You are reading a single comment by @edscoble and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
The main issues is that so many people talking about improved cycle lane, proper segregation, etc.
But no one talk about drivers, at all, like they're not a problem.
Lots of people don't want to cycle because the road felt very dangerous with drivers going at high speed between traffic light, jumping red light endangering peds, text driving all the time etc.
If we address those issues, people would feel much more comfortable to ride on the road without getting worried about receiving punishment pass.
edscoble
To be clear — I've been cycling in London for 5 years. I love it and am ok with taking the lane etc.
But this isn't about me or anyone else on this forum, it's about the rest of the population, who are scared to cycle in traffic, and generally missing out on all the great stuff about riding a bike. Kids. Grandparents. Everyone in between.
They don't want to cycle like a vehicle would (nor at the same speed), they want to get from A to B without fighting for a place on the road.
Denying the majority of people the chance to ride a bike because we're worried about them slowing us down seems pretty selfish to me.
You seem to saying that the cycle superhighway plans for Embankment (for example) are a bad idea? That it would be better to keep it as a motorway like it currently is?
I'll admit the updated CS plans aren't perfect but they are a quantum leap from the current situation of 'paint on road = cycling lane'.
More people riding bikes is good for everyone, and the economy.
In response to the research linked to earlier about cycle 'paths' being dangerous (50% of which is pre-1990 and no longer in population circulation anywhere other than the UK) here's some evidence to the contrary:
===============================
Well, I did some digging and it seems Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Wales, as well as UK and US and OECD believe cycling infrastructure (cycle lanes and cycle tracks) increases cycling and/or safety enough to recommend investing in it. (I didn't even try counting the authors.)
Few observations that caught my interest about the studies regarding cycling infrastructure:
As I don't have the energy or real interest in looking for the counterclaims (I'm sure someone can provide them) I'll just make few similar observations though with less material backing it up:
Much of the rest of the world including quite a bunch of (presumably) smart people seem to have come to the conclusion cycle lanes and cycle tracks are very much worth every penny. Comparing the credibility between the camps I can't say I'm surprised.
I firmly believe separated infrastructure is a fundamental part of a functional cycling environment and there's plenty of research to support that theory. But if cycle lanes and cycle tracks really are as useless and dangerous as some try to claim then you should have no trouble proving with abundant research how omitting infrastructure leads to even more and safer cycling.
I'm looking forward to the research proving how the rest of the world is wrong.
.......................
Sweden: "In mixed traffic, the risk per cyclist seemed to decrease with an increased number of cyclists; on a cycle track, the risk seemed independent of the bicycle volume. However, for left-turning cyclists, the picture was totally different; cyclists on the carriageway face a 4 times higher accident risk than cyclists on separate cycle tracks. Linderholm finally suggested that cyclists should be moved onto the carriageway some 30 metres before the intersection, but that if left-turning cyclists exceeded 20 per cent of cyclists going straight ahead, it was preferable to build a cycle track across the intersection."
Denmark, improved cycle track design: "At all junctions, the number of serious conflicts was reduced from the before to the after period. Behavioural studies showed that the modified junctions had changed the interaction between cyclists and motorists in a way that appeared to promote traffic safety."
Two-way cycle tracks: "Ekman and Kronborg (1995) produced a report based on an international literature review, and interviews with experts from Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. The conclusion was that one bi-directional cycle track was cheaper to build than two one-way tracks, one on each side of the road, but that bi-directional tracks were, however, less safe for cyclists, since it made merging with car traffic before the stop line at a junction impossible."
Denmark: "They concluded that cycle lanes and cycle tracks were safer than no cycle facilities between junctions. There were however problems with parked cars on cycle lanes. It was recommended that separate cycle tracks should be built on road links when the volume of motorised traffic was high and when speeds were also high."
Denmark: "ensure acceptable safety levels: This is best achieved by constructing, wherever possible, segregated paths, designed in such a way as to encourage their use by cyclists."
Anon, 1998. Safety of vulnerable road users. In PROGRAMME OF CO-OPERATION IN THE FIELD OF RESEARCH ON ROAD TRANSPORT AND INTERMODAL LINKAGES. OECD, pp. 1-229.
"High quality, integrated bicycle routes (on and off road) should be provided to meet the challenge of increasing Australia’s participation in active travel and recreation."
Bauman, A. et al., 2008. Cycling: Getting Australia Moving: Barriers, Facilitators and Interventions to Get More Australian Physically Active Through Cycling, Dept. of Health and Ageing.
Costa Rica: "new infrastructure is being put in place to protect vulnerable road users, including [...] cycle tracks" "The creation of networks of connected and convenient pedestrian and cyclist routes, together with the provision of public transport, can lead to greater safety for vulnerable road users. The routes will typically consist of footpaths or cycle paths separate from any carriageway, pedestrian-only areas with or without cyclists being admitted, footpaths or cycle tracks alongside carriageways, and carriageways or other surfaces shared with motor vehicles."
Denmark: "Bicycle paths have also been shown to be effective in reducing crashes, particularly at junctions. Danish studies have found reductions of 35% in cyclist casualties on particular routes, following the construction of cycle tracks or lanes alongside urban roads."
Cameron, M., 2004. World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. Injury Prevention, 10(4), pp.255-256.