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
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 [s]that[/s] [b]a massive group of school kids standing around, mothers pushing pushchairs three abreast....[/b] 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.htmlEvery 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?
A selective list compiled from pre-2000 data by a bloke who makes his living from telling people to cycle on the road!
In which case there must be a wealth of studies out there to contradict him. Do you know of any? I am genuinely interested...
So you'd like me to prove a negative? Doh!
I've shown the figures for the Netherlands that show the fall in cycling levelling out then starting to increase again just at the point where you said they started building segregated paths to no effect.
So yes, prove segregation had no impact on that and it was entirely down to other factors.
People ask for all sorts of things. That doesn't mean we should do them.
Well quite. But this works. Several people here are offering their personal stories telling you how it works for them. That these paths have got other people cycling.
Once again I ask:
Would you let your young child cycle to school on roads?
How about if there was a traffic-free route where they could cycle with their friends?
How many unnecessary school runs would that eliminate? Less cars on the road. More fit kids with an interest in cycling. Jobsagoodun.
there must be a wealth of studies out there to contradict him. Do you know of any?
First off, that's not a "study", it's a blog post. The bloke is a self-appointed expert par excellence, but in case you're interested, there's a dissection of his often-recycled journal article on the Milton Keynes cycle paths here: http://manchestercycling.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/milton-keynes-redways.html
And secondly, you've touched on an unfortunate truth - research into cycling in particular is really thin on the ground, and when it's done, it's often not the sort of thing that could be influential on policy.
I've shown the figures for the Netherlands that show the fall in cycling levelling out then starting to increase again just at the point where you said they started building segregated paths to no effect.
The graph shows that cycling rates in 2006 were the same as 1988. I believe that they fallen since 2006.
So yes, prove segregation had no impact on that and it was entirely down to other factors.
What impact? Cycling rates didn't change.
Well quite. But this works. Several people here are offering their personal stories telling you how it works for them. That these paths have got other people cycling.
The plural of anecdote is not data. There is no evidence that building segregated paths increases cycling overall.
Would you let your young child cycle to school on roads?
It's a five minute walk. She can use the pavement.
How about if there was a traffic-free route where they could cycle with their friends?
Again, showing me a drawing of how you're going to fit one into a typical urban street.
First off, that's not a "study", it's a blog post.
Eh? He quoted umpteen studies. There must be other ones you can provide, surely?
The bloke is a self-appointed expert par excellence, but in case you're interested, there's a dissection of his often-recycled journal article on the Milton Keynes cycle paths here: http://manchestercycling.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/milton-keynes-redways.html
So we now have two conflicting opinions...I don't think that advances us very much.
I think that to some extent here we're all arguing from a position of faith. There are many variables that could come into play - the quality of the infrastructure and its effect on cyclists' right to use the roads are two that get mentioned frequently.
The thing that really swings it for me is the moral argument. Why have we come to favour one mode of transport so massively over others, and (literally) marginalise the most vulnerable road users? It's a seriously messed-up situation, and "MTFU" or "do nothing and things will be fine" won't cut it as an answer.
The graph shows that cycling rates in 2006 were the same as 1988. I believe that they fallen since 2006.
Yes and it also shows the initial steep steep decline was halted and reversed during the period they were building those segregated paths.
The Dutch have probably the safest roads to cycle on in the world. Why is that? Numbers, respect, and infrastructure.
Again, showing me a drawing of how you're going to fit one into a typical urban street.
I'm not a traffic engineer. The Hembrow blog has numerous examples. See also flickr, Cambridge Cycle Campaign, Copenhagenize, Cycling Embassy of Great Britain etc
Here's a nice video of redesigning a crossroads Dutch style
So we now have two conflicting opinions
That's not an opinion-based piece at all. You should probably take the time to read it.
Again, showing me a drawing of how you're going to fit one into a typical urban street.
Okay tell you what - just for giggles - give me a realistically "typical urban street". Your choice. Google maps location will do. I'll have a go at making it cycle friendly my way.
I'm not a traffic engineer and there are likely to be many flaws with what I come up with - but it might be an interesting exercise.
The thing that really swings it for me is the moral argument. Why have we come to favour one mode of transport so massively over others, and (literally) marginalise the most vulnerable road users? It's a seriously messed-up situation, and "MTFU" or "do nothing and things will be fine" won't cut it as an answer.
I agree completely. But segregation is not a solution...for one thing, it's exceptionally impolite to effectively privatise part of the street just to satisfy the small minority who want it, especially when it doesn't appear to achieve anything.
BTW - I used to be in favour of segregation, but have been persuaded otherwise by the evidence.
Yes and it also shows the initial steep steep decline was halted and reversed during the period they were building those segregated paths.
No it doesn't. Cycling was increasing already. Look at it again.
The Dutch have probably the safest roads to cycle on in the world. Why is that? Numbers, respect, and infrastructure.
Numbers, culture, certainly.
BTW - your picture already has cycle paths. I'm asking you what you're going to take space from to create them.
it's exceptionally impolite to effectively privatise part of the street just to satisfy the small minority who want it
What are roads, pavements, bus lanes, taxi lanes, tram tracks, footpaths and motorways if not exactly that?
I used to be in favour of segregation, but have been persuaded otherwise by the evidence.
I used to be against segregation for the same reasons as molgrips, but have been persuaded otherwise by evidence and eloquent arguments. 😀
Cyclists are a minority. People who want to cycle but think it's too dangerous, or just for sporty fit types, are a sizeable chunk of the populace.
your picture already has cycle paths. I'm asking you what you're going to take space from to create them.
Might I suggest removing the hordes of parked cars that line every urban street. I know it's a god-given right to be able to park your car outside your house, but at some point we're going to have to face the fact that it's a massive appropriation of public space with some seriously negative consequences for other road users.
Moan moan moan ... all these disused railway tracks laying idle and overgrown ... moan moan moan.
Look at any map and you will see loads of them, such a waste!
