Chris Boardman's 3 cycling lessons UK can take from Denmark

QUOTE:

"British Cycling has produced a video featuring policy advisor Chris Boardman outlining three essential lessons from the Danish capital Copenhagen that he believes can help grow cycling in the UK while improving the safety of people on bikes.

The former world and Olympic champion visited Copenhagen last month with minister for cycling Robert Goodwill, whom he had invited to come and see Danish infrastructure first-hand.

The minister reflected after the trip that the UK lagged three decades behind Denmark when it comes to making provision for people on bikes."

http://road.cc/content/news/170582-v...n-take-denmark

On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 12:23:08 -0800 (PST), Alycidon
wrote:


"British Cycling has produced a video featuring policy advisor Chris Boardman outlining three essential lessons
from the Danish capital Copenhagen that he believes can help grow cycling in the UK while improving the safety of people on bikes.

Three lessons?

Presumed liability in civil cases
"blame the motorist". This is a complete red herring as it has been
the de-facto position in UK civil suits for several decades and not
just for road accidents. There is also no evidence whatsoever that it
reduces traffic casualties, increases harmony between road users or
makes pedestrians or cyclists feel safer.

Segregated cycle routes
Except he doesn't really believe in these, neither does British
Cycling who do not support removing push bike riders from roads (They
do support removing push bike riders as long as the road is still free
to be used by "real cyclists" . In the Netherlands cars and bikes
generally do not mix on the same roads and that is how it should be.
Bikes are not cars, in the same way as pedestrians are not cars and
should not be treated in the same way.

This ideological nitwittery isn't new. When the A40 cycleways were
built in 1934 the CTC said - "The demand for separate tracks for
cyclists is part of the campaign of motorists to appropriate public
highways for their exclusive use. Have we yet got to accept a
condition of affairs when cyclists have to renounce their use of the
roads to escape annihilation? If motorists do not wish to conform to a
standard of conduct on public highways compatible with the safety of
all other users, then it is they and not cyclists who should abandon
the use of the highway, the main cost of which is borne by
ratepayers."

"The Cyclists’ Touring Club stated that the provision of cycle paths
at the side of any of the main roads would not be with the object of
giving cyclists a good path on which to ride, but to remove them from
the road in the interests of motorists. The cost of providing such
paths would be enormous." (1934).

In 1935 they had progressed to the now familiar "Objections to special
tracks for cyclists were made at a largely-attended meeting of the
Cyclists’ Touring Club, held in the hall of the Royal Society of Arts,
John Street, Adelphi, last evening, when the following resolution was
carried unanimously :- "That this general meeting of the Cyclists’
Touring Club deprecates the view of the Minister of Transport, as
indicated by his approval of cycle paths, that the segregation of
cyclists is a just method of minimizing the number of road casualties,
and strongly urges upon the Minister its opinion that the problem can
be more satisfactorily dealt with by the rigid enforcement of the
existing laws, which were instituted with the object of enabling all
sections of responsible road users to enjoy the full exercise of their
rights in safety. "

At the same meeting in 1935 it was said " If the existing laws were
rigidly enforced and dangerous conduct by any class of road user
eradicated, it would be possible for all sections to share the
highways in safety and good will. " (Amazingly the person saying this
wasn't called Lee.)

Today Franklin, author of the silly "Cyclecraft" guide to combat
cycling and the man probably most responsible for delaying cycling
improvement in the UK says "Efficient and speedy cycling is important
if cycling is to compete as a mode of transport with the car. Roadside
paths of almost any kind prevent this and make cycling slow and
dangerous".
(Perhaps someone should tell the Dutch they have it completely
wrong?)

Other comments of his -

"The extra care enforced by the presence of motor traffic generally
results in the safest cycling environment overall"
(More HGV's, buses and skip wagons make cycling safer?)

"You are safest in traffic if you can move at a speed comparable to
that of the other vehicles, ..a sprint speed of 20MPH will allow you
to tackle most traffic situations with ease"
(That gets rid of the elderly and children - more room for Strava
runs)

"Increasing cadence and sprint speed are two of the most positive
steps a cyclist can take to enhance safety."
(that gets rid of the surviving children and elderly)

"I think we all need to recognise that cycle ‘facilities’ may
sometimes be a useful way of adding to the places where you can cycle,
but they must never be a substitute for cycling on the ordinary roads.
Maintaining our right to cycle on any road (other than motorways) must
always be a top priority, for if we lose that right we can have no
expectation of being treated any better elsewhere."

Are the Dutch worried by this religious fervour to ride the road?
"[As a Dutch cyclist] one of the questions that regularly pop up is do
the Dutch worry about being "forced off roads"? It is a non-event
"are the Dutch allowed to cycle on the roads’ (when there are separate
cyclepaths). This usually baffles us Dutch. Why should anybody *want*
to cycle among speeding traffic when there are lovely and smooth
cyclepaths which have fewer stops and priority over traffic? To us
such a question is totally irrelevant."

To the Franklins of the world, this is a deadly serious issue. The
vehicular lobby’s rallying cry is that cyclists should not be ‘forced
of the roads’.

Perception of lack of safety.

Won't go away until you segregate bikes and motor vehicles. The toxic
nonsense of "vehicular cycling" and "taking the lane" came from the
1930's and needs to be forgotten. Bikes and motor vehicles don't mix
any more than suggesting walking down the middle of the road is a good
idea. With the exception of brain addled time trialists (who still
think pedaling up the A1 in a bunch is a neat idea) push bike riders
have already barred themselves from thousands of miles of fast
arterial roads - they are simply not nice to cycle on.

The idea that you can make cyclists feel safe by telling them to cycle
in the middle of the lane just behind a bin lorry and being closely
followed by an articulated lorry is too daft for words.

He also didn't point out that cycling in Denmark is declining.

On Friday, 6 November 2015 18:07:49 UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 12:23:08 -0800 (PST), Alycidon
wrote:


"British Cycling has produced a video featuring policy advisor Chris Boardman outlining three essential lessons
from the Danish capital Copenhagen that he believes can help grow cycling in the UK while improving the safety of people on bikes.

Three lessons?

Presumed liability in civil cases
"blame the motorist". This is a complete red herring as it has been
the de-facto position in UK civil suits for several decades and not
just for road accidents. There is also no evidence whatsoever that it
reduces traffic casualties, increases harmony between road users or
makes pedestrians or cyclists feel safer.

All UK driving instructors are to be required to view his recent overtaking video.

http://road.cc/content/news/170591-g...-space-cycling

A good start.

On 06/11/2015 18:07, Peter Parry wrote:

Alycidon wrote:

"British Cycling has produced a video featuring policy advisor Chris Boardman outlining three essential lessons
from the Danish capital Copenhagen that he believes can help grow cycling in the UK while improving the safety of people on bikes.

Three lessons?

Presumed liability in civil cases
"blame the motorist". This is a complete red herring as it has been
the de-facto position in UK civil suits for several decades and not
just for road accidents. There is also no evidence whatsoever that it
reduces traffic casualties, increases harmony between road users or
makes pedestrians or cyclists feel safer.

Segregated cycle routes
Except he doesn't really believe in these, neither does British
Cycling who do not support removing push bike riders from roads (They
do support removing push bike riders as long as the road is still free
to be used by "real cyclists" . In the Netherlands cars and bikes
generally do not mix on the same roads and that is how it should be.
Bikes are not cars, in the same way as pedestrians are not cars and
should not be treated in the same way.

This ideological nitwittery isn't new. When the A40 cycleways were
built in 1934 the CTC said - "The demand for separate tracks for
cyclists is part of the campaign of motorists to appropriate public
highways for their exclusive use. Have we yet got to accept a
condition of affairs when cyclists have to renounce their use of the
roads to escape annihilation? If motorists do not wish to conform to a
standard of conduct on public highways compatible with the safety of
all other users, then it is they and not cyclists who should abandon
the use of the highway, the main cost of which is borne by
ratepayers."

Some things never change, eh?

"The Cyclists’ Touring Club stated that the provision of cycle paths
at the side of any of the main roads would not be with the object of
giving cyclists a good path on which to ride, but to remove them from
the road in the interests of motorists. The cost of providing such
paths would be enormous." (1934).

In 1935 they had progressed to the now familiar "Objections to special
tracks for cyclists were made at a largely-attended meeting of the
Cyclists’ Touring Club, held in the hall of the Royal Society of Arts,
John Street, Adelphi, last evening, when the following resolution was
carried unanimously :- "That this general meeting of the Cyclists’
Touring Club deprecates the view of the Minister of Transport, as
indicated by his approval of cycle paths, that the segregation of
cyclists is a just method of minimizing the number of road casualties,
and strongly urges upon the Minister its opinion that the problem can
be more satisfactorily dealt with by the rigid enforcement of the
existing laws, which were instituted with the object of enabling all
sections of responsible road users to enjoy the full exercise of their
rights in safety. "

At the same meeting in 1935 it was said " If the existing laws were
rigidly enforced and dangerous conduct by any class of road user
eradicated, it would be possible for all sections to share the
highways in safety and good will. " (Amazingly the person saying this
wasn't called Lee.)

;-)

Today Franklin, author of the silly "Cyclecraft" guide to combat
cycling and the man probably most responsible for delaying cycling
improvement in the UK says "Efficient and speedy cycling is important
if cycling is to compete as a mode of transport with the car. Roadside
paths of almost any kind prevent this and make cycling slow and
dangerous".
(Perhaps someone should tell the Dutch they have it completely
wrong?)

Other comments of his -

"The extra care enforced by the presence of motor traffic generally
results in the safest cycling environment overall"
(More HGV's, buses and skip wagons make cycling safer?)

"You are safest in traffic if you can move at a speed comparable to
that of the other vehicles, ..a sprint speed of 20MPH will allow you
to tackle most traffic situations with ease"
(That gets rid of the elderly and children - more room for Strava
runs)

"Increasing cadence and sprint speed are two of the most positive
steps a cyclist can take to enhance safety."
(that gets rid of the surviving children and elderly)

"I think we all need to recognise that cycle ‘facilities’ may
sometimes be a useful way of adding to the places where you can cycle,
but they must never be a substitute for cycling on the ordinary roads.
Maintaining our right to cycle on any road (other than motorways) must
always be a top priority, for if we lose that right we can have no
expectation of being treated any better elsewhere."

Are the Dutch worried by this religious fervour to ride the road?
"[As a Dutch cyclist] one of the questions that regularly pop up is do
the Dutch worry about being "forced off roads"? It is a non-event
"are the Dutch allowed to cycle on the roads’ (when there are separate
cyclepaths). This usually baffles us Dutch. Why should anybody *want*
to cycle among speeding traffic when there are lovely and smooth
cyclepaths which have fewer stops and priority over traffic? To us
such a question is totally irrelevant."

To the Franklins of the world, this is a deadly serious issue. The
vehicular lobby’s rallying cry is that cyclists should not be ‘forced
of the roads’.

Perception of lack of safety.

Won't go away until you segregate bikes and motor vehicles. The toxic
nonsense of "vehicular cycling" and "taking the lane" came from the
1930's and needs to be forgotten. Bikes and motor vehicles don't mix
any more than suggesting walking down the middle of the road is a good
idea. With the exception of brain addled time trialists (who still
think pedaling up the A1 in a bunch is a neat idea) push bike riders
have already barred themselves from thousands of miles of fast
arterial roads - they are simply not nice to cycle on.

The idea that you can make cyclists feel safe by telling them to cycle
in the middle of the lane just behind a bin lorry and being closely
followed by an articulated lorry is too daft for words.

He also didn't point out that cycling in Denmark is declining.

On 06/11/2015 18:13, Alycidon wrote:
On Friday, 6 November 2015 18:07:49 UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 12:23:08 -0800 (PST), Alycidon
wrote:


"British Cycling has produced a video featuring policy advisor Chris Boardman outlining three essential lessons
from the Danish capital Copenhagen that he believes can help grow cycling in the UK while improving the safety of people on bikes.

Three lessons?

Presumed liability in civil cases
"blame the motorist". This is a complete red herring as it has been
the de-facto position in UK civil suits for several decades and not
just for road accidents. There is also no evidence whatsoever that it
reduces traffic casualties, increases harmony between road users or
makes pedestrians or cyclists feel safer.

All UK driving instructors are to be required to view his recent overtaking video.

http://road.cc/content/news/170591-g...-space-cycling

Under what compulsion?

A good start.

On Friday, 6 November 2015 18:07:49 UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
With the exception of brain addled time trialists (who still
think pedaling up the A1 in a bunch is a neat idea)

Oh and any time trialists that are riding "in a bunch" are not riding a time trial - at least not one that they would not get banned from.

Sir Bradley's police shotgun rider does not count.

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/image...8/10079431.jpg

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:13:30 -0800 (PST), Alycidon
wrote:

On Friday, 6 November 2015 18:07:49 UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 12:23:08 -0800 (PST), Alycidon

All UK driving instructors are to be required to view his recent overtaking video.

http://road.cc/content/news/170591-g...-space-cycling

A good start.

No, complete nonsense. It is a video on overtaking club cyclists
riding dangerously. I presume when he mentions giving cyclists space
he means give them as much as they give themselves - so driving
12inches from their back wheel and allowing 6inches when overtaking is
fine?

The vast majority of drivers will rarely come across such
inconsiderate selfish riders out "training" (for what?). What they
will come across somewhat more frequently are individual utility
cyclists and the video doesn't even feature them.

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:23:02 -0800 (PST), Alycidon
wrote:


Sir Bradley's police shotgun rider does not count.

At that range, how did he miss?

"Peter Parry" wrote

"The Cyclists' Touring Club stated that the provision of cycle paths
at the side of any of the main roads would not be with the object of
giving cyclists a good path on which to ride, but to remove them from
the road in the interests of motorists. The cost of providing such
paths would be enormous." (1934).

The people that made this opinion died long ago and the world has changed in
many ways. Even major religions have moved on... a bit. Why do you drag this
up?
Going on the CTC website in the section "Space for cycling", item 1 is
"Protected space on main roads"

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 23:08:22 -0000, "TMS320" wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote

"The Cyclists' Touring Club stated that the provision of cycle paths
at the side of any of the main roads would not be with the object of
giving cyclists a good path on which to ride, but to remove them from
the road in the interests of motorists. The cost of providing such
paths would be enormous." (1934).

The people that made this opinion died long ago

Is Franklin dead?

"Efficient and speedy cycling is important
if cycling is to compete as a mode of transport with the car. Roadside
paths of almost any kind prevent this and make cycling slow and
dangerous".

"I think we all need to recognise that cycle ‘facilities’ may
sometimes be a useful way of adding to the places where you can cycle,
but they must never be a substitute for cycling on the ordinary roads.
Maintaining our right to cycle on any road (other than motorways) must
always be a top priority, for if we lose that right we can have no
expectation of being treated any better elsewhere."

and the world has changed in many ways. Even major religions have moved on... a bit. Why do you drag this
up?

Because it delayed, possibly for ever, the provision of segregated
cycling. Also the thinking hasn't changed. "Vehicular cycling" is
still the primary policy of British Cycling and CTC.