Ghost Bikes

It is certainly possible to discourage individual cyclists from using specific junctions for a while, although the utility of the route that they had initially chosen is not going to go away and they will return.

However, causing cyclists to avoid certain junctions is most definitely not a good thing, as there is nothing inherently unsafe about most junctions.

What is most definitely a good thing is to encourage a cyclist who negotiates a junction that requires a certain level of skill beyond theirs, to acquire this skill level first.

You are correct - I meant that it would encourage people to think more about the routes they used. Novice cyclists "jumping in at the deep end" is not necessarily that helpful.

Unwise. It is that safety in numbers that the 'noddies' (why do you have to discriminate?) provide to you, too.

+1. And you can see it working in London's famous London, too. A near doubling of cycling has caused the rate of collisions to fall considerably.

You're right, I shouldn't discriminate against the noddies, but I remain unconvinced that given the positited scenario of "more awareness of cyclist vulnerability in drivers means less cyclists will be on the road" I'd be better off with more cyclists and a lower increase in driver awareness. My experience tells me that large groups of cyclists actually cause more aggressive driver behaviour.

It could well be the case that increased driving has lowered the number of collisions, as more cars = more traffic jams = lower average speeds. I'm sure that you may be correct, but without seeing all the information (including how they are measuring the number of collisions: is it an absolute figure, per journey, per mile?) I retain some scepticism. I'm hopeful though.

They are of course very different cases with very different demographics. Compared to London, they're both tiny, and average trip length is incredibly short compared to London. The key factor for both is that people consider cycling an empowered majority activity, and not something that only a few strange weirdos do. Modal share of cycling in even A and C dropped post-war like in all cities, but not as far as in London, and it was higher there than here in the first place.

The exact opposite is the case. Slow, steady growth is the answer, as it is sustainable (*). It has been happening in London continuously for more than ten years now. The rate of collisions keeps falling, and cycling keeps getting safer. In London, it's a bit of a perception problem, as there are already huge levels of cycling in the centre that would be much more visible in a smaller city. Overall, the modal share is still under or around 2%, but that includes Outer London.

(* Congestion charging was a good policy that did a lot for cycling and that caused the biggest exceptional increase, but it's not massively significant compared to what's happened since. Unless another exceptional policy comes along it's the boring stuff that works. Perhaps the bike hire scheme will work as well in London as in Paris, we'll see by 2010.)

I think this is all part and parcel of the same thing - by making cycling acceptable, you will have already raised awareness of it. As far as I can tell, this would mean that an increased number of cyclists would indicate that cycling has become safer (because of increase public awareness) rather than the increased number of cyclists making it safer.