The Wiggins effect. E-petition for bike paths

Read the Delft Study. It shows that accident rates on non-segregated roads actually increased after the increase in cycle lane provision.

Linky? Did the study account for any increase in cycling? Was there any increase?

Our roads are pretty safe on a global scale. But guess who beats us?

They certainly seem to have got something right in the 1970’s when they started introducing their segregated paths:

Our roads are pretty safe on a global scale. But guess who beats us?

And that’s ‘all road traffic’ – ie includes the large number of multi-car motorway pileups and pedestrians being run over.

Strip out Cyclists injured and base it by km travelled by bike (rather than by head of population) and the Netherlands kicks us into touch (will look for the linky)

Oh look. A graph showing accident rates in the UK falling despite the relatively poor provision of cycling facilities

Strip out Cyclists injured and base it by km travelled by bike (rather than by head of population) and the Netherlands kicks us into touch (will look for the linky)

Don’t have that figure, but I can tell you that in 2010 the Netherlands had 162 cyclist deaths and the UK had 111.

Given how many more cyclists they have than us and how often people cycle there (in some places are 45% of journeys are by bike) – that puts them light years ahead of us.

GrahamS – Member – Quote
Read the Delft Study. It shows that accident rates on non-segregated roads actually increased after the increase in cycle lane provision.
Linky? Did the study account for any increase in cycling? Was there any increase?

http://www.healthycommunitiesforum.org/uploads/7/3/1/9/7319842/report_dutch_cases.pdf (that should keep you busy for a wee while 🙂 )

Considering type of road, the decrease of bicycle accidents is observed only on bicycle lanes. There was no change in accident numbers on bicycle paths and roads with mixed traffic. However, because of the large changes in bicycle traffic volumes on the different kind of roads, one could better compare the risk of involvement in an accident per million km. This risk decreased significantly on bicycle paths and bicycle lanes and increased a little on roads with mixed traffic. Bicycle paths, which were already the safest kind of link, strengthened their position as safest facility for cycling, and bicycle lanes, which were by far the most unsafe kinds of cycling facility, came close to the safety level of roads with mixed traffic, but remained the most unsafe kind of cycling facility

Anyone got any idea what the reason for the massive plummet in deaths over the last 5 years is?
Improved car safety?
Better emergency response?
Something else?

Hmm.. can I change your emphasis druidh…

This risk decreased significantly on bicycle paths and bicycle lanes and increased a little on roads with mixed traffic. Bicycle paths, which were already the safest kind of link, strengthened their position as safest facility for cycling, and bicycle lanes, which were by far the most unsafe kinds of cycling facility, came close to the safety level of roads with mixed traffic, but remained the most unsafe kind of cycling facility

Emphasised like that it is a good case for segregated bicycle paths, no?

I’ll read the full study later (promise) but this bit also caught my eye:

On the basis of the Dutch case studies some general recommendations can be given for promoting cycling in an efficient way:

• The promotion of bicycle use is only credible and successful if cycling is a practical, relatively fast and convenient mode of transport. The main requirements for planning and designing bicycle infrastructure should be satisfied: coherence, directness, attractiveness, safety, and comfort.

• Promotion of the bicycle should include improving the perception of the conditions by (potential) cyclists. Improving the perception of conditions results in increased bicycle use beyond the increases associated with improving the actual conditions.

• Minimizing travel times between origins and destinations is important in designing bicycle infrastructure.

• Urban bicycle routes should preferably be traced through traffic-restrained areas because cyclists prefer cycling conditions involving less traffic stress and interaction.

• Segregation is preferred when there are large differences between the speeds of the different road users and traffic volumes are fairly high. In the urban context bicycle and motorized modes can be mixed on condition that traffic volume is not too high and speeds are harmonized.

• Good design of intersections is essential. Intersections are the most important cause for delays, and most cycling accidents happen at intersections.

Which covers a lot of the things we’ve been talking about.

GrahamS – on the basis of an e-Petition, even allowing for the Wiggo factor, and in light of the constrained nature of most of our towns and cities, what sort of cycle provision are we most likely to get?

thepodge – Member

The trams have not elbowed out cars here in Sheffield, they run in traffic. In fact very little room has been made for them, they’ve just been plonked on top of the existing network adding to busier roads
I know the roads are shared which why is I said elbowed out.Trams take priority don’t they,unless a Mini Metro really wants to try and take on a tram :-).Because there is less room and little perceived benefit for travelling by car rather than tram it makes it less attractive to do so.Or that’s the thinking behind it isn’t it?FWIW worth the easy quick fix solution to free up road space in built up areas is congestion charging or prohibitve parking charges including on private provision.And for all those who sya they have to commute a long way to work introduce park and ride (a bike)and bus/tram on the outskirts of conurbations with cycle specific or friendly routes.

Actually Edinburgh is a great example. They’ve somehow, against public will and at huge expense, made room for a tram through medieval streets.

Not sure that this is a great example, really, as the trams aren’t going into the Old Town, AFAIK, and the New Town dates from no older than the late 18th century, so hardly mediaeval. Mostly the trams seem to be going into the city centre along big wide streets such as Princes Street and Shandwick Place.

.. and then on a dedicated tramway

Emphasised like that it is a good case for segregated bicycle paths, no?

It depends. Segregated cycle paths could mean your own highway like Bristol-Bath, or it could mean the inside of a wide pavement where you are forced to ride blind behind everyone’s wall/hedge/fence thereby completely unsighting both parties on every single entrance and side road, like much of the Munich network.

GrahamS – Member
Emphasised like that it is a good case for segregated bicycle paths, no?

As long as those segregated bicycle paths cover all of your journeys – completely.

GrahamS – on the basis of an e-Petition, even allowing for the Wiggo factor, and in light of the constrained nature of most of our towns and cities, what sort of cycle provision are we most likely to get?

Oh I don’t think for one minute that this ePetition will change anything. But it is all part of a groundswell of opinion that needs to be built up. A public realisation that things need to change on our streets and that we need to take something back from the cars to improve our way of life.

what sort of cycle provision are we most likely to get?

Well some things are really really cheap in terms of setting budgets.
Plenty of decent bike parking would be a start. Planning rules on new commercial building can compel provision of such facilities (I’m sure that already exists for things like out of town supermarkets and shopping centres?)
I live right in the centre of town in Germany, and my nearest place to lock up a bike is right outside the building in which I reside (in a mixed residential/commercial side street). The second nearest is about 10 pedal turns away. Next one from there is other side of the road. Next from there is… well I’m sure you get the point.

GrahamS – Member
it is all part of a groundswell of opinion that needs to be built up. A public realisation that things need to change on our streets and that we need to take something back from the cars to improve our way of life.

Amen!

As long as those segregated bicycle paths cover all of your journeys – completely.

I’m not sure that’s a conclusion you can necessarily draw from that study. (I need to read it properly but don’t have time now).

The premise I made was that more people cycling means it is safer for all cyclists, even those using the roads. Increase sympathy, understanding, empathy all that.

But the Dutch are already in the happy position of having that. Cycling is already understood and respected on their roads. So naturally they won’t see such a side-benefit from new cycling projects.

They say as much in their report:

“findings for the Netherlands might not always be transferable to other countries. One important point is that the evaluated Dutch interventions were implemented in the situation that the bicycle was a common mode and a reasonably good bicycle infrastructure was already available. In countries that start “from scratch” with low bicycle use and a poor bicycle network, interventions that promote cycling may have different (probably larger) impacts.”

The important points from that study seems to be that cyclists approved of the changes and felt it made their journeys safer and more pleasant.

That sounds good to me.

Incidentally, did you notice that on the other cycling safety thread a (presumably) fellow cyclist told me I was “thoughtless” for riding on shared-use cycle paths because I “don’t belong there” and I should “Get on the road where you belong you have no right to be on the pavement stressing pedestrains and putting them at risk.”?

This is presumably the antithesis of the “get off the road”/”use the cycle path” shouts from motorists?

Man we have a loooooooooooong way to go on both sides.

The premise I made was that more people cycling means it is safer for all cyclists, even those using the roads. Increase sympathy, understanding, empathy all that.

Ride up the A38 at rush hour in Bristol. Shows that you don’t really need segregated facilities, to me. There are simply so many cyclists that the drivers have no choice but to respect them.

It’s a very crowded road with shops, pedestrians, delivery trucks and everything, and I think drivers have just realised that you can’t get anywhere in a hurry so they tend to relax.

Slower roads are good to molgrips – but what about outside rush hour?

What if the roads were actually designed to be slower – and the bike paths were separate from the road and faster?

The big question is: would you cycle up the A38 at rush hour with your child? Would you let them do it on their own?

Man we have a loooooooooooong way to go on both sides.

Sadly, I think you’re right.

I dared to mention “wearing my hel**t” on a predominately road forum (in the context of an easy XC MTB ride on road to the forest), and was greeted with the response… “your what? how dare you!”

I dared to mention driving somewhere to be greeted with a “you’re a cyclist – how dare you have a car!”

What if the roads were actually designed to be slower – and the bike paths were separate from the road and faster?

Well yes – the A38 is pretty slow anyway.

What do you mean bike paths separated from the roads? As in, different routes, or just wide pavements?

Cos there isn’t room there.

What do you mean bike paths separated from the roads? As in, different routes, or just wide pavements?

Whichever works.

Cos there isn’t room there.

What here? http://goo.gl/maps/TXrgT

Looks like plenty of room to me. Particularly if you get rid of those parked cars (especially the ones on double yellows). Looks to be roughly 4 cars wide.

Round here there are loads of off road rides if you look, and Sustrans have done some up really nice.

Theres loads left to be done though, on disused railways etc, so some serious funding will be needed.

I’ve just posted a new thread to illustrate the kind of nice, traffic-free, pleasant cycle paths that I was suggesting help to attract new cyclists.
Take a look – it may illuminate the discussion a little.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/in-praise-of-sustrans-and-traffic-free-cycle-paths-photos

Cos there isn’t room there.

Are you still maintaining that line? Really?

The View from the Cycle Path Blog has a good page on Myths and Excuses. You should read.

Cos there isn’t room there.

There, I don’t think there’s much, no. That’s a very wide angle lens, remember. And there are some small cars on there, no busses or fire engines.

Have you actually ridden the A38 all the way up from town to Filton? I simply can’t see how you could fit in a decent cycleway along the whole route. It’s just too busy, too many junctions, too many parked cars (and yes, cars do need to park unfortunately).

I think it’s a great advert for integration, rather than segregation.

You should read.

Not much point, it’s just a one-sided and pretty lightweight dismissal from a personal point of view. Things are more complicated than that guy makes out. Talking about entire countries as if they can be summed up by a handful of photos of happy cyclists on paths.

I’m a bit sick of people banging on about the Netherlands. Great, they did a good job there, but I think that the overall usage pattern, volume and density of traffic would take such an effort to change that it would not be possible given money and political constraints.

I wish it would change, but I don’t think it’s realistic.

I don’t like segregation because it makes drivers feel that they own the roads and you should be on the cyclepaths – no matter how poor or inappropriate they are. I do not want to be ghettoised.

I think that if motorists could be persuaded to respect cyclists and behave well around them, it would be a) vastly easier to achieve and b) ultimately more productive, since you are always going to need to be on the roads at some point.

Have you actually ridden the A38 all the way up from town to Filton

No. I’d no idea you were talking about a specific road.

Not much point, it’s just a one-sided and pretty lightweight dismissal from a personal point of view. Things are more complicated than that guy makes out

But you’re prepared to dismiss segregated cycle lanes completely with a few sweeping statements. Hmmm.

cyclepaths – no matter how poor or inappropriate they are

or because current UK provision is poor.

After 15 years of cycling on the roads of London I’m ever more convinced of the need for a major change. This isn’t about me and it isn’t about you – would you let your 6 year old child cycle on the roads? What would it take for you to?

Eliminating the ‘school run’ would make a huge difference to traffic levels – the difference in traffic volume in the holidays is phenomenal – and few in cities live beyond a cycle-able distance from school.

There’s a catch 22 here. Motor traffic continues to get worse because there is no safe alternative.

Motor traffic continues to get worse because there is no safe alternative.

Because it’s easy and cheap more like.

Going into town with a family of 5? For the evening?

I’d take the car.

You cyclists seem to be thinking only about yourselves; becoming drivers in attitude. What we need is to reduce car use and improve public transport as well as cycle use.

You cyclists

er??

What we need is to reduce car use and improve public transport as well as cycle use.

I don’t think many of us would disagree with that. Integrated public transport priced to incentivise use over in preference to cars where-ever appropriate. Measures to encourage car sharing where not. Safe streets for pedestrians and cyclists.

Really don’t see why there’s arguments about making segregated paths or forcing bikes and motorised traffic to mix so that drivers and cyclists “learn to get on”. Ultimately there’s going to need to be a mix.
Some roads with stripes, some shared space, some segregated from the traffic, some that take a totally different route through town.

There’s no getting away from comparing with Netherlands, Denmark and Germany… because they already have the facilities, retrofitted at different points in the history of car uptake.

And it needs much much more than Sustrans with the odd NCN numbered route here or there. How many towns/cities have a nationally or locally numbered route leading to them?

Just for a starter here for 1 town and outlying smaller towns/villages, there are numerous numbered local routes, all numbered, 0-26 I think. Odd go north-south, even go east-west. On top of that there’s a generous handful of “scenic/touristy” loops (one is even called Family loop, and tbh, is a pretty decent length for a family loop). Then there’s longer distance paths, one numbered R8 being kind of the equivalent of 1 NCN route. All the above well signposted, thru town, thru forest.

I get the impression that central london is trying to achieve something similar, and maybe the odd town here or there, maybe the odd sign pointing to the station with a bike symbol on it.

No way in Hell is Sustrans going to manage such a grid of 28 fully signed and numbered routes for even 1 decent sized town, let alone a major city or the whole country.

My proposals:

1) Integrated safe routes for bikes – not necessarily segregated, but back streets, maybe with extensive traffic calming, possibly one way, but including as many priority junctions and bridges as it takes to get away from the MAJORITY of traffic (but not necessarily all).

2) Decent public transport support for cycling

3) Big campaign of driver AND CYCLIST education about road manners, and serious enforcement on both sides. How about plain clothes cycle cops? May I be the first to volunteer for that please?

3) A series of completely off-road arteries to link urban and suburban centres (ie without side roads and junctions), but they need to be wide and have white lines and signs informing you of road manners and etiquette. And separated from pedestrians too.

EDIT:

4) A campaign for numeracy amongst cyclists.

I’d vote for that molgrips – and I’m pleased to see I’ve at least dented some of your objections to off-road paths and shared-use 😉

I’d love to see more of 2). Trains and buses that can carry bikes. Proper secure bike parking available at park and rides.

Mol grips.

That sound an awful lot like the Dutch infrastructure you seemed to be against

This is interesting as well – riposte to those who claim cycle facilities make sport cycling impossibel[/url]

Great link simons.

This comment is also a nice retort to those that said the Dutch don’t use segregation:

In reality, only about 22% of the total kilometrage of public highways in the Netherlands has segregated cycle tracks running parallel to it: mostly arterial roads and busy routes in towns. The rest is either dual-use with a cycle lane painted down each side, or cyclists-and-pedestrians only in town centres.

The whole country needs flattening and being rebuilt like Milton Keynes.

OK, I jest, but compared with the rest of the UK, cycling here is bliss.