This looks awful:

This is good though

It’s not just about that, it’s about being at liberty to do my sport, which is cycling quickly.

he was talking about commuting

Take my family (please…)

I’m not sure what you expect to do about people who apparently can’t walk or use wheelchairs.

And presenting it as “cycle paths OR public transport” is a bogus argument. As is the whole “cycle paths OR the NHS” point.

Why can’t it be “cycle paths OR cars”, “cycle paths OR high speed rail link”? Or even “cycle paths or Trident”?

the Dutch embarked on a massive programme of building segregated facilities from the late 1980s: it didn’t lead to an increase in cycling. “build it and they will come” is a nonsense.

Figures?

They did something right:

Looks like a reasonable recovery in the 80’s to me:

People (some people, that I am in no position to accurately quantify) want to cycle in a traffic free environment.

But in foreign, people cycle because it’s the best way of getting about, regardless of traffic, and that’s the way we should go, not running away to our special little paths..

Molgrips, IMO its not the cycle lane spoiling the asthetic of that picture. Though all the metal bits both in and out of the cycle lane are a bit odd. Any idea what they’re all for/do?

That’s technically true, numbers of Dutch and Danish cyclists are now falling slightly I believe. But they kept their levels of cycling higher than anywhere else in Europe in the face of enormous pressure from private motor vehicles.

Correlation is not causation!

There’s no evidence that this was anything to do with segregated facilities – given that mass vehicle ownership existed for many years before they embarked on the segregation schemes.

Bogota in Columbia still has fairly paltry cycling levels (about 5% apparently) but it’s an example of somewhere which saw a big increase in cycling after building proper infrastructure (and improving the bike-friendliness of public transport).

Closer to home, London has seen a significant increase in cycling without much segregated infrastructure. What’s the explanation?

People do cycle in Cambridge (and Oxford and York) because it is time competitive. Cambridge has little segregated infrastructure.

And yet the Cambridge Cycle Campaign are crying out for it.

In a country where car registration tax costs 200% of the cost of the car (Denmark) is it any wonder that people use bikes?

Ransos there may be a touch of oversimplification there. I think you’ve got a point when you say that some people will trade off a bit more personal risk for a quicker journey, but it’s not a choice that people should have to make.

It’s pretty clear that new cyclists want safe routes. They perceive that traffic-free routes are the way to achieve this (though my understanding is that they’re not actually any safer…)

Are you getting your figures from the same place as Mike Penning?

the minute you begin to segregate cyclists from ‘traffic’, road design begins to ignore them

Oh you mean like this segregation in Germany:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jYq2HomNWU[/video]
— from http://katsdekker.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/frantically-soaking-up-some-cycling.html

No sign of road design ignoring segregated cyclists there. Quite the opposite actually.

Looks like a reasonable recovery in the 80’s to me:

Your graph shows that cycling rates in 2006 were about the same as 1988. How is that an advert for building segregated facilities?

How do you explain the significant increase in cycling in places like London, which have very little segregated infrastructure?

Molgrips, IMO its not the cycle lane spoiling the asthetic of that picture.

I didn’t mean aesthetics, I meant it looked like an awful cycle path. Small metal bollards and low metal loops IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PATH.

Flippin eck! Also what might be crosswalks.. and I’d hope those pedestrians do a better job of keeping off the path than they do here.

No sign of road design ignoring segregated cyclists there.

Graham, one example doesn’t really help the debate, does it? That could be rare or unique, we don’t know.

molgrips – Member
This looks awful

It’s probably better than sharing a road with a bunch of looney Colombians.

Isn’t that the sort of attitude that causes friction in the first place, people not wanting to be held up in their cars etc? Aren’t cyclists supposed to be a bit more laid back about it all?

Exactly this.
It’s frankly disgusting that some people here don’t want pedestrians getting in their way on ‘their cyclepaths’.
This is the same as motorists not wanting cyclists getting in their way on ‘their roads’.
Stop being so selfish.

How do you explain the significant increase in cycling in places like London, which have very little segregated infrastructure?

Well apparently (I don’t have any figures to hand) there was a massive jump in the numbers of cyclists after 7/7. So all we have to do is commit terrorist atrocities on public transport in every other city in the UK and we’ll be sorted.

It’s frankly disgusting that some people here don’t want pedestrians getting in the way of them on ‘their cyclepaths’.

Well, when I’m cycling I like to keep to the side of the road so motorists can pass easily and quickly.

On most cyclepaths, there are usually pedestrians wandering all over the place, and even standing around chatting. I think if I tried the same thing on the roads on my bike it would not be fair, would it?

I don’t mind sharing the paths, I just want them to be aware that they are on a cyclepath. Not too much to ask, is it?

How do you explain the significant increase in cycling in places like London, which have very little segregated infrastructure?

??? The fact that some places manage to increase cycling without any segregated paths doesn’t mean segregation doesn’t work, it just means there are other levers to pull too.

London did the “superhighways”, Boris Bikes, congestion charging, tube strikes, TfL promotion, and it has incredibly slow traffic. These all helped.

Do you think some properly segregated paths would cause cycling to fall in London?

I didn’t mean aesthetics, I meant it looked like an awful cycle path. Small metal bollards and low metal loops IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PATH.

Yeah that’s an odd design. 😕 And very narrow given the apparent pedestrian are to the side. I think the hoops are supposed to make you get in the correct lane as you go through the pedestrian crossing.

Graham, one example doesn’t really help the debate, does it? That could be rare or unique, we don’t know.

Read the accompanying blog post. It’s not.

Are you getting your figures from the same place as Mike Penning?

No idea what you’re talking about…

1. Cycling is a relatively safe activity in the UK, though less safe than Holland.
2. The increased safety in Holland is roughly what we would expect from safety in numbers. See http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/CTC_Safety_in_Numbers.pdf
3. Cycling safety has improved significantly in places like London, yet there has been no large programme of segregated facilities.

It’s frankly disgusting that some people here don’t want pedestrians getting in their way on ‘their cyclepaths’.
This is the same as motorists not wanting cyclists getting in their way on ‘their roads’.

Not really. If pedestrians walked on the left side of the lane nobody cares.
But when 4 pedestrians walk side by side blocking the whole path it gets a bit irritating. Still fuming!! Lol
Imagine the reaction if 4 roadies blocked an entire road cycling side by side.

On most cyclepaths, there are usually pedestrians wandering all over the place

That’s cos the UK ones (at least in a city) are a pedestrian path attacked with a can of Dulux.
The ones in Netherlands (sorry – there’s no way of getting out of comparing) often have a nice red tarmac bit for bikes, a small kerb (maybe an inch high), then a paved walking bit. P155 easy design, costs a few bob more though, but as a ped you wouldn’t dare step on the tarmac bit in the same way you wouldn’t step in to the road (at least without looking).

I don’t mind sharing the paths, I just want them to be aware that they are on a cyclepath. Not too much to ask, is it?

A (polite) bell helps. As does a cheery “hello” or “Thanks” when they move.

It’s all about education, reinforcing good behaviour and good cyclist PR.

I think the hoops are supposed to make you get in the correct lane as you go through the pedestrian crossing

Pretty severe penalty if you don’t!

On most cyclepaths, there are usually pedestrians wandering all over the place, and even standing around chatting. I think if I tried the same thing on the roads on my bike it would not be fair, would it?

Your analogy fails because the path is not a road. It’s a shared use path. A quick ring of the bell, a cheery hello… Y’know, nice human interaction.

Your analogy fails because the path is not a road. It’s a shared use path.

They do it on divided cyclepaths too.

A quick ring of the bell, a cheery hello… Y’know, nice human interaction.

Ok that’s fine, but it means I can’t ride fast. Which is why I often choose the roads, cos I can ride fast legally and safely.

My point once again is that I would be concerned about ghettoisation, which I think is a real risk. Cyclists need to be accepted on the roads, as well as on cyclepaths.

??? The fact that some places manage to increase cycling without any segregated paths doesn’t mean segregation doesn’t work, it just means there are other levers to pull too.

You’ve yet to show me which places have significantly increased cycling because of segregation.

London did the “superhighways”, Boris Bikes, congestion charging, tube strikes, TfL promotion, and it has incredibly slow traffic. These all helped.

Yup. How is that an argument for segregation?

Do you think some properly segregated paths would cause cycling to fall in London?

I think that, as with Holland, it would make no difference whatsoever.

I think the hoops are supposed to make you get in the correct lane as you go through the pedestrian crossing

That’s not a ped crossing – it looks like an access to the building, and hence is a 2-way give way to cross the bike path. Bikes have priority.

The hoops do seem odd though. Actually the poles do too (except those demarking the access “road”

Well apparently (I don’t have any figures to hand) there was a massive jump in the numbers of cyclists after 7/7. So all we have to do is commit terrorist atrocities on public transport in every other city in the UK and we’ll be sorted.

Shall we not go there?

Well if you really want to go there, then judging by the graph of deaths on roads (other thread?), the best way to halve them is to have a war 😕

Ok that’s fine, but it means I can’t ride fast. Which is why I often choose the roads, cos I can ride fast legally and safely.

And what do you do on the roads at traffic lights, roundabouts, junctions, heavy traffic, trucks, buses, roadworks? You slow down or stop.

Just different “hazards”, that’s all.
You have that. I have a few peds, some dog walkers and the odd gate.

I’ll bet you have to slow down more often than I do.

London has seen a significant increase in cycling without much segregated infrastructure. What’s the explanation?

Very simply, public transport fare increases.
Imagine the increases with a carrot as well as the stick.

Just different “hazards”, that’s all.
You have that a massive group of school kids standing around, mothers pushing pushchairs three abreast…. I have a few peds, some dog walkers and the odd gate.

It’s the “I want to go fast, they’re in my way” attitude. It’s exactly the same attitude many drivers have concerning cyclists.
Fair enough, the roads are there for you. But the roads aren’t safe for all.

And what do you do on the roads at traffic lights, roundabouts, junctions, heavy traffic, trucks, buses, roadworks? You slow down or stop.

As you do on urban segregated routes, at every junction.

It’s worth looking here: http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

Every single study shows that segregated paths either make no difference to safety, or make it worse.

You’ve yet to show me which places have significantly increased cycling because of segregation.

You’ve yet to show it didn’t help in the Netherlands.

I’m not an expert. I don’t have all the figures. I’m not even sure all the figures exist.

But I do know that people consistently ask for segregation. Several people on this very thread have cited examples of family members who only cycle because they have access to traffic-free routes. I personally will only be cycling on Sunday with my family because I have such access.

It’s not the only solution by a long way. Neither is it a panacea.
But I’m thoroughly convinced that safe routes = more cycling.

The increased safety in Holland is roughly what we would expect from safety in numbers.

What was it you were saying about correlation and causation?

Cycling in London has indeed got safer. No-one really seems to know why but I’d guess that safety in numbers, a clued-up affluent cycling community and the congestion charge are all factors. However there are now signs that casualty numbers are starting to creep back up again.
http://road.cc/content/blog/49070-cycling-london-getting-safer

And what do you do on the roads at traffic lights, roundabouts, junctions, heavy traffic, trucks, buses, roadworks? You slow down or stop.

As you do on urban segregated routes, at every junction.

Except in one of those rather flat countries 😉 where the segregated path crosses side streets and has priority over motorised traffic 🙂

You’ve yet to show it didn’t help in the Netherlands.

So you’d like me to prove a negative? Doh!

But I do know that people consistently ask for segregation. Several people on this very thread have cited examples of family members who only cycle because they have access to traffic-free routes. I personally will only be cycling on Sunday with my family because I have such access.

People ask for all sorts of things. That doesn’t mean we should do them.

It’s not the only solution by a long way. Neither is it a panacea.

You’ve yet to show that it’s any kind of solution.

But I’m thoroughly convinced that safe routes = more cycling.

I agree. It’s also the case that more cycling = safer routes. There are many ways in which this can be achieved…

As you do on urban segregated routes, at every junction.

There are more traffic lights than side roads on my route as discussed earlier.

And any reason why bikes have to give way to cars at side roads like that?
A continental design would be for the cars to give way to bikes, reinforced by a raised section that continues the segregated path across the side road and which cars must slow down to cross, like a speed bump.

Every single study shows that segregated paths either make no difference to safety, or make it worse.

There are an awful lot of conclusions which say ‘There were more casualties after segregation’ without addressing whether there were more cyclists. That’s poor stats, that.

It’s worth looking here: http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

Every single study shows that segregated paths either make no difference to safety, or make it worse.

A selective list compiled from pre-2000 data by a bloke who makes his living from telling people to cycle on the road!

What was it you were saying about correlation and causation?

If cycling in numbers doesn’t improve safety then there must be another explanation for the data, which shows that accident rates are invariably in proportion to the level of cycling. Can you think of one?

Cycling in London has indeed got safer. No-one really seems to know why but I’d guess that safety in numbers, a clued-up affluent cycling community and the congestion charge are all factors. However there are now signs that casualty numbers are starting to creep back up again.
http://road.cc/content/blog/49070-cycling-london-getting-safer

Which tells us that there are better things to focus on than segregation, no?