See my point above. There are rural roads which are still single lane for cars. In which century would you envisage a replicated/segregated cycle network?Mr Agreeable - Member
We do rework the UK road network, constantly and incrementally. If there was a statutory requirement to install segregated cycling facilities along trunk roads every time they were resurfaced or reworked, within 20 years we'd have the bones of a decent cycling network.
If we segregate bikes from cars in towns (say) then drivers of other vehicles will be even less familiar with/know how to interact with bikes when they do come across them.
Say at the moment about one in 50 drivers also cycles regularly. I realise this varies a lot and in some places it's already more than that, but for most of the country, 2% of journeys are made by bike.
That means that every time you venture out on the roads, you've got a high chance of engaging with people who don't understand how much room to give you, don't realise that overtaking you and immediately turning left is stupid, and all the other idiotic forms of behaviour that make cycling unpleasant.
If 1 in 10 people cycled , or 1 in 4 as in some parts of the Netherlands, then that'd mean much better awareness of how cyclists travel and how to behave around them. You do still get bad drivers in the Netherlands, but the number of road casualty figures compared to somewhere like the UK speak volumes.
.So - the only drivers that know how to drive where cyclists are present are also cyclists?Mr Agreeable - Member
Say at the moment about one in 50 drivers also cycles regularly. I relaise this varies a lot and in some places it's already more than that, but for most of the country 2%, of journeys are made by bike.That means that every time you venture out on the roads, you've got a high chance of engaging with people who don't understand how much room to give you, don't realise that overtaking you and immediately turning left is stupid, and all the other idiotic forms of behaviour that make cycling unpleasant
Netherlands, but the number of road casualty figures compared to somewhere like the UK speak volumes.
IIRC the road deaths in the Netherlands are pretty much on par with those in the UK
In which century would you envisage a replicated/segregated cycle network?
You're suggesting that proponents of segregation want to keep bikes off the road completely. This might be true of one or two with a particularly extreme position, but the majority (including me) would be happy with just more choice of traffic-free routes.
IIRC the road deaths in the Netherlands are pretty much on par with those in the UK
For pedestrians and cyclists?
For pedestrians and cyclists?
a death is a death TBH - I don't really see what difference it makes what they were driving/riding
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/830
Cool, I'll just drive everywhere, spend half my life sat in a stationary queue of traffic, and die of heart disease then.
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/europe/coronary-heart-disease-cause-of-death
You do what you want Mr A - I was merely putting some data into the UK Vs NL claim
I've not really looked at it much TBH so it may well prove your point
I tend to drive cars, motor bikes, cycle and walk depending on the purpose
I reckon the motorbike is the one that puts in the most danger but that's just a wet finger in the air survey
Went along to a few CM rides in thatlondon years ago.
It was embarrassing a lot of the time ,most of the cyclists were there with good intentions,but the message was being missed by a country mile.
It invariably got all shouty and just seemed a waste of time.
Far better to educate the masses and make them aware of the benefits of cycling in a way that will last(and without getting all superior).
It can be a real stealth thing,I have persuaded lots of people that I have worked with to get in to cycling and some are now all year round cyclists.They in turn have gone on to spread the word and I would like to think it has changed the way they now look at other cyclists when they drive.
That data is only relevant if the amount of cyclists is equal, let's call it relative proportionality 😉
As for you druid h hahaha and ha!
More cyclists using the existing roads means more problems 😯
That data is only relevant if the amount of cyclists is equal
ahh.. OK then
So we can't compare the UK with NL
guess we'll just have to guess then? 😉
This is getting a bit nerdy now, but in this graph:
[img] 
[/img]
the numbers up the left hand side refer to the [i]percentage of reduction[/i] in road accidents, not the overall levels.
All this shows is that both countries are getting safer overall, but the Netherlands is doing this by building better infrastructure, and getting more epople cycling, whereas in the UK overall cycling rates have declined by about 10% over the last decade:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/tables/nts0103/
Which has negative consequences for public health and arguably a lot more.
This is all basic, fundamental stuff here. It's surprising that so many people are anti the Dutch cycling model when it has been shown to work.
It really doesn't. More cyclists = fewer drives & more familiarity with cyclists needs.kaesae - Member
As for you druid h hahaha and ha!More cyclists using the existing roads means more problems
Actually, the graph shows the rate of fatalities [i]per kilometre walked or cycled[/i] so your assertion is incorrect.Mr Agreeable - Member
the numbers up the left hand side refer to the percentage of reduction in road accidents, not the overall levels.All this shows is that both countries are getting safer overall, but the Netherlands is doing this by building better infrastructure, and getting more epople cycling, whereas in the UK overall cycling rates have declined by about 10% over the last decade:
If it's numbers, and not a percentage, why do both start at exactly 100?
Not much guessing needed they have far more cyclists than us and a better cycle network.
We have the mad dash, be prepared for anything including a fist fight, chicken with a banger up it's arse, run!
More cyclists = fewer drives & more familiarity with cyclists needs.
Ah, so I was right then. What do you do when the forum's down, argue with your own shadow?
It's to show the relative drop. That just indicates that the rate of [i]fatalities per kilometre travelled [/i]dropped ever-so-slightly more than in the Netherlands than the UK.
❓Mr Agreeable - Member
More cyclists = fewer drives & more familiarity with cyclists needs.
Ah, so I was right then. What do you do when the forum's down, argue with your own shadow?
I've never argued that there should be fewer cyclists, just that segregation is not the way forward.
What do you do when the forum's down, argue with your own shadow?
TBH - I try not to argue at all, especially on the internet
Aah I see DruidH, more cyclists means less people driving, the genius of your deviously cunning plan has now dawned on me 😯
However I still don't see how you will convince more people to leave the security of thier cars and brave the lunatic assylum that is modern living in the UK.
Perhaps you could enlighten us as too how you will get drivers to become riders, there are several problems such as obesity and of course unhealthy people in general.
I think yours is a good point, however a practical means by which to attain your goals might be a bit tricky to implement.
That just indicates that the rate of fatalities per kilometre travelled dropped ever-so-slightly more than in the Netherlands than the UK.
Because people in the UK are abandoning bikes for cars.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/tables/nts0103/ <
Well if it's p'ing off other cyclists, what hope with car drivers?
I suspect most naysayers on here drive more than cycle.
So - the cyclists that are left are cycling further to make up for it?Mr Agreeable - Member
Because people in the UK are abandoning bikes for cars.
I cycled 10,000km last year. How about you?RichieBoy - Member
I suspect most naysayers on here drive more than cycle.
I said most, and yeah, not far off that figure. But congrats anyway.
Another to remove from your 'most' estimate here. Bike is my everyday transport, even most weekends. Car is used about twice a month, if that.
I suspect most naysayers on here drive more than cycle.
More time on the motorbike for me, It's looking like your suspicion meter needs recalibrating
So - the cyclists that are left are cycling further to make up for it?
Not sure what your point is. If it's that the total distance cyclists travel has gone up, well good on us, but that doesn't mean it's become more popular, or safer.
The number of cyclists in London has certainly increased a lot, which could lead a reader of the national media to assume there's some sort of renaissance underway, but it's not a big jump, and seems to have been assisted by factors like the congestion charge and terrorist attacks on public transport, which aren't easily replicable in other places.
All the numbers suggest that the only way more people are going to cycle, no matter how lovely and encouraging we are to non-cyclists, is by getting more good quality infrastructure built.
More time on the motorbike for me, It's looking like your suspicion meter needs recalibrating
Perhaps. Or maybe i'm finding it difficult to believe there's so much opposition to CM on a cycling forum!
Another to remove from your 'most' estimate here. Bike is my everyday transport, even most weekends. Car is used about twice a month, if that.
Whats the point of having a car then?
Whats the point of having a car then?
maybe like me - the company gives you it?
Those figures show that it is twice as safe [i]per kilometre travelled[/i] than it used to be.Mr Agreeable - Member
If it's that the total distance cyclists travel has gone up, well good on us, but that doesn't mean it's become more popular, or safer.
Which numbers? So far, I haven't seen any correlation between cycle infrastructure and accident rates? The Netherlands is held up as a great example and yet their absolute and relative fatality rates are little different from the bad old UK.[b]All the numbers[/b] suggest that the only way more people are going to cycle, no matter how lovely and encouraging we are to non-cyclists, is by getting more good quality infrastructure built.
If I don't agree with you that somehow makes me anti-bike? You [i]are[/i] TJ and ICMFP.RichieBoy - Member
Or maybe i'm finding it difficult to believe there's so much opposition to CM on a cycling forum!
maybe like me - the company gives you it?
That would suggest you use it for your job.
If your using it twice a month though, i'm pretty sure a company car would not be applicable.
If I don't agree with you that somehow makes me anti-bike? You are TJ and ICMFP.
Don't remember calling any one anti bike.
Like a caterpillar to a butterfly, I think I am witnessing druid's metamorphosis from a "man on the street with an internet connection" to an [u][b]INTERNET BIG HITTER[/u][/b] 😛
That would suggest you use it for your job.
About a 400 company miles last month, I work from home these days so don't get about as much as before
If your using it twice a month though, i'm pretty sure a company car would not be applicable.
applicable to what? - it's been part of my contract for 12 years or so, we have plenty of employees that do zero company miles per year
applicable to what? - it's been part of my contract for 12 years or so, we have plenty of employees that do zero company miles per year
Do those employees also get a company car? Thats crazy, no?
Do those employees also get a company car? Thats crazy, no?
Yeah, some do, it's part of their salary
It's no more crazy that them going out and buying their own
Yeah, some do, it's part of their salary
It's no more crazy that them going out and buying their own
Fair enough! No option for a company bike? 🙂
Fair enough! No option for a company bike?
I can get one on C2W but the numbers are crap compared to buying them myself
druidh - MemberThose figures show that it is twice as safe per kilometre travelled than it used to be.
The graph jota180 posted above shows the [i]relative [/i]decrease in accident rates. It doesn't give you any idea how safe cycling in the UK actually is compared to countries like the Netherlands.
There could be 10,000 people killed one year, 5,000 the next and it would still be a 50% decrease.
There's a good article here from David Hembrow on the way that the Netherland's road safety figures can be misinterpreted. Sorry for the cached version, he appears to have made his blog private for some reason:
That's correct, but you said.Mr Agreeable - Member
The graph jota180 posted above shows the relative decrease in accident rates. It doesn't give you any idea how safe cycling in the UK actually is compared to countries like the Netherlands.There could be 10,000 people killed one year, 5,000 the next and it would still be a 50% dec
Whereas the figures actually show that - even in the UK - it is twice as safe as it used to be.If it's that the total distance cyclists travel has gone up, well good on us, but [b]that doesn't mean it's become more popular, or safer.[/b]
I'm sorry to labour this, but you are propagating a myth - that cycling the UK is more dangerous than ever. It's exactly that sort of misinformation that puts people off cycling.
i'm finding it difficult to believe there's so much opposition to CM on a cycling forum!
It's probably a safe assumption that most people on here would like to see more drivers using their cars less and their bikes more.
CM's main effect is to make these very drivers think that cycling is for militant, driver-hating twunts, which does nothing to promote that aim. So it's not too surprising there's not much support on here.
