|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |