even though it might actually keep people out of hospital, as opposed to increasing demand?
...
Against this has to be balanced the higher risk of infection from travelling on public transport, which would be the main option for people in cities. Roads in London are a lot quieter now, so motor traffic is faster but less impatient.
-
Cyclists don't automatically know there's a safe and/or better alternative though, especially if you're unfamiliar with the area.
Very true. I live in Ipswich and ain't familiar with that particular option. And once you notice a cycle route, it may not be posible to join it (kerbs etc), and in any case how do you know the route isn't going to turn off and go somewhere completely different (any signposts also require local knowledge). Or if you do know where it goes then you also know that the surface is carp compared to the road, that you have no priority and have to give way to every side road etc etc.. There still isn't the mentality that cycling is transport and to get from A to B efficiently rather than a leisure(ly) pootle.
-
(https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/368/bmj.m336/F1.medium.jpg)
(https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m336)
If the study outcome suggests 3 fewer deaths for cycling, why does the title suggest the opposite?
-
Cyclists don't automatically know there's a safe and/or better alternative though, especially if you're unfamiliar with the area. (Nor for that matter is twatty driving the fault of the cyclist, that's just blaming the victim as ever.)
The article is infrastructurist propaganda.
Apologies, but I have been busy elsewhere. Here's some improved trolling.
Infrastructralism - a school of thought within English cycle campaigning which argues that the only way to increase cycling is to build more dutch infrastructure. Any cycling not on dedicated and separate cycle paths is dangerous.
As such this view ignore the significant cultural and historic reasons for the larger numbers of cyclists in the Netherlands and the reasons for lower numbers in the UK and the absence of diversity in cycling. For example; London's cycle network remains one largely used by white middle-class men commuting into central London.
It has a tendency to fetishise Dutch cycling culture and sees cycling as identity politics and, increasingly, as part of the Extinction Rebellion movement.
Infrastruralism's straw man enemy is vehicular cycling. It struggles with complex systems and is not really sure what to do about pedestrians or public transport, but their solution to almost all problems is more cycling on dutch type infrastructure. That the new infrastructure might interfere with bus services or reduce and worsen space for pedestrians is usually ignored by an Infrastructure. Both the bus stops and the pavements shared with the cycle paths on the Lea Bridge Road in Waltham Forest, London, are a good example of this conflict.
Infrastruralism is most commonly found at the LCC in London, and within groups such as Stop Killing Cyclists, and on Twitter. It can some times also appear under the name " Active Travel".
Come on, if you're going to troll, at least make some effort.
-
Anyone wondering whats going to happen when all this is over? Cycling is almost treated as an exemption from the soft lockdown by some. Everyone else has issues, no pub, football, golf and non essential shopping. I am going to stay clear once everything is back to normal. I expect a backlash to happen.
-
Bike shops are reporting a bonanza - both on sales of (mainly) cheap bikes and on repairs of bikes which have been laid up for years. Perhaps we dare hope that these people will enjoy riding again and will keep going when this is all over.
-
True about bike shops, cant get an xl turbo trainer mat anywhere. My new turbo has slightly longer legs and the standard mats are too narrow. Has everyone gone out and bought a new turbo?
-
True about bike shops, cant get an xl turbo trainer mat anywhere. My new turbo has slightly longer legs and the standard mats are too narrow. Has everyone gone out and bought a new turbo?
Yes, Wiggle completely out of stock. Evans have been selling turbos for 15% higher than RRP.
-
Yes, I tried to get a replacement and there are none to be had.
We did wangle an expensive exercise bike though (cost more than an actual bike that, well, goes places when you pedal). That said, at 42kg, I wouldn't fancy trying to ride it up a hill.
-
People are driving very fast on the empty roads. It's put me off, so I'm on the turbo or running (yuck).
-
People are driving very fast on the empty roads. It's put me off, so I'm on the turbo or running (yuck).
Roads very quiet at all hours. Apart from the very occasional Ayrton Senna*, folks have been *exceptionally* sensible in their cars round here (so I presume your problems are Swindon-based? ;) )
I've done lots of extra miles on the way home, and on every type of road the drivers have been good. In fact I didn't see any speeding today, quite the opposite.
There seem to be a few hot-spots for the craziness - my sympathies to anyone in those places (well, maybe just London):
https://twitter.com/SuptAndyCox/status/1242770214552567808
*a close colleague admitted to 100mph briefly in a 60 yesterday. He did used to be a cop overseas :facepalm:
-
The only speeding I'm seeing is people ignoring 20mph speed limits, which only really work because people get stuck behind the one driver who obeys them.
A few examples of 'nippy' parking manoeuvres, but those are more than cancelled out by the massive reduction in close passes and bullying at pinch-points, on account of the lack of oncoming traffic.
-
Likewise. In the social-distancing days pre-lockdown, I heard but didn't see some fast driving up the Gloucester Rd but since lockdown, nothing. And you can wander around in the middle of the A38. It's good!
-
The article is infrastructurist propaganda.
If infrastructure is so bad could you please provide some examples of modern societies that have achieved either mass cycling, or very high mobility in very densely populated urban areas without any associated public health problems related to either air pollution or inactivity without segregated infrastructure?
Given that the places where levels of cycling are highest all seem to have lots of high quality segregated infrastructure it doesn’t seem unreasonable for people to assume that infrastructure is the best solution.
-
Thanks for your response,
Well, the only examples we have are the Netherlands and possibly parts of Denmark.
Certainly, separate infrastructure has played a part but there seem to be other reasons.
In Holland, it's clear that housing density and road structure play a part as does a much deeper cycling culture that's significantly different to ours. It's also a classic mistake in programme management to think that you can just lift and shift a solution from another country, organisation, or culture and expecting it to work.
My point is about "infrastructuralists" obsession with infrastructure as the only answer to the challenge of getting our country cycling and their dismissal of other views.
-
I suspect there'd be a lot fewer drivers if the only roads available were unpaved, occasionally just muddy tracks, that never offered a direct route and sometimes just stopped in the middle of nowhere.
-
Then they could join the Rough Stuff Fellowship...
-
My parents lived on a long, straight, suburban avenue in a location that served as a mild shortcut for people heading to a nearby village. It achieved a sort of filtered permeability by means of a ~100m section of privately-owned road at one end, which was unsurfaced and deliberately kept in a sufficiently poor state of repair that it was only ever used by residents at sub-walking-speed.
(My brother and I decided that it was compulsory to hum the riff from No Surface All Feeling by the Manic Street Preachers while bouncing over it.)
Cycling infrastructure helps people use bikes, but real change is about engineering people's car use and travel habits. The most useful piece of cycle infrastructure is the Mk 1 bollard, converting a rat-run into a residential street.
-
"Streets not thoroughfares!"
-
My point is about "infrastructuralists" obsession with infrastructure as the only answer to the challenge of getting our country cycling and their dismissal of other views.
But that is rather different to suggesting that high quality segregated infrastructure can reduce serious injuries, and arguably detracts from the common aim of improving the overall situation by dividing supporters of cycling into us and them. Perhaps we would be better off recognising the common ground than focusing on the differences of what might give the biggest gains.
The most useful piece of cycle infrastructure is the Mk 1 bollard, converting a rat-run into a residential street.
Although we have known this for several decades at least so far real progress in this area has probably been somewhere between bugger all and sweet FA. I don’t doubt that it is a fine approach in The Netherlands but the limiting factor over here seems to be the lack of any will to even give it a try.
Limitations on car use certainly facilitate cycling in this country, but so far that mostly seems to be limited to constraints on road building imposed by historic architecture, e.g. in places like Cambridge, Edinburgh, York, Dumfries, and Lancaster and several of those still only seem to have fairly modest levels of cycling.
It is my understanding that London has seen some significant increases in cycling, and there have been suggestions that this is at least in part due to the provision of some segregated infrastructure that isn’t completely rubbish. It is entirely possible that the congestion charge has also been an important part of this, but l doubt that it is entirely responsible, after all presumably most people need to get to central London to take advantage of the lower traffic levels there.
-
Bollardisation of the very centres and restricted residential areas took place in both Bristol and Bath in the early 90s.
-
Birmingham has announced a plan to do something of that ilk within the inner ring road. Unfortunately, they have a habit of announcing things that never actually happen, so I'll believe it when I see it.
Like London, we've seen a couple of pieces of cycle infrastructure constructed that are actually fit for purpose, and people are certainly using them, but it's a significant increase in a tiny overall level of cycling. We've also had a mass rollout of 20mph speed limits, which have slowed down cars a bit, but done approximately nothing for cycling (not least because some of them have come with new pinch points for the motorists to bully you at). I think the major benefits of both of these are felt by pedestrians (in the case of the cycle infra, because proper traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings were included in the re-modelling of nasty junctions).
Generally in the UK, bollardisation of rat-runs tends to be something that happens almost by accident. We tend to prefer one-way streets, to keep the cars flowing.
-
It is my understanding that London has seen some significant increases in cycling, and there have been suggestions that this is at least in part due to the provision of some segregated infrastructure that isn’t completely rubbish.
There are some good cycle lanes, but there's also a lot of bollardisation and similar things - closed road ends with cycle cut-throughs, one-way exemptions and so on - that are really useful and make coherent routes.
-
Generally in the UK, bollardisation of rat-runs tends to be something that happens almost by accident. We tend to prefer one-way streets, to keep the cars flowing.
Observation locally would be that it tends to be implemented in the rat runs which are pretty.
-
It is my understanding that London has seen some significant increases in cycling, and there have been suggestions that this is at least in part due to the provision of some segregated infrastructure that isn’t completely rubbish.
I've been told by people who would know that growth in London doesn't correlate particularly strongly with where new infrastructure has been put in. Cycling mode share is tiny enough that there's still a big pool of young / fit / brave people to draw from without it. I'd suspect it's mostly driven by tubes and buses being expensive and full, and young people having different attitudes to fitness and greenness etc. And no one owning cars.
Though if you want proportionate numbers of women / older people / "normals" to cycle you need shedloads of infrastructure / traffic reduction.
presumably most people need to get to central London to take advantage of the lower traffic levels there.
A lot of what's going on now is radial and providing routes out to the suburbs in friendly boroughs.
One big problem in London is Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea councils, both of whom hate infrastructure and love cars, and between them make up a huge chunk of what people consider central London. Without a quality way of distributing people who make it as far as the centre there's a big deterrent to cycle commuting to zone 1.
(and this all reflects the world pre CV. I don't know if we'll ever get back on that timeline)
-
I'm not going to try to quote from the last post, but the Kensington, Chelsea examples are very similar to what happens out out here in non-London.
Leicester, as you may have heard, is making great strides in building generally very good infrastructure, and has a progressive attitude to cycling in the pedestrianised city centre.
But its the City - which has its own mayor, and is a unitary authority The city is surrounded by regressive motor-centric District Councils and Leicestershire County Council.
Once you get outside of Leicester City (and arguably outside of the student ghettos within the city) the infrastructure stops.
All this rambling goes to suggest that while there may well be good, even excellent, examples of cycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and promotion, there is no, zero, zilch, coordination or planning.
-
I'm glad to hear that Leicester is improving.
Years ago I rode through a few times, following the old A6 on a route between Hertfordshire and Cheshire. Then one time I went back, and they'd pedestrianised it and diverted the A6. This was the first time I encountered the work of road planners who had entirely forgotten that (a) cyclists who ride into town need to get home again and (b) some cyclists are riding across, and not into, town. As a result, there were plenty of cycle signs to "Town centre", but none to get anywhere else, and I got completely lost and ended up heading for Lutterworth or somewhere.
I had always imagined that the cycling population of Leicester was now stranded in the town centre, unable to find a way home, so it's good to know that they have been rescued ;D
-
You could argue that the reduction of speed to 20 mph has softened up the environment for cyclists in towns, as evidenced by studies in wider Europe - as has the mixing of zones with removal of traffic signalisation.... the UK is slowly coming to the party but it is not a rapid thing - less than 5% year on year.... So it shouldn't see an increase in hospitalisation (cf original post)
-
Its not yet clear if , in London, that the new infra made a significant difference to numbers cycling or if they were riding already and then shifted their routes to the new infra. The latter is not a bad thing.
What we do know is that number cycling seem to be plateauing and cycle commuters are largely white men under 35 heading into the centre. The ratio of men to women is about 70/30 but higher on some routes. But I learnt from a friend doing an Msc in active travel that the quality of the data on the number of people cycling or walking is poor. No one really knows how many are cycling , who they are ,and why they do it.
From personal observation, I speak as some one whose been riding in London since 1980 , I would say that that whilst the number of cyclists has increased significantly, the proportion of M to W cyclists hasn't changed much. What has changed is the social class of my fellow road users. In the past , students apart, cycle commuters used to be mainly "tradies" ie skilled but not senior management and certainly not high earners or people working in financial or legal. Over the last 20 years, and this I think reflects how central London has changed, the social composition of cyclists and cycle commuters has changed. Now, significant numbers are high earners working in FinTech, legal etc in the city. At a hospital we don't have the consultants car park but we do have the consultants bike rack.
As for local utility cycling in London and its boroughs, then I see very little change. Few people do it and its even fewer the further you are from central London. What I do see , however, is a conflict emerging between pedestrians who have to share space , especially at bus stops with cycle paths that are inadequate .
-
Though if you want proportionate numbers of women / older people / "normals" to cycle you need shedloads of infrastructure / traffic reduction.
I think this is essentially at the heart of it, whilst the have been some efforts made in some places people are generally still choosing not to cycle. Cyclists seem to be quite pleased with the stuff, but it’s just not doing it for most of society even if they aren’t going far. Are we just designing cycling infrastructure for cyclists, who are at best a bit of an odd lot, when it really needs to be designed for people that don’t cycle so that they might consider giving it a try.
-
That's true but my problem with the group who call "infrastructuralists " eg London CC is that they emphasise infrastructure over culture.
For example on Twitter there's a healthy but largely pointless culture war between Infrastructuralists and any one who they perceive to disagree with them. Their phantom enemy is Vehicular Cycling.
Time for a confession. I have taken part in the above pointlessness.
-
Are we just designing cycling infrastructure for cyclists, who are at best a bit of an odd lot, when it really needs to be designed for people that don’t cycle so that they might consider giving it a try.
This is the big elephant in the cycle path, and it touches on Joy of Essex 's comment about' tradies'.
UK cycling has been sold as a sport. You need special clothing and an expensive bike to be part of the crew.
When I see a 'normal' they are unusual enough for me to take notice - it should be the 'cyclists' who stand out if we want mass cycling in the UK.
I have a faint hope that ebikes might be rebalalancing the situation
-
Arguing whether people cycle or not is monofactoral is a cycle-path to nowhere, of course it's a combination of things, both practical and cultural. I'm not sure anyone really thinks that [high quality] cycling infrastructure is the sole arbiter of whether a person gets on a bike or not. But being able to get from (a) to (b) is a way that feels and is safe is a key part of people's thinking. The prospect of bouncing down the gutter of an A road to an accompaniment of speeding, close-passing traffic isn't one that is ever encouraging cycling (indeed my first 'commutes' into central London were excused by the proximity of the Waterlink Way, which while not exactly ideal infrastructure, offered a mostly traffic-free route as far as Deptford). These days, when I regale people of my ride home down the A23, the typical response is similar to if I'd told them my new hobby was learning to juggle unexploded ordnance.
I would argue that without a clear way of safely getting from (a) to (b) without having to undertake vehicular combat, the hurdle will be such that most people won't contemplate cycling as an option. Having lived in Croydon and Bromley in recent years (and now just beyond the London pale in Surrey) where there is no cycling infrastructure, well, effectively no one cycles (other than the occasional person who has mistaken the A22 as a good way to get the North Downs and beyond and the few inveterate malcontents like me).
Yes, there is culture. London is relatively unique when it comes to cycling (and yes, I'm one of those affluent middle-class types who feels secure enough not to turn up everywhere in a Mercedes). But in addition to types like me, there's a combination of youth, perhaps a more a gung-ho attitude to life, expensive travel options, and a need to commute.
Anecdotally, 12 years since I hopped on a bike one Sunday to cycle up the Waterlink Way, all the way to the leafy Regent's Park surrounds of the Royal College of GPs (which seemed an epic journey, and yes it rained), there are certainly a lot more people cycling in London. I work by one of the new cycle routes (Blackfriars Road) and it's packed during peak times, and every morning I'm part of a peloton from London Bridge along Southwark Road. Despite it being a shit route, CS7 (which I sometimes get), is probably oversubscribed by the number of cyclists (leastways till South Clapham). In that respect, it's reassuring.
Demographically, it's not changed that much. It's whiter than a KKK rally, and there are probably more women, but you're unlikely to run out of fingers counting them (don't do this, they'll think you're odd). The majority are still 'roadies' (and that's not a judgement, just an observation). As a bloke who ambles along in his chinos (I am that stylish), I'm still a bit casual for the movement. I expect if you plotted age-adjusted income quartiles, we'd all mostly be in upper quartile. I speculate that's in part that we don't have anything to prove (or we're proving it by not proving it). The social status psychology of car usage and ownership is one of the more difficult things to unthread, there have been decades of effort and advertising entwining social status and personality with the car (which, I find sad, but if you're a young black man on a council estate in south London, I can at least comprehend why you don't wake up every morning and wish you had a road bike).
I confess, I've seen little conflict with pedestrians (and I'm both). Yeah, there's the occasional dick, but outside of the newspapers most people get on reasonably despite their mode of transport.
-
Right now there are lots of new cyclists going up and down the streets for transport and "sport" ie getting out in the air a bit, without any infrastructure whatsoever. All down to the absence of cars. Well no, not only that, it's also the presence of (effectively) free time.
Yes, there is culture. London is relatively unique when it comes to cycling (and yes, I'm one of those affluent middle-class types who feels secure enough not to turn up everywhere in a Mercedes). But in addition to types like me, there's a combination of youth, perhaps a more a gung-ho attitude to life, expensive travel options, and a need to commute.
Quibling like a, well, like a YACFer, because I agree London has a unique culture, but one of the things it does not have compared to most of the country is expensive travel. Absolutely the opposite.
-
In my view, culture is more important than infrastructure, but if you don't have the culture, infrastructure can help create it.
Eg, Oxford has a culture of cycling and a lot of people cycle as a means of getting about. There are at least a couple of bike shops that basically just stock commuter type bikes. The infrastructure (barring one or 2 bits around the edges where there was space to put in entirely separate cycle lanes) is basically crap - painted lines on the floor that no-one really takes any notice of. But because of the quantity of cyclists, drivers have to be aware of bikes all around them, and in general cycling as a means of transport works (doesn't stop close passes etc). Re-drawing the map of Oxford to have good cycling infrastructure would be hard, and probably not change very much about who cycles and when.
However, once you are out of the city, cycling becomes completely dominated by sports cyclists, and there is a massive traffic problem as a result of people driving to Oxford as well as around it. It's like the ring-road is basically the boundary between cultures. I believe that infrastructure could absolutely change that behaviour, whether it's making it easier to continue your journey by bike from the park and ride, or by providing good routes in from the surrounding villages/towns. I think that's where the structure of local government really falls down though - it's outside the remit of the City Council, and it just doesn't feel like the County Council care about cycling at all.
-
Are we just designing cycling infrastructure for cyclists, who are at best a bit of an odd lot, when it really needs to be designed for people that don’t cycle so that they might consider giving it a try.
No, clearly not. When's the last time you saw a piece of cycle infrastructure that appealed to you as a cyclist?
In general, what existing (ie. to some extent 'vehicular') cyclists want from dedicated cycle infrastructure is something that goes where they're going reasonably directly, that isn't obstructed by parked vehicles/bins/debris, with a good quality surface and decent sightlines to enable a reasonable speed, and a minimum of faffing about at junctions that causes them to lose momentum. Otherwise they'll just use the road.
Whereas what people who don't currently cycle tend to want is something that goes where they're going, that keeps the motor vehicles away, with a non-muddy surface, nowhere for muggers/rapists/Pedobear to lurk unseen and a minimum of complicated, dangerous junctions. Otherwise they'll use a car or public transport.
In other words, the infrastructure that appeals to both groups is basically the same thing.
Meanwhile, what we actually tend to get is cycle infrastructure for people who want to spend a minimum of money, not take away road space from motor vehicles, and not encourage 'anti-social behaviour' by giving the oiks somewhere to ride motorcycles. Hence the current mix of magic paint car-parking lanes, barriered dog-emptying paths, and sporadically legalised pavement cycling.
-
Mass cycling informs culture, by normalizing the activity. No one is surprised to see people cycling in central London. It is a reasonable thing to be doing. There's nothing other about it. This is true of anywhere where there's mass cycling.
There's normalcy gradient in my commute home, the further out I thread, the worse it becomes. Once you reach Croydon, you're an outlier, the traffic is more aggressive and there no alternative to combat. By Surrey, you feel you may have inadvertently signed up for a suicide mission. The entire environment is out there to other you. You feel illicit. I don't even like riding to the local supermarket.
-
Right now there are lots of new cyclists going up and down the streets for transport and "sport" ie getting out in the air a bit, without any infrastructure whatsoever. All down to the absence of cars. Well no, not only that, it's also the presence of (effectively) free time.
Yes, there is culture. London is relatively unique when it comes to cycling (and yes, I'm one of those affluent middle-class types who feels secure enough not to turn up everywhere in a Mercedes). But in addition to types like me, there's a combination of youth, perhaps a more a gung-ho attitude to life, expensive travel options, and a need to commute.
Quibling like a, well, like a YACFer, because I agree London has a unique culture, but one of the things it does not have compared to most of the country is expensive travel. Absolutely the opposite.
To qualify, expensive for Londoners, for example if you live in zone 3, there's a significant and necessary expenditure that is easily quantified.
(In practice, living anywhere where you have to fund a car is obviously likely to be expensive, but I don't think that's how most people rationalize their costs for a commute.)
-
I've also noticed an increase since the lockdown in the 'semi-mobile': people walking with sticks or generally hobbling with obvious slowness and difficulty. Partly this is coincidence, because my neighbour recently had a knee replacement; but her activity coupled with the others I'm seeing shows it's also increased opportunity, in other words, they were kept indoors before. She's not a large woman but when she has a stick in each hand she is wider than the gap between recycling boxes and badly parked cars on the already narrow pavement. Now there's virtually no motor traffic on the streets here, she doesn't have to take any notice of the pavement, just walks, stick-clonk-stick-clonk, up the middle of the road.
-
Ian , there is a strongly held belief within the London Cycling Campaign that if you build dutch style infra then , as if by magic, people will cycle.
-
I've also noticed an increase since the lockdown in the 'semi-mobile': people walking with sticks or generally hobbling with obvious slowness and difficulty. Partly this is coincidence, because my neighbour recently had a knee replacement; but her activity coupled with the others I'm seeing shows it's also increased opportunity, in other words, they were kept indoors before.
It might just be making them more visible:
Barakta is currently using her day's hobbling quota on walking in circles[1] round our block, rather than hobbling to the swimming pool for hydrotherapy or getting a taxi to Mordor Central and using it for work and the commute.
I'm sure she's not the only one using their limited stamina on 'exercise' rather than normal day-to-day activity.
[1] Well, zig-zags, because bins.
-
Ian , there is a strongly held belief within the London Cycling Campaign that if you build dutch style infra then , as if by magic, people will cycle.
Dutch style infra gives people a way to cycle without being driven at by cars, so I don't think it's magic.
-
I've also noticed an increase since the lockdown in the 'semi-mobile': people walking with sticks or generally hobbling with obvious slowness and difficulty. Partly this is coincidence, because my neighbour recently had a knee replacement; but her activity coupled with the others I'm seeing shows it's also increased opportunity, in other words, they were kept indoors before.
It might just be making them more visible:
Barakta is currently using her day's hobbling quota on walking in circles[1] round our block, rather than hobbling to the swimming pool for hydrotherapy or getting a taxi to Mordor Central and using it for work and the commute.
I'm sure she's not the only one using their limited stamina on 'exercise' rather than normal day-to-day activity.
[1] Well, zig-zags, because bins.
I think it comes to approximately the same thing in the end. Barakta is hobbling in circles round the block, whereas she would normally be hydrotherapising, and my neighbour is hobbling along the carriageway of our street.
Another factor is I might be seeing the most local people more because I'm not going far from home, spending more time doing my own turtle-impressions on those same streets.
-
Ian , there is a strongly held belief within the London Cycling Campaign that if you build dutch style infra then , as if by magic, people will cycle.
I'm not sure I should engage with this, but the alternative viewpoint is that if only drivers were slightly nicer and cyclists were slightly more _____ *, everyone could share the road in harmony with no infrastructure required. Which is definitely not magical thinking.
(* fill in the blank, usually a euphemism for "were as skilful a cyclist as me")
-
I haven't read all the posts here but for my 2 pence we do need better infrastructure but we also need a cultural change and education. My colleagues daughter would be much better off cycling to work at one site she works out.
Would be as fast and able to lock bike at work rather then driving to park and ride. Colchester from the bits I've ridden is pretty damn good for cycling directly but separately from traffic if desired. She deems it too dangerous and thinks cycling is something done by hippies like me.
-
Ian , there is a strongly held belief within the London Cycling Campaign that if you build dutch style infra then , as if by magic, people will cycle.
By magic no, they won't, but without infrastructure, they definitely won't.
-
Oh I confess to being a bit provocative here . I was trying to make the point that they are a bit infra obsessed .
-
The thing about dedicated infra, is that it opens possibilities for people in an obvious way. When there's a nice, sensible, lit cycle path that goes where you need to get to, cycling seems less like something that lycra louts do in the Tour de France, and more like what people like you do to get places. It invites possibilities, in a way that roads with cars on them don't.
-
Like most things if you polarise an organisation/individual into a single viewpoint then it's easy to find some fault with it. Increased infrastructure is only one part of the plan of most pro-cycling organisations.
More rigorous enforcement of existing laws would be high up on my list.
-
It's multifactorial, of course. I think anyone should be able to cycle on any road (well, with the sensible exceptions) without fear of aggression and endangerment from other users. The reality though, as we know, is that there's close to no enforcement of the law. There seems little political appetite to tackle that.
That aside, fast, busy roads, are not pleasant places to cycle. There's a differential in speed, you're chomping on exhaust fumes, usually confined to the worse bit of the road by vehicles for whom a wide pass is the exception rather than the rule. I think I can see why people don't leap at the prospect.
As mentioned, I bought a bike after a long hiatus from cycling to get to the pool and back (a five-minute scoot), it was only the enticement of a traffic-free route that got to ride into central London. I know a fair number of Europeans who cycle in their home country but view even London cycling as the domain of the mad.
Being able to get from (a) to (b) without these challenges makes it possible. You probably wouldn't encourage walking by getting rid of the pavements and telling pedestrians they're better off walking down the side of the road.
-
Oh I confess to being a bit provocative here . I was trying to make the point that they are a bit infra obsessed .
What else would you expect a local cycle campaigning group to be doing? Ultimately, their primary reason to exist is to persuade local authorities to make things better for cycling, and (with the odd exception like funding sports schemes and cycle training) that's mostly about changes to the built environment. Okay, that doesn't necessarily imply Dutch-style infra - it also covers things like sensible traffic light timings, provision of cycle parking or maintenance of leisure routes.
I know organisations like LCC and Pushbikes also do other grassroots activities to encourage individuals to cycle, but that's somewhat secondary.
-
My concern is their evangelical obsession with Dutch infra.
-
My concern is their evangelical obsession with Dutch infra.
Seems reasonable from an Overton Window perspective. Make enough noise about Dutch infra and the engineers might eventually get the message about Magic Paint being a waste of time, or priority at junctions, or whatever. (It's not like there's a shortage of taxi drivers, NIMBYs, misinformed blind people, etc to argue against it.) This appears to have worked (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=113153.0) in Birmingham.
-
With the current situation several people have said the quieter roads have made for a better cycling experience
maybe well see more car free town centres in the future
-
It would be truly lovely if we could come out of this with current levels of traffic and friendliness, but more hugs. IYSWIM. Or more realistically the desire for something like current levels of traffic.
-
Yes, noticing more leisure cycling here in Waltham Forest.
-
It would indeed be one positive outcome of this period. Loads out tonight who clearly aren’t regulars at it. I hope they become regulars or at least appreciate the cyclist point of view more if not. Most are being a bit more human on the roads at the moment.
-
Its not yet clear if , in London, that the new infra made a significant difference to numbers cycling or if they were riding already and then shifted their routes to the new infra. The latter is not a bad thing.
I would have thought that cycle campaigners in the big city would have been organised enough to at least have a reasonable idea of how much cycling there was before the new routes came along. Surely it’s not all that hard to count numbers of cyclists on a few key routes from time to time so as to have some data on how the new routes have changed things.
... What I do see , however, is a conflict emerging between pedestrians who have to share space , especially at bus stops with cycle paths that are inadequate .
I do wonder why cycle campaigners don’t see the unfortunate bike vs pedestrian incidents as an opportunity to promote the idea if presumed liability. Whilst incidents that go to court seem almost certain to rule against the cyclist, pedestrians often complain about perceived danger from cyclists. Presumed liability might afford them some comfort and give cyclists reason to be careful, the benefits to cyclists obviously come from giving motorists a reason to actually look where they are going.
-
There are clearly lots of new (or returner or otherwise irregular) cyclists out but statistics show total number of cyclists have dropped roughly the same proportion as cars. So there must have been a change in the type of people cycling; the regular commuters are no longer out, obviously, and the same for the regular shoppers and leisure riders (there's probably quite an overlap between these anyway) but new people have taken their place.
-
I'm seeing a lot more leisure cyclists outside the urban area (roughly a 50:50 mix of old and new judging by speed and bike/kit). In town, the predominant type of cyclist is now the accompanied[1] child on the pavement[2], with younger people using BSOs as transport now safely outnumbering the more 'serious' commuter cyclists (who I expect are now mostly at home, with a few taking to the lanes in lycra). I haven't seen a Brompton for ages, and of course most of the students with their novel forms of electric transport have gone.
(Disclaimer: I've been avoiding off-road routes for social distancing reasons. I expect there's still a fair amount of cycling going on there.)
[1] About half the accompanying adults are on bikes themselves.
[2] Today I spotted two separate families making good use of a closed-to-motorists car park for losing-the-stabilisers purposes. :thumbsup:
-
Ian , there is a strongly held belief within the London Cycling Campaign that if you build dutch style infra then , as if by magic, people will cycle.
Would that not be a good thing though, and provide impetus for the next step. Surely there is a need to provide an alternative that seems to be at least as safe and convenient as what they would have done otherwise before it is really practical to start large scale blocking of through routes to force motorists onto feeder roads away from the built up areas like residential areas and city centres. That would make driving for short journeys more inconvenient and give a convenience advantage to cycling, at least for the kinds of journeys that it is genuinely useful for.
Anyway, isn’t it really the case that Dutch style infra only really exists beside major roads that see sufficient traffic that scarcely anybody would consider it as a suitable route if there wasn’t a decent cycle path next to it. It’s not just that people know the main roads because they drive them but they are also the easiest routes being direct and with the gentlest gradients. Why would you not want high quality segregated infrastructure alongside roads that would be horrible to cycle anyway?
-
I am foolishly dreaming of lockdown Sundays as the positive outcome of all this.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
There used to be something in Bristol called Make Sunday Special but it was only the very centre, about half of which is pedestrianised anyway. (And of course the shops were all open, that was the point of it)
-
I am foolishly dreaming of lockdown Sundays as the positive outcome of all this.
Are you including the social distancing part??