A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cycle facilities in the FT



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 29th 07, 12:49 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Raven[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,162
Default Cycle facilities in the FT

This Saturday's FT has an article asking for more segregated cycle
facilities. Below it I have appended my letter to the editor. I did
learn a new word from it though - pandonor.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/110ad456-f5a...b5df10621.html

A point of honour

By Harry Eyres

Published: April 28 2007 03:00

Dear David Cameron,

I recently discovered that we are cousins. So far the consanguineous tie
has not resulted in any response to or acknowledgement of various
e-mails I have sent to your office. I realise you have had a tough,
toff-bashing press from some of my colleagues, but I can assure you I am
trying to raise constructive points, not to revive an old class war that
would leave us both at the business end of a tumbril.

I like much of what you have said so far about a new politics in Britain
based on the quality of life. I am encouraged to think this might be
more than Blairite hot air. But I can't help fearing that these good
intentions might go the way of other green dawns into brown tomorrows.
After all, quality of life was being touted as the next big thing while
I was studying environmental policy at LSE, in 2001-02. In next to no
time, quality of life had translated into airport expansions, house
building on flood plains in the south east, massive new road-building
programmes and new nuclear power stations.

You recently wrote that you wanted to make England's "green and pleasant
land" one of the best places in the world to live. That is a worthy aim.
But surely it will take some tough policy decisions to deliver that goal.

Let me concentrate on just one policy area: transport, and one humble
mode within that area: the bicycle. We all know that you are a keen
cyclist, even if logistics dictate that an official four-wheeled vehicle
must sometimes follow your two wheels in to work. I expect you agree
with me that the bicycle is the most environmentally friendly piece of
technology ever devised by humankind - a brilliant solution to
transport, health and the environment all rolled into one. It looks also
as if you enjoy the freedom and exhilaration of pedal power.

Freedom, I know, is close to the heart of your political philosophy. You
explicitly espouse the libertarian side of conservatism. But as we all
know, freedom is a complex matter. A free-for-all on roads without
dedicated cycle lanes leads to carnage among cyclists. Forgive me now
for boring you with some statistics - statistics that might give you and
your wife pause for thought.

The UK is not a cycle-friendly country. Only 2 per cent of journeys are
made by bike in the UK , as opposed to 11 per cent in Germany and 27 per
cent in the Netherlands. Two of the European countries with the highest
provision of dedicated cycle lanes are Denmark and Netherlands. For
those who, for whatever reasons (the erosion of the sacred freedom of
motorists, the pundonor of cyclists' organisations), pooh-pooh dedicated
cycle lanes, consider these figures. According to a recent study, a
cyclist is seven times less likely to be injured in the Netherlands than
in England, and 10 times less likely to be injured in Denmark. The
injuries suffered by cyclists in collisions with cars, trucks or buses
are frequently horrific, when they are not fatal; cyclists have no metal
skin to protect them, no seat belts, no air bags.

You must think about this as you cycle round the city, dodging motorists
and those drivers of buses, taxis and trucks who appear to be on a
mission to notch up another pair of Lycra shorts on the side of the van.
You are a husband and father.

So what to do about it - or what would I like you to do about if you win
the next election? First of all, force local authorities to build more
dedicated cycle lanes. I mean proper cycle lanes, not ones, like so many
in London, which peter out after 50 metres, leaving cyclists stranded at
hellish intersections. It will cost money, sure, but it will save lives
and limbs and encourage more cyclists on to the roads, which will in
turn bring health and environmental benefits.

And how about this as a way of raising the money you will need? In
addition to a compulsory road test for cyclists, introduce a new, much
tougher driving test for motorists, bus drivers and HGV drivers, who at
present have no idea how to share the roads safely with cyclists (for
instance, hardly ever giving them the same room as cars when overtaking,
as laid down in rule 139 of the Highway Code). Price the new tests at a
level which would raise revenue. The tests would bring health and safety
benefits as well as raising money.

Recently I have noticed a backlash against cyclists, many of whom ignore
red lights and commit other traffic offences. Would you agree with me in
finding this reminiscent of the imprecations against the depravity of
the poor common in the 18th and 19th centuries? In the 20th century,
enlightened economists and politicians realised that the best way to
counter the depravity of the poor was to make them less poor, to give
them something approaching the quality of life enjoyed by the rich.

The best way to counter the apparently anarchic (in fact, purely
self-protective) behaviour of cyclists is to give them decent and safe
conditions in which to cycle. The over-mighty roads and car lobby is
doing its best to shift the burden of blame from the perpetrators of
manslaughter (cars kill thousands and maim many thousands more every
year) on to the victims. Will you please put your money where your mouth
has been and make cycling safety a priority? Will you do something and
not just waffle?

More columns at www.ft.com/eyres

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir

H L Mencken once made the observation that "For every complex problem
there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" and Harry Eyres has
fallen for that answer in his letter to Mr Cameron (A Point of Honour,
FT 28 April)

First, while we would all like cycling to be safer, there is no cyclist
carnage on the roads - you are 30% less likely per km to be killed
cycling than walking. Second, research has consistently shown that
segregated cycle facilities are significantly more dangerous than roads
- even in the Netherlands and Denmark. The reason why cycling is safer
there is far more complex than cycle facilities. Third, cycle
facilities do not increase cycling. Over a period of ten years starting
in the late 1980's the Netherlands doubled and Germany trebled their
cycle network at significant cost and to no effect on the numbers cycling.

The answer to encouraging more and safer cycling is to ensure that
cyclists are accepted and encouraged as normal road users. As London
has demonstrated in recent years, if you get more cyclists on the roads,
other road users will both expect them and learn to interact safely with
them. Cycling in London had doubled and the number of accidents halved.
Wall us off in cycling ghettos as Mr Eyres proposes and the opposite
will happen.

Yours sincerely

Dr Tony Raven
Ads
  #2  
Old April 29th 07, 01:46 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Nick Maclaren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 443
Default Cycle facilities in the FT


In article ,
Tony Raven writes:
|
| H L Mencken once made the observation that "For every complex problem
| there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" and Harry Eyres has
| fallen for that answer in his letter to Mr Cameron (A Point of Honour,
| FT 28 April)

Not entirely. He has made some good points.

| First, while we would all like cycling to be safer, there is no cyclist
| carnage on the roads - you are 30% less likely per km to be killed
| cycling than walking. ...

Which, based on the usual speed ratio, is nearly 3 times the rate per
hour or per trip - I don't know what the more accurate figures are.
Also, you are ignoring the fact that all people who are not seriously
disabled walk, and that is no longer true for cycling - my guess is
that over 2/3 of cyclists come from the most athletic 10% of the
population.

| As London
| has demonstrated in recent years, if you get more cyclists on the roads,
| other road users will both expect them and learn to interact safely with
| them.

Cambridge's experience does not confirm that.

| Cycling in London had doubled and the number of accidents halved.
| Wall us off in cycling ghettos as Mr Eyres proposes and the opposite
| will happen.

Nah. The number of accidents will drop, but nowhere near as much as
the number of cyclists. It is only the accident rate that will go up.
There's lots of precedent for that.


Personally, I believe that his point about tests is a possible solution,
as I have posted before, though his details are hopeless. But, given
the viciously anti-cycling attitude of the DfT and its quangos, and the
hopeless attitude of the so-called pressure groups for cyclist, I don't
see a hope in hell.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #3  
Old April 29th 07, 02:23 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
david lloyd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 324
Default Cycle facilities in the FT


"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Tony Raven writes:
|
| H L Mencken once made the observation that "For every complex problem
| there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" and Harry Eyres
has
| fallen for that answer in his letter to Mr Cameron (A Point of Honour,
| FT 28 April)

Not entirely. He has made some good points.

| First, while we would all like cycling to be safer, there is no cyclist
| carnage on the roads - you are 30% less likely per km to be killed
| cycling than walking. ...

Which, based on the usual speed ratio, is nearly 3 times the rate per
hour or per trip - I don't know what the more accurate figures are.
Also, you are ignoring the fact that all people who are not seriously
disabled walk, and that is no longer true for cycling - my guess is
that over 2/3 of cyclists come from the most athletic 10% of the
population.

| As London
| has demonstrated in recent years, if you get more cyclists on the
roads,
| other road users will both expect them and learn to interact safely
with
| them.

Cambridge's experience does not confirm that.

| Cycling in London had doubled and the number of accidents halved.
| Wall us off in cycling ghettos as Mr Eyres proposes and the opposite
| will happen.

Nah. The number of accidents will drop, but nowhere near as much as
the number of cyclists. It is only the accident rate that will go up.
There's lots of precedent for that.


Personally, I believe that his point about tests is a possible solution,
as I have posted before, though his details are hopeless. But, given
the viciously anti-cycling attitude of the DfT and its quangos, and the
hopeless attitude of the so-called pressure groups for cyclist, I don't
see a hope in hell.


There is no point in having tests without the appropriate training. If the
training was adequate, there will be no need for the tests.

David Lloyd


  #4  
Old April 29th 07, 03:11 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Nick Maclaren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 443
Default Cycle facilities in the FT


In article ,
"David Lloyd" writes:
|
| There is no point in having tests without the appropriate training. If the
| training was adequate, there will be no need for the tests.

Not at all. You have completely misunderstood what I propose. The
tests would be mandatory on all officials and politicians involved
in transport decisions, part of the HGV and PSV licences (including
taxis) and made mandatory on any driver involved in an accident
where a cyclist was injured or his property damaged unless the driver
could prove no culpability in a court (which is a MUCH stronger
condition than not being convicted). A driver would NOT lose his
licence (unless found culpable), unless he failed to pass such a test
within 6 months or a year, depending on circumstances. The test
would involve a mandatory log of cycling under an appropriate range
of conditions, with a suitable GPS device loaned and some spot checks.
The penalties for passing off would be substantial.

Oh, cyclists as such? Whether they are required to pass the test or
not is immaterial.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #5  
Old April 29th 07, 04:51 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Raven[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,162
Default Cycle facilities in the FT

Nick Maclaren wrote on 29/04/2007 13:46 +0100:

| As London
| has demonstrated in recent years, if you get more cyclists on the roads,
| other road users will both expect them and learn to interact safely with
| them.

Cambridge's experience does not confirm that.


I know you think that Cambridge is so dangerous that you cannot cycle
safely in it and I know that you profess that lots of people share your
views but those views are known to be at odds with most in the Cambridge
Cycling Campaign myself included. But then they all cycle in Cambridge
and you don't any more.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
  #6  
Old April 29th 07, 05:34 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
david lloyd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 324
Default Cycle facilities in the FT


"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"David Lloyd" writes:
|
| There is no point in having tests without the appropriate training. If
the
| training was adequate, there will be no need for the tests.

Not at all. You have completely misunderstood what I propose. The
tests would be mandatory on all officials and politicians involved
in transport decisions, part of the HGV and PSV licences (including
taxis) and made mandatory on any driver involved in an accident
where a cyclist was injured or his property damaged unless the driver
could prove no culpability in a court (which is a MUCH stronger
condition than not being convicted). A driver would NOT lose his
licence (unless found culpable), unless he failed to pass such a test
within 6 months or a year, depending on circumstances. The test
would involve a mandatory log of cycling under an appropriate range
of conditions, with a suitable GPS device loaned and some spot checks.
The penalties for passing off would be substantial.

Oh, cyclists as such? Whether they are required to pass the test or
not is immaterial.

Oh I get you now. In the original letter it also talked about compulsory rod
test for cyclist. This is what I thought you were refering to. I think the
parent and child cycle training that Tony Crispin has been writting about
should be more widely available, if not compulsory with the purchase of a
kid's first big bike. If you buy a kid a big bike, you need to be taught how
to teach them to ride it safely.

David Lloyd


  #7  
Old April 29th 07, 06:59 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Nick Maclaren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 443
Default Cycle facilities in the FT


In article ,
Tony Raven writes:
|
| | As London
| | has demonstrated in recent years, if you get more cyclists on the roads,
| | other road users will both expect them and learn to interact safely with
| | them.
|
| Cambridge's experience does not confirm that.
|
| I know you think that Cambridge is so dangerous that you cannot cycle
| safely in it and I know that you profess that lots of people share your
| views but those views are known to be at odds with most in the Cambridge
| Cycling Campaign myself included. But then they all cycle in Cambridge
| and you don't any more.

I know that you are fond of misquoting people to make your point, but
it is an offensive practice. I suggest that you stop it. But I shall
not respond to the errors in that statement.

However, I suggest that you look at the Cambridge Cycling Campaign's
survey - in particular the rate of assaults. You and many people from
its committee denied that it was a serious problem; the members disagreed,
both from the floor and in the survey. Cambridge has the highest rate
of cyclists on the road of anywhere in the UK, and there is very strong
evidence that it is not correspondingly safer.

I shall omit the question of whether the membership of that organisation
is representative of Cambridge cyclists, let alone Cambridge ex-cyclists
or even Cambridge potential cyclists. I have some evidence that it is
not, but my evidence could perfectly well be as biassed as I believe the
Campaign's membership is. And I am using the term "biassed" in its
statistical sense.

Cambridge's experience does not confirm that larger numbers of cyclists
necessarily means that other road users will learn to interact safely
with them.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #8  
Old April 29th 07, 07:06 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Nick Maclaren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 443
Default Cycle facilities in the FT


In article ,
"David Lloyd" writes:
|
| Oh I get you now. In the original letter it also talked about compulsory rod
| test for cyclist. This is what I thought you were refering to.

I was probably being unclear - again.

| I think the
| parent and child cycle training that Tony Crispin has been writting about
| should be more widely available, if not compulsory with the purchase of a
| kid's first big bike. If you buy a kid a big bike, you need to be taught how
| to teach them to ride it safely.

Agreed, but I disagree that training children is more than a very small
part of the solution[*]. Even if children rode perfectly, if they see
that it is something that adults do only if they are extremely odd or
very low-status, they will give it up as soon as they can.

That was what used to happen back in the 1960s, when cycling was still
near-universal among children in many areas, but was fading fast among
adults.
[*] Which doesn't mean that reducing such child deaths and permanent
injuries isn't desirable in itself.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #9  
Old April 29th 07, 07:34 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mark Thompson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 697
Default Cycle facilities in the FT

| First, while we would all like cycling to be safer, there is no
| cyclist carnage on the roads - you are 30% less likely per km to be
| killed cycling than walking. ...

Which, based on the usual speed ratio, is nearly 3 times the rate per
hour or per trip - I don't know what the more accurate figures are.


Given that the figures quoted were for utility/transport it seems
reasonable to use a per km measurement rather than time - exposure time is
very relevent when measuring risk.

| As London
| has demonstrated in recent years, if you get more cyclists on the
| roads, other road users will both expect them and learn to interact
| safely with them.

Cambridge's experience does not confirm that.


Interesting. Can you point me to some figures?
  #10  
Old April 29th 07, 08:39 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Nick Maclaren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 443
Default Cycle facilities in the FT


In article ,
Mark Thompson pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_t o_reply*.com writes:
| | First, while we would all like cycling to be safer, there is no
| | cyclist carnage on the roads - you are 30% less likely per km to be
| | killed cycling than walking. ...
|
| Which, based on the usual speed ratio, is nearly 3 times the rate per
| hour or per trip - I don't know what the more accurate figures are.
|
| Given that the figures quoted were for utility/transport it seems
| reasonable to use a per km measurement rather than time - exposure time is
| very relevent when measuring risk.

No, it isn't. That assumes that people do exactly the same trips by
the different methods, and that is not so. It is common for a walker
to use a much shorter route, for example - either because there is a
shorter pedestrian-only route or because the longer one is better for
cycling.

The best comparison is for comparable trips, but that is rarely
presented. Also, walking, cycling and driving are only partially
interchangeable.

| | As London
| | has demonstrated in recent years, if you get more cyclists on the
| | roads, other road users will both expect them and learn to interact
| | safely with them.
|
| Cambridge's experience does not confirm that.
|
| Interesting. Can you point me to some figures?

Look for the survey on www.camcycle.org, and the assault and related
figures in that. Also the number of Cambridge cyclists who report
serious assaults (which does not necessarily mean contact) by drivers
is high (on this group, I mean).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Second Class Facilities for Cyclists Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman General 7 September 13th 06 01:19 AM
Cycle paths, tracka and facilities: a proposal Mike Causer UK 22 August 11th 06 11:13 PM
Cycle Facilities on Granada Reports Rod King UK 1 March 28th 06 06:54 AM
Bicycle friendly facilities sinus Australia 17 February 10th 06 04:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.