Forum menu
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29848778
Very well thought through and written article. Bet it causes a fair bit of debate.
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.
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.
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
The first thing that struck me was an almost complete absence of private motor vehicles. Second was a lack of "red light runners".
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...
or popular support possibly?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 ?