Cycle facilities increase cycling

Or rather, they don't as far as I know. Does anyone have links to the
two reports that I recall reading that show increased cycling
facilitites did nothing to increase cycling? I think one was Danish
and the other Dutch.

Cheers,
Mike.

On 30 Oct, 07:03, LSMike wrote:
Or rather, they don't as far as I know. Does anyone have links to the
two reports that I recall reading that show increased cycling
facilitites did nothing to increase cycling? I think one was Danish
and the other Dutch.

Cheers,
Mike.

This was probably one of them.

http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20sa...Copenhagen.pdf

It's funny how memory plays tricks. My recollection was the facilities
increased cycling by 10%. You remember no change, and somebody else
posted recently suggesting the same. A quick glance at the report
suggests an 18-20% increase. Pro-helmet campaigners aren't the only
ones who ignore evidence that doesn't suit their case.

For the record, I think cycle farcilities are the wrong approach and a
bad idea. However, they do (rightly or wrongly) seem to be liked by
newbies, and just ignoring evidence of that doesn't help our case.

Rob

On 30 Oct, 10:08, wrote:
On 30 Oct, 07:03, LSMike wrote:

Pro-helmet campaigners aren't the only
ones who ignore evidence that doesn't suit their case.

For the record, I think cycle farcilities are the wrong approach and a
bad idea

I take your point; almost every campaigner is at risk of falling into
that trap and thus discrediting their argument.
On the other hand, there are many people who sometimes wear a helmet,
and sometimes don't depending on all sorts of circumstances, and who
also welcome some cycle facilities with open arms while regarding
others as downright dangerous and to be avoided at all costs. They
probably don't post much here though, lacking the evangelical zeal
required of a campaigner.

wrote:
On 30 Oct, 10:08, wrote:
On 30 Oct, 07:03, LSMike wrote:

Pro-helmet campaigners aren't the only
ones who ignore evidence that doesn't suit their case.

For the record, I think cycle farcilities are the wrong approach and a
bad idea

I take your point; almost every campaigner is at risk of falling into
that trap and thus discrediting their argument.
On the other hand, there are many people who sometimes wear a helmet,
and sometimes don't depending on all sorts of circumstances, and who
also welcome some cycle facilities with open arms while regarding
others as downright dangerous and to be avoided at all costs. They
probably don't post much here though, lacking the evangelical zeal
required of a campaigner.

Waves!!

wrote:
..
On the other hand, there are many people who
also welcome some cycle facilities with open arms while regarding
others as downright dangerous and to be avoided at all costs.

For me it all depends on how it's implemented. I want cycling facilities
that make it _safer_ and _easier_ to cycle in town. If those conditions
aren't met then the presence of mandatory cycling facilities is actually
deleterious to cycling since it forces cyclists into a worse situation
than they would be on the road.

I recently had this experience taking my bike back from the Salle des
Expositions in the 15th Arr. to the Cité Universitaire RER stop in the
14th. Someone suggested there would be no problem as there was a cycling
track along the whole way. This is a new cycling track that the City of
Paris is very proud of - look how green and cycle-friendly we are! What
I found was a nightmare of a narrow raised track that was interrupted by
cross-traffic every 100 meters or so. At every crossing, it curved
inward to the ped crossing and curved outwards again at the other side.
The very first time I tried to follow through one of these curves on a
green light I nearly got killed by a car turning right from the street
on the intersection. The second time, I clipped the edge of the sidewalk
and came right down, my first ever fall on Flyzipper. So in practise the
only solution I saw was to get _off_ the bike at every crossing and
cross on foot. Since stopping and starting has always been a problem for
me, and since my balance tends to get progressively worse as the number
of times I have to restart increases, it quickly became impractible to
negotiate safely that narrow, constantly bending raised strip. So I
walked the distance, at least 5km.

OTOH on the very same day I had discovered a wonder of a cycling track
that goes by the side of Vanves all the way past Montparnasse into the
center of town. It is on an overpass distinct from car traffic, only
intersected about every km and absolutely straight and smooth.

It's all about how it's done.

EFR
Ile de France

"Artemisia" a écrit:

I recently had this experience taking my bike back from the Salle
des Expositions in the 15th Arr. to the Cité Universitaire RER stop
in the 14th. Someone suggested there would be no problem as there
was a cycling track along the whole way.

Someone should certainly have known better. Was I the guilty party, or was
Jon?

James Thomson

James Thomson wrote:

Someone should certainly have known better. Was I the guilty party, or was
Jon?

Both of you would have ridden on the road anyway, so I don't see how you
could be held responsible for someone else's perception of a track that
you would never even use.

EFR
Ile de France

In article .com,
says...
On 30 Oct, 07:03, LSMike wrote:
Or rather, they don't as far as I know. Does anyone have links to the
two reports that I recall reading that show increased cycling
facilitites did nothing to increase cycling? I think one was Danish
and the other Dutch.

Cheers,
Mike.

This was probably one of them.

http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20sa...Copenhagen.pdf

It's funny how memory plays tricks. My recollection was the facilities
increased cycling by 10%. You remember no change, and somebody else
posted recently suggesting the same. A quick glance at the report
suggests an 18-20% increase. Pro-helmet campaigners aren't the only
ones who ignore evidence that doesn't suit their case.

For the record, I think cycle farcilities are the wrong approach and a
bad idea. However, they do (rightly or wrongly) seem to be liked by
newbies, and just ignoring evidence of that doesn't help our case.


That paper does record a small increase in usage as well as a small
increase in accident rates. However its difficult because they had to
do a lot of corrections for general traffic trends and the influence of
the new facilities on other streets i.e. more traffic on that street
does not equate to more people cycling, it could be existing people
changing their route. All this comes from a pre-print I received of a
more detailed paper to be published.

However there is a lot more papers that record no increase particularly
in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany where substantial new facilities
were installed - doubling the network mileage for the Netherlands,
tripling it for Germany and in Denmark building their whole network from
scratch with no increase in cycling resulting. The Dutch, in their
benchmarking of cycling encouragement in different towns and cities
certainly ignore the presence and extent of all cycling facilities other
than parking.

Overall therefore I think it is wise to assume that the effect is
neutral and certainly not evident enough to justify the considerable
expense of building good facilities estimated at £700k/km

Another interesting document is on the Warrington Cycle Campaign website
on their visit to their twin town of Hilden in Germany. The town has
achieved a 24% increase in cycling levels but spent only £80k of cycle
specific facilities over the last ten years. What they have used are
some simple measures that rebalance the relationship between motorists
and vulnerable road users rather than segregating them.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...ort/Hilden.pdf

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

"Artemisia" a écrit:

Both of you would have ridden on the road anyway

True. Remember though that I had ridden that route - in the opposite
direction - on Behemoth in the summer, and being confined to bottom gear I
rode mostly on the path. Perhaps I (or Jon) just assumed that you would be
more comfortable (and familiar) with the shortcomings of urban bike paths
than with the cut and thrust of inner-city traffic.

Sorry to hear about your tumble, in any case.

James Thomson

Tony Raven wrote:

In article .com,
says...

http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20sa...d%20risk%20of%
20cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20Copenhagen.p df

It's funny how memory plays tricks. My recollection was the facilities
increased cycling by 10%. You remember no change, and somebody else
posted recently suggesting the same. A quick glance at the report
suggests an 18-20% increase. Pro-helmet campaigners aren't the only
ones who ignore evidence that doesn't suit their case.

For the record, I think cycle farcilities are the wrong approach and a
bad idea. However, they do (rightly or wrongly) seem to be liked by
newbies, and just ignoring evidence of that doesn't help our case.

That paper does record a small increase in usage as well as a small
increase in accident rates. However its difficult because they had to
do a lot of corrections for general traffic trends and the influence of
the new facilities on other streets...

However there is a lot more papers that record no increase particularly
in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany where substantial new facilities
were installed - doubling the network mileage for the Netherlands,
tripling it for Germany and in Denmark building their whole network from
scratch with no increase in cycling resulting.

Would it be true to say that lots of people /already/ cycled in those
three countries? It may be the case that the facilities just kept people
cycling and made motoring less tempting.

I am ambivalent about this: I would certainly cycle into the city centre
more frequently if I felt safe towing my daughter behind with the
Trailgator. Likewise, I would cycle to church with my daughter more if
there was a cycle route.

The daft thing is that lots of people cycle on the pavement between here
and my church: for about three miles the pavement is easily wide enough
and there are not many junctions. Now that I am a law abiding citizen, I
only cycle where I'm permitted to do so. Of course, I could always claim
the defence, if sanctioned for pavement cycling, that I was concerned
for the welfare of my daughter.

On the other hand, I would hate to find that, when cycling solo, I was
expected to share a cycling facility with pedestrians: on my own I cycle
way too quickly for that to be enjoyable and if I'm going to travel
without enjoyment I'll drive the car round town.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire http://www.shrimper.org.uk