[Closed] Why I won't let my 8yo cycle on the road - Chris Boardman

Chris Boardman is the best thing to happen to cycling advocacy imo.
Many other people come across all wrong in the eyes of the opposition, but Chris rarely says anything they can object to.
Really appreciate his thoughtful arguments.

I guess the TV spot should be available on iPlayer later (not online yet).

Although - I should add, that cycling infrastructure isn't my main concern. It's driver-attitude that needs to change.

They need to be educated about what it feels like when cars squeeze past.

Obviously, if more drivers become cyclists, perhaps due to increased infrastructure, then that will help.

Fascinating video of rush hour in Utrecht linked to in that article...

First thing that struck me, of the hundreds (maybe thousands) of cyclists you see in that video, see if you can spot a single one wearing a helmet. They clearly perceive cycling to be a far less dangerous activity than we do.

I guess the TV spot should be available on iPlayer later (not online yet).

It's here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29853789

Predictably, it's prompted the usual frothing-at-the-mouth about helmets and hi vis... 🙄

+ 1 million to driver attitudes being the main concern. The current (shitty) infrastructure would be a lot safer if drivers treated cyclists with more respect

The question is though, what's easier to change? Drivers attitudes or the infrastructure? I wonder why it is cycling works so well in the Netherlands...

Many other people come across all wrong in the eyes of the opposition, but Chris rarely says anything they can object to.

He's been getting a kicking on Twitter for going on the news and saying he doesn't wear a helmet.

He's right obviously, but ignorant people are ignorant.

Predictably, it's prompted the usual frothing-at-the-mouth about helmets and hi vis...

When they played the piece this morning, the presenters afterwards made a point of saying that CB prefers not to wear a helmet. I suspect they were trying to pre-empt the [i]incandescent from Grimsby[/i]s emailing points if view.

cycling in the Netherlands

once you have enough cyclists that we're seen not as "weirdos in lycra who don't pay road tax" but "my friends/family" then perceptions and behaviours change

I had a lot of sympathy for his position on helmets:

The best thing we can do to improve the lot of cyclists is to get more people cycling.

One of the barriers to people cycling is that they perceive it as dangerous.

Part of the reason they perceive it as dangerous is that people who do it wear protective gear.

In fact, statistically, it isn't much more dangerous than walking and nobody dons a helmet to walk to the shops.

So, ride around in normal clothes without a helmet, make people see cycling as something that can be done by normal people in normal clothes, get more people cycling and we're all better off.

He kind of weakens his own argument though by saying "but I wouldn't let my daughter do it".

Still, who am I to judge. He's still doing a lot more for cyling and cyclists than me and most of us are pretty irrational when it comes to our kids, so more power to his elbow.

Most of the network in Denmark is not covered by dedicated infrastructure. That strongly suggests that attitude is the main risk factor.

I can see why Utrecht is an interesting example to show how mass adoption of cycling "works" but it is not without its own problems. I've been a pedestrian in Utrecht and I actually hated all the bikes sharing the space with me. I felt like I needed eyes in the back of my head to navigate the shared-use pavements by the side of the canals and would have hated to walk around the city with kids and pushchair in tow.

Neither Amsterdam nor some of the smaller towns in Holland I have visited had this problem.

Not for one minute am I dismissing the goals of CB, just raising the point that awareness of other users is a two-way street (pun obviously intended).

The question is though, what's easier to change? Drivers attitudes or the infrastructure?

Driver's attitudes would be easier to change, and also more important. You'll never create perfect cycle infrastrucutre everywhere, but if you focus on cycle lanes then if you aren't on one you'll get even more grief from motorists.

I don't want to be forced onto some crappily surfaced path shared with dog walkers with driveways crossing it every few yards*. I want to be able to ride at 20mph, get some training in and get where I'm going.

There's a continuous cycleway from central Cardiff to the local woods for cycling. I used to use it when I first lived here but gave up, because it took 45 mins instead of 25 on the road. 40 extra mins I'd rather spend on the singletrack.

* although I see their advantages, and I sometimes use them when it suits me.

Don't read the comments under the article; they're just depressing(ly predictable).

Apologies. I posted this earlier in the other helmet thread, but thought it might be useful here as well. Just some internet perusal:

[i]What evidence is there that cycle helmets reduce serious injury?

There have been many predictions that cycle helmets are effective in reducing serious injuries. Most of these predictions come from case-control studies, which are based on small research populations and have been criticised for methodological limitations.

On the other hand, large population data, from sources such as traffic casualty statistics and hospital treatment records, do not support these predictions. These sources show no improvement in serious injury trends as helmet use has become more common. Indeed, sometimes they suggest that the number or severity of injuries has increased.

In Great Britain, there was no detectable improvement in fatalities, serious injuries or the average severity of injuries to cyclists over the period 1985 to 2001, during which helmet use rose from close to zero to approx 22%. Injury severity increased as helmet use became more common (BHRF, 1071). A study of road traffic casualties has found no association between differing patterns of helmet wearing rates and casualty rates for adults and children. Similarly, boys and girls have identical percent head injury rates but markedly different levels of helmet use (Hewson, 2005; Hewson, 2005b).

In Greater London, cyclist injuries became more serious as helmet use increased in the mid 1990s (BHRF, 1072). In 2001, although about half of cyclists wore helmets, the severity of injuries was significantly higher than in 1981 and fatalities were highest since 1989. In Edinburgh, also with approx 50% helmet wearing, casualties have become more serious as helmet use has increased (BHRF, 1247). In the Lothian region (close to Edinburgh), wearing a helmet has made no significant difference to outcome in the case of the more serious head injuries measured by need of follow-up or hospital admission (Scottish Exec, 2005).

In the USA, cyclists suffered more head injuries in 2001 than in 1991 although helmet use had increased from 18% to 50%. There is no clear information that cycle use increased during this period and some evidence that it may have fallen. (BHRF, 1041)

In Australia, helmet laws caused head injuries to fall by 11% to 21%. But cycle use fell by 30% to 60%, suggesting that those who continued to cycle were more at risk (BHRF, 1096). In New Zealand, large increases in helmet use have not brought any reduction in the proportion of serious head injuries. Some reduction in mild concussions and lacerations has been balanced by an increase in neck injuries (##10017). An analysis of enforced helmet laws in Australia, New Zealand and Canada has found no clear evidence of benefit and increased risks for cyclists post-legislation (Robinson, 2006).

Analysis by Erke and Elvik, 2007 showed an increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand the increase was estimated to be around 14%.

In Germany, research found no significant difference in the level of head-trauma in cycling crashes between cyclists who wore a helmet and those who did not (Möllman, Rieger and Wassmann, 2004).

More generally, concerns have been expressed that helmets may increase the risk of the most serious types of head injury typical of road crashes and which involve rotational forces (BHRF, 1039).[/i]

The sooner the 'debate' can move on from some assumption of safety protection afforded by a helmet and hi-vis, the better.

I hope (probably rather optimistically), that at some point comments digressing onto road tax, insurance, helmets etc get blocked or banned in the same way as climate change deniers do on many news channels, as it stifles useful debate everytime.

chakaping - Member
He's been getting a kicking on Twitter for going on the news and saying he doesn't wear a helmet.

He's right obviously, but ignorant people are ignorant.

First thing that struck me, of the hundreds (maybe thousands) of cyclists you see in that video, see if you can spot a single one wearing a helmet

This scene is exactly the same as that I observed and experienced as a child visting Germany on many occassions - over 50 years ago!

The first thing that struck me was an almost complete absence of private motor vehicles. Second was a lack of "red light runners".

I did wonder about this, but thought they could have just picked a junction where you don't get many cars but you do get lots of bikes. Is it even a through road for private vehicles?

The geography of the Netherlands should not be underestimated. Cycling is fun for a broader range of people if there are no hills to climb. The popularity of converted railways for family cycling is no coincidence.

That Utrecht video is amazing; so few cars! Mostly cyclists on city bikes with a few buses and trains and only one pavement rider at 1.00 minute.

The flatness of the Netherlands goes a long way to explaining the universal acceptance of cycling as it doesn't matter how heavy or rubbish is the bike you ride.

Yes, I know why he's doing it and I agree with the sentiment, but it does get people's backs up and give them an obvious criticism.

Fairly sure that it's actually a calculated gamble to show why such a "debate" (OMG! HELMETS! HI VIS!) is total bollocks and attempt to move the conversation on a bit. Chris is good like that, he knows what he's doing but so long as the conversation sits there never really going much above "they should wear helmets / pay road tax / not jump red lights) we'll never get anywhere.

Put decent proper infrastructure in place and all the above simply disappears.

Edit: anyone here use Boris Bikes in London or have you seen people using them? Do you carry a helmet and lycra and hi-vis to put on just before you use it? Have you seen other people doing that? No, thought not. It's just people getting around, you really don't need special clothes for it!

The geography of the Netherlands should not be underestimated.

Not so sure about this. Most town/city centres in the UK are pretty flat. Hillier when you get out into the countryside but then so too are parts of the Netherlands (just look at some of the Spring classics, no shortage of climbing there.)

First thing that struck me, of the hundreds (maybe thousands) of cyclists you see in that video, see if you can spot a single one wearing a helmet.

not one "racing" bike either.

So he should do something he disagrees with, and is in opposition to the point he's making in order to avoid stupid people criticising him?

not one "racing" bike either.

Think that is a consequence of the types of people riding and the sorts of journeys that are made.

Would be interesting to know more about the types and lengths of bike commutes. I'm guessing not many of those in the video have ridden 20+ miles through drizzly conditions on country lanes to get to where they are going.

Most town/city centres in the UK are pretty flat.

Bristol's quite hilly and that's one of the largest cycling cities is it not? It's also bloody congested and crowded, but still plenty of bikes.

Would be interesting to know more about the types and lengths of bike commutes. I'm guessing not many of those in the video have ridden 20+ miles through drizzly conditions on country lanes to get to where they are going.

Yes, this is an interesting point, that's been raised before on here. Are all those Netherlands journeys ones that would be done by car in the UK? I suspect not, I think most would probably have walked or taken a bus.

When I was a student I rode everywhere, but most journeys were under a mile, or two at the outside. All my friends walked - none of us owned a car - and it was certianly the norm to walk as a student.

[quote=molgrips ]Driver's attitudes would be easier to change

You reckon? For how long has it been being tried, and what progress has been made?

I don't want to be forced onto some crappily surfaced path shared with dog walkers with driveways crossing it every few yards*

Who was suggesting providing crappy infrastructure?

Bristol's quite hilly and that's one of the largest cycling cities is it not? It's also bloody congested and crowded, but still plenty of bikes.

University city though, wonder how many of the bikes belong to students. Would imagine that higher congestion drives up cycle usage too.

Who was suggesting providing crappy infrastructure?

I can't see how all cycleways will be lovely. No more than all railways or roads are lovely. This cycling nirvana doesn't seem possible to me. In countries I've lived where cycle infrastructure is meant to be good, there's no getting around that you are often crossing many many driveway entrances and you're very close to them which puts you at risk of low visibility.

You reckon? For how long has it been being tried, and what progress has been made?

I don't see it's been tried very hard. Plenty of 'Think Bike' ads for motorcyclist - when was the last time you saw a 'Think Cyclist' ad or billboard? We could do FAR better, and at lower cost than infrastructure and with better results imo.

Apparently, BBC Breakfast will have cycling features all this week.

I think CB made a point of wearing no helmet and all black clothing on this morning's feature.

aracer - Member

[molgrips » Driver's attitudes would be easier to change[

You reckon? For how long has it been being tried, and what progress has been made?

let's be honest, we haven't really tried at all have we. Yhere's the odd 'think bike' advert on the telly, that's it.

edit: it appears Mol' and i have a mind-meld.

'trying' would mean something like: including a cross-town cycle journey as part of the driving test.

or, actually punishing drivers for dangerous behaviour.

or, adopting the 'presumed liability' thing.

or, etc.

For me a sad part of this is the endless repeating of ideas and arguments. I did my masters project at University on comparing Dutch and British infrastructure for cycling and 'homezones' ,( traffic calmed streets in residential areas where cars travel typically less than 10mph) It was fun i promise... anyhow that was nearly 13 years ago. All the same arguments and points raised by CB were the same 15 years ago, 30 years ago and so on... and still being repeated and debated today as if they are new.

We know how to increase cycling and make our streets safer,it is not difficult. Yet we haven't done it. It is largely lack of political will.

[quote=molgrips ]I can't see how all cycleways will be lovely. No more than all railways or roads are lovely. This cycling nirvana doesn't seem possible to me. In countries I've lived where cycle infrastructure is meant to be good, there's no getting around that you are often crossing many many driveway entrances and you're very close to them which puts you at risk of low visibility.

Have you lived in Holland? They seem to manage it. Heck there are even a few examples in this country which are quite decent. Lots of good stuff on how it can be done properly at http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/

I don't see it's been tried very hard. Plenty of 'Think Bike' ads for motorcyclist - when was the last time you saw a 'Think Cyclist' ad or billboard? We could do FAR better, and at lower cost than infrastructure and with better results imo.

You seriously think a few ads or billboards will make a big difference? 😯

The thing is, about the only example in the world of making a significant improvement for cyclists is in Holland, and they didn't do it by attempting to change drivers' attitudes.

i think that's his point - we don't even do the easy stuff...

lack of political will.

Local councillors will often not stick their necks out and recommend overtly cycle-friendly infrastructure, as invariably it will raise questions about how the cost can be justified to their residents.

Just reading the comments of the article, and sadly that's why it won't happen. Peoples attitudes.

Indeed wors - it's a heck of a lot harder to change those than some seem to think. You kind of need the cycling critical mass first...

Hopefully improved cycle infrastructure will spread from the experience of planners in London.

TfL now apparently realise that getting more people on bikes is the only way to take pressure off other transport - and relatively cheap at the same time.

What I'd [i]really[/i] like to see is public information adverts telling drivers how to behave around bikes. I honestly don't understand why this hasn't happened already.

There is even a cyclist moaning about road bikes and going fast, I mean FFS, if we can't all be 'cyclists' together rather than pigeonholing every convcievable type of cycling there is, there is no hope.

lack of political will.
or popular support possibly?

Local councillors will often not stick their necks out and recommend overtly cycle-friendly infrastructure, as invariably it will raise questions about how the cost can be justified to their residents

I think your point is right but raises lots of other points. Why does cycle friendly infrastructure not have support? Why is it seen as sticking their neck out? Why do councillors get to reject a professionals design for infrastructure? The most common one I see is cycle lanes next to parking in the 'dooring zone.' Most designers (not all!) know that the solution is often remove the parking, but that is seen as political suicide.

and how do you you mean costs to local residents? financial? safety? visual impact? or just change?

+1,000,000 chakaping!

The Police/DfT backing for Think Bike!, with adverts everywhere, including TV etc is motorbike-focussed, but it should be at least the same prominence for cycling-related information adverts IMO.

I recently emailed my local councillor about cycle lanes along the very busy road near my house. His reply was along the lines of, there hasn't been any recorded accidents with cycles so no need, and it would reduce the flow of traffic in the rush hour. 🙄

but maybe the best way to get drivers to think how to behave around bikes is for them to cycle as well ?

Have you lived in Holland?

No, Finland and Germany though. Plenty of infrastructure there that would be considered 'good' but I didn't use. And some that I did too.

The point is that I support additional infrastructure, but I am very concerned that it would lead to ghettoisation.

That's why driver's attitudes are the first thing to change. People speak favourably about cycling in France and Belgium - why? Is it because of the infrastructure, or driver attitudes?

I think people's attidues would be very easy to change. Most people bear litle animosity towards strangers, you just need to show them that cyclists are real people and not scumbag RLJing lycra pervs.

The key thing though is that a public information campaign would cost peanuts compared to building a couple of cycleways, and would reach the entire country - city and country, B roads and High Streets. I also think that the biggest factor in the uptake of cycling would be the 'normalisation'. That is, you don't have to be poor, a lycra clad weird or on a health kick - it's just a normal thing to do. That's the biggest difference between the NL and here I reckon.

My experience in London has me thinking that critical mass is the key issue. And you don't need that many more cyclists to achieve it.

Change mostly, although the cost is also questioned. The perception that the cost of cycling infrastructure is somehow frivilous, or pandering to some pastime, rather than a relevant mode of transport is a big issue.

The other issue I've found is any perceived reduction in either road space for motor vehicles, loading areas around shops/businesses or parking areas around shops, homes etc can lead to problems. As soon as you start to threaten those, then the Councillors support wanes IME.

Not all cycle lanes are segregated on the continent, it's just everyone has mutual respect for each other and gives each other time and room.

[quote=howsyourdad1 ]Why does cycle friendly infrastructure not have support?

Because people are thick. It's not a pleasant exercise to wade through the comments on articles, but useful to get an idea what people are thinking, and the prevailing attitude seems to be that spending money on cycling provision takes it away from budgets for improving roads, which is what we need to be able to get about better (along with all the usual claptrap about drivers paying for roads and cyclists not paying their way). It doesn't seem people can make the connection that improving cycling provision results in more people cycling, results in less people driving, results in less congestion for those who are still driving. All at far less cost than by spending the money directly on new roads.

Why does cycle friendly infrastructure not have support?

People don't like change or having to make an effort unless there is something in it for them.

Obviously there are huge benefits to everyone of good cycling infastructure but that isn't imediately evident since we are so far away from it. I think that is CB's point "I'm the bloody policy advisor and even I can't see it's right for my daughter to cycle on the road. Imagine how hard it is for everyone else"

Therefore to make the leap above the glass ceiling to a place where cycling is seen a normal and worthy of investment can't rely on populist support. I needs someone strong willed enough to say "We are going to invest in this as it's the right thing to do, even though you oiks can't see it yet"

aracer - Member
howsyourdad1 » Why does cycle friendly infrastructure not have support?
Because people are thick.

But people are people. Are people in the UK thicker than those in Holland, Sweden, Germany? haha maybe don't answer that but again people always say 'oh it works in holland it won't work here' BS of course it will. Yes slightly altered for cultural differences but basically the same

jfletch - Member

Why does cycle friendly infrastructure not have support?

People don't like change or having to make an effort unless there is something in it for them.

Obviously there are huge benefits to everyone of good cycling infastructure but that isn't imediately evident since we are so far away from it. I think that is CB's point "I'm the bloody policy advisor and even I can't see it's right for my daughter to cycle on the road. Imagine how hard it is for everyone else"

Exactly, political will. someone to say 'this is right, this is whats best for the people and if i'm wrong vote me out'.

GavinB - Member

Change mostly, although the cost is also questioned. The perception that the cost of cycling infrastructure is somehow frivilous, or pandering to some pastime, rather than a relevant mode of transport is a big issue.

The other issue I've found is any perceived reduction in either road space for motor vehicles, loading areas around shops/businesses or parking areas around shops, homes etc can lead to problems. As soon as you start to threaten those, then the Councillors support wanes IME

yes it's exactly this.

I'm surprised that CB doesn't ride with his daughter, there are plenty of quietish roads near where he lives.

Having said that one has to invest a good deal of energy in managing a child on a road shared with cars, so I can see why some would not bother.

As someone who now lives in Sweden I often find myself thinking that the reason that cycling is mostly accepted here is because we're segregated and therefore just have less contact with other roadusers. Get outside the infrastucture of a town-centre and onto the road (or off it) and you'll meet the same dangers and abuse, from other users, that seem to get posted here on the forum every few days. There's a marked difference here in Sweden between attitudes towards the kinds of cyclists you see in the Utrecht video and the people, probably like us here on the forum, who self-identify as 'cyclists'.

[quote=richpips ]I'm surprised that CB doesn't ride with his daughter, there are plenty of quietish roads near where he lives.

Me too. My nephew who's that age and lives nearby certainly rides on the roads, as did his sister when she was that age.

@howsyourdad - the video explaining the reason for the difference in Holland was posted a bit earlier.

@howsyourdad - the video explaining the reason for the difference in Holland was posted a bit earlier.

I dont understand what you mean? Am I being thick? 😀

 

Would be interesting to know more about the types and lengths of bike commutes. I'm guessing not many of those in the video have ridden 20+ miles through drizzly conditions on country lanes to get to where they are going.

In countries I've lived where cycle infrastructure is meant to be good, there's no getting around that you are often crossing many many driveway entrances and you're very close to them which puts you at risk of low visibility

There is even a cyclist moaning about road bikes and going fast, I mean FFS, if we can't all be 'cyclists' together rather than pigeonholing every convcievable type of cycling there is, there is no hope.

There's a marked difference here in Sweden between attitudes towards the kinds of cyclists you see in the Utrecht video and the people, probably like us here on the forum, who self-identify as 'cyclists'.

I think CB made a point of wearing no helmet and all black clothing

He had a pair of brown brougues on, so maybe that makes it OK?

Drivers in this country aren't thick; what they are is aggressive, ignorant and distracted. Sadly so are some cyclists, and that puts the back up of the peds.

You don't need a huge amount of infrastructure change if everyone could get along. But they can't.

Also wanting to copy Holland, or saying we can't be a cycling nation like Holland because of our differences is naive. Holland is like it is now because of what happened 30/40/50 years ago.

Holland aren't a nation of cyclists becuase the all have short comutes, they all have a short comutes becuase they are a nation of cyclists.

The Dutch don't shun out of town supermarkets becuase they are Dutch, the just don't work there because they are all cyclists.

The lesson is that we should just go ahead and invest in cycling, it will facilitate real change but over a long time. Not just list the reasons why it won't work. It won't work today, but by doing it now it will start the process of evolution and change now.

Invest now so that in 10 years time when an employer is choosing where to locate their office they will look at how close it is to where people live and how easy it is to access by bike rather than how close it is to the ring road.

Invest now so that in 20 years time when they are planning a new railway station they choose to put it close to where people live and work rather than near a motorway and a big carpark (Sheffield HS2 I'm looking at you)

I don't think I'm underestimating things when I say that cycling infastructure could be the key to unlocking a more pleaseant comuninity based nation rather than the impersonal, out of town, car bassed society we have now.

@warpcow whereabouts in Sweden? I'm in Göteborg

I which case you ride at a speed which is appropriate for that section of cycle path, if you want to rip your legs off in a chaingang then get on the road and mix it up with the cars.

Exactly. But when all that money gets spent on infrastrcuture, you get "Get off the roads and onto the cyclepath!" from drivers. And possibly also legislators - see Germany.

On the helmety debate, the reason i wear one ISN'T to prevent MAJOR injury, it's to prevent MINOR ones! I mean, get hit by a car or run-over by a lorry and clearly, a small polystyrene helmet isn't going to prevent you becomeing a traceable statistic. BUT, have a minor topple and a your helmet gets a minor scuff or another dent, but your head doesn't. And that means there is no visit to A&E and hence no statistic for the anti-helmeters to warble on about!

Put is this way, i can think of probably 5 or 10 crashes in which i have hit my head (or had it hit by something (branch, rock or my bike!) gently, and wearing a helmet meant NO injury what so ever to me. I'm pretty sure if i said to you i'm about to hit you round the back of the head with a nice set of [s]ally[/s] [s]carbon[/s] Enduro handlebars, you'd rather put a helmet on first, no?

Now granted, road riding is very different environment with less minor dismounts and more probability for a single major impact but considering the total lack of drawbacks to wearing a helmet it seems ok to put one on to me (you of course are welcome to headbutt the pavement as much as you like without one 😉

molgrips - Member

But when all that money gets spent on infrastrcuture, you get "Get off the roads and onto the cyclepath!" from drivers.

If they want to give me infrastructure good enough that I can do my trips effectively without using the road, I will not complain tbh. But we get that "use the cyclepath" anyway right now even with appalling paths.

When you look at the Dutch example you need to realise that in the 1970s the situation then was similar to the current situation in the UK. It began to change with the "stop the child murders" campaign (I may have got the translation wrong but it's roughly that sentiment). It took several decades before things got to their current state.

It will take that long in the UK as our politicians at all levels of government from local councils to parliament have such short term interests that it isn't something they will sign up to as it will be their successors or (heaven forbid) their political opponents who will be in office when the benefits are realised. Look how long the drink-drive campaign took to really grab hold, the first act prohibiting being drunk in charge of a motorised vehicle was introduced in 1925 (Yes you read that correctly!) though the drink-drive limit and associated breath/blood testing wasn't introduced until 1967 and there are still new laws/regulations being added to deal with drunk drivers.

This is probably one of those things that needs to be approached on several fronts:

[b]better infrastructure[/b] - it's been shown that spending money on increasing road capacity leads to increased congestion. These invariably rely on huge capital expenditure so you have vested interests such as the government department spending the money because the treasury won't give them money next year if they don't spend this year's allowance and the construction companies who are the recipients of that money.
[b]driver attitude:[/b] aggression to other road users, in particular so-called vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, needs to be associated with social irresponsibility in the same way that drink driving was.
[b]public campaign[/b]: It's not a "war on drivers", it's a "campaign against bad drivers". Of course everyone thinks they are a good driver, calling someone (especially a man) a bad driver is tantamount to calling them a paedophile.

No easy answers, certainly no short term quick fixes.

howsyourdad1 - Member
@warpcow whereabouts in Sweden? I'm in Göteborg

Uppsala. Göteborg is one of the few places I haven't been despite everyone's descriptions of it sounding excellent.

[quote=jfletch ]Also wanting to copy Holland, or saying we can't be a cycling nation like Holland because of our differences is naive. Holland is like it is now because of what happened 30/40/50 years ago.

So when are we going to start? It should even be a bit quicker if we're prepared to learn from their mistakes rather than repeat them (by installing "Dutch style" infrastructure of a type they abandoned years ago, which is what seems to happen here if anybody ever tries). Here's a counter on the blog I linked before, waiting for the UK to start doing what Holland did [s]40[/s]41.6 years ago http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/we%20are%20n%20years%20behind

Oh, and whilst looking for that, I found this which explains why molgrips' experience of German infrastructure isn't equivalent to having experience of Dutch infrastructure:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/05/german-cycle-paths-vs-dutch-cycle-paths.html

(yes, having previously disliked bike paths, like any recent convert I'm now an evangelist).

warpcow - Member
howsyourdad1 - Member
@warpcow whereabouts in Sweden? I'm in Göteborg
Uppsala. Göteborg is one of the few places I haven't been despite everyone's descriptions of it sounding excellent

It's nice yes. Sh*t for cyclists . Nah kidding it's cool, some decent trails. I only know Uppsala for Velotek the bike shop

I think the answer to the political debate is about numbers. More potential voters are car drivers and don't like traffic jams. The irony being if more were cyclists there would be less jams but that's not going to sway the ignorant masses.

We have an organisation really pushing for better cycling/public transport where I live. The local rag ran an article about an improvement to the cycle infrastructure resulting in a contraflow along a main road for a fortnight while works were undertaken. The comments are all similar to the example below:

It is pointless complaining, the imbeciles in the road planning dept, are obsessed with turning Lincoln into a car free zone, they seem to think this is Amsterdam where cyclists rule the roads. Had the money wasted on unused cycleways been spent on over used congested road systems, we may achieve something, until then chaos will remain.

To the vast majority of the people commenting the idea of riding a bike hasn't even crossed their mind, what with all the danger and disruption to their day it would cause.

I commute on said road and its 10 minutes faster by bike than car to cover 4 miles and I am still alive (just)

@richpips

"Having said that one has to invest a good deal of energy in managing a child on a road shared with cars, so I can see why some would not bother."

Sorry disagree - I've nearly lost my 9 year old twice by attempting to manage her on UK shared roads. Once when a motorbike coming out of nowhere coincided with a brief wobble on her behalf and once when a bin lorry came out of a rural drive without stopping. Both these roads were tiny low volume traffic 'c' roads. She was 3ft away from me in the first instance and 10ft away on the second. Both times were so close that I sometimes still wake up in the night in a cold sweat.

In NL she will cycle 30km easily and I'm also happy for her to cycle to friends houses 5km away unaccompanied - this is how confident a cyclist she is and how confident I am in the infrastructure.

You cannot manage children on British roads safely and this is the point CB is making which I totally agree with.

interesting to see this Dutch discussion still going. I've not lived there but I have plenty of Dutch colleagues. comments above about the two types of cyclist fit with what they tell me. The workmate who had a drop bar bike is the exception (she still rode it in normal office clothes including heels etc). She proudly sent me photos when she bought one of those cargo bikes with a huge box on the front - how else would she transport a 3 year old child and a 15 year old dog? Bad weather doesn't seem to stop people commuting there, it's just what you do when you need to get somewhere. I'm sure commuting distances are a factor but an awful lot of UK journeys could easily be done by bike if people didn't think it impossible or dangerous.

I'm sure commuting distances are a factor but an awful lot of UK journeys could easily be done by bike if people didn't think it impossible or dangerous.

I wonder if 1960s city planning has had an effect here. They ploughed big ring-roads and arterial routes though our cities and towns, which sometimes make it harder to cycle places by cutting up the minor road network.

A quick look at the map of Amsterdam shows the modern (ie not mediaevel) grid-style street pattern which seems to work very well for cyclists because it gives you many through roads that are light in traffic. Look at a map of a UK city and often, in the suburbs, it's all designed with dead ends. This sometimes forces you onto the main arteries.

Just seen this comment on the BBC article -

All cyclists MUST (and there can be no argument on this, its not possible to argue with such patent fact): Be Insured. Pass A Test. Have Their Contraptions MOTed. PAY TAX.

Despite assertions on this site 99% of cyclists commit crimes for 99% of the time they are on a bike. Crime is the number 1 use of bicycles.

You really couldn't make it up ...

For me it all starts with sustained political will, backed by real money provided to the LA's to develop their infrastructure to a national standard. Piecemeal it won't work, and if any work can be stopped by the next government then it's a further waste.

@dunmall - it is for that reason that I simply avoid that sort of 'comments' section on the BBC website. It harbours the foulest trolls, and I find reading it just a journey of depression.

@GavinB: Too true, in the main it's just entrenched views on both sides shouting out "la la la, I'm not listening".

I learnt long ago that those who shout loudest have the least to say.

The question is though, what's easier to change? Drivers attitudes or the infrastructure?

That really gets to the nub of it for me, and really it has to be the Former IMO.

All the infrastructure investment imaginable isn't going to prevent cyclists and motorists having to share the same spaces at some points, not in this country and not given our existing road networks and town/city layouts.

Even if you did manage the impossible and 90%+ separated bikes and cars, it simply serves to reinforce bad driver attitudes...

[i]"See we told you you shouldn't be on the roads, and now they're all ours!"[/i]

Our national culture just didn't used to be like this...

Within my own living memory (only turned 35 last weekend), I remember being allowed to ride my bike all sorts of place as an 8 or 9 year old I rode across town to school, off to see my mates, I didn't live in some sleepy village, I lived in a town like lots of others...

So what exactly happened to the UK between the late 80's and today that means the majority are now so scared of undertaking a perfectly legal and healthy activity for fear of being squashed by a Mondeo?

Bicycles have always been allowed on the road, Historically cycling on the road wasn't considered a [i]dangerous[/i] activity.
To now start saying cyclists need some additional, special provision because [i]"Roads are now too dangerous"[/i] spectacularly misses the point...

Of course it will all come to a head eventually, economics is on our side, when private motor vehicle ownership becomes too expensive, oil becomes so scarce that fuelling a car for a week takes a months wages and self driving cars suck all the fun out of it for the [i]petrol heads[/i] then our roads will become vast barely used ribbons of tarmac for cyclists to roll lazily across the length and breadth of the country without fearing of death from some middle aged salesman in his company Audi... Should only take a generation or two I reckon...

So what exactly happened to the UK between the late 80's and today that means the majority are now so scared of undertaking a perfectly legal and healthy activity for fear of being squashed by a Mondeo?

Increaesd traffic volume.

[img] [/img]

cookeaa - Member

So what exactly happened to the UK between the late 80's and today that means the majority are now so scared of undertaking a perfectly legal and healthy activity for fear of being squashed by a Mondeo?

It all changed in 2012, when I bought a Mondeo. Now all wise men live in fear

double post sorry

Quite a stark graph that one.

When I learnt to drive in the 1970s, the roads were empty compared to today, most houses if they had a car just had one. There were fewer supermarkets and most people did their shopping locally, usually within walking distance, country areas had grocery & butchers vans doing weekly or twice weekly rounds. Our village used to have a shop but now the nearest one is four miles away but because of economies of scale (buying power of supermarkets) it's cheaper to drive the extra ten miles to the nearest town even for quite small amounts of groceries and food.

Lots of little things all add up.

molgrips - Member

I wonder if 1960s city planning has had an effect here. They ploughed big ring-roads and arterial routes though our cities and towns, which sometimes make it harder to cycle places by cutting up the minor road network.

A quick look at the map of Amsterdam shows the modern (ie not mediaevel) grid-style street pattern which seems to work very well for cyclists because it gives you many through roads that are light in traffic. Look at a map of a UK city and often, in the suburbs, it's all designed with dead ends. This sometimes forces you onto the main arteries.

Yes, it does have a role to play, but it can be changed. if there is the will and correct design guidance.

America has modern grid style streets....