If you support segregated cycling infrastructure in Hackney

All this talk of separate infrastructure is kind of pointless when within a couple of years no one other than the super rich will be able to live within zone 1-2 so there wont be much uptake of mass cycling if it means riding 10 miles into work.

Some numbers for the discussion, 2007 edition:

1 Attachment

Pretty obv that more cyclists would = more distance cycled per person (cyclist or not).

Is there a similar graph of km / yr / cyclist vs modal split? I.e. do cyclists in "cycling" countries typically cycle further than those in countries with poor modal share.

P.S. Might journey frequency be a better measure than distance?

Those can't be national numbers, a lot of journeys are made by bicycle in the Netherlands, but no way is it a 40% modal share - more like 25% nationally.

Good thing the French do so well in the TDF.

Oh.

RLAND? Not even a country. I call shenanigans.

I can't lol at that because I know you're being dead serious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mnVWJpMhuE

Our transport minister made the same mistake:

Thanks for the link containing the comparison of UK/NL cyclist deaths by distance travelled: as I said, a rather different story to the absolute numbers, though about twice as bad here isn't as much of a difference as I was expecting. Do you have comparative figures for anywhere else?

Yeah, I'm not sure why I put that 'severely' in. That's a mistake. I think there has been a complacency in the UK because of our history of comparatively low road deaths and, until recently, falling casualty figures. Compared to many European nations there isn't the opportunity to reduce death and injury here to the same degree but we have been overtaken in road safety terms by countries like Sweden with 'Vision Zero' policies. As cyclists we are more aware of the behavioural factors that make cycling less safe and less pleasant than it should be and how the laissez faire political approach to road safety in the UK does little to address these factors across all transport modes.

That all makes sense.

I guess when you're starting from a relatively low base of overall casualties - and as you say, despite the rhetoric you sometimes see, ours is low, and significantly lower than it was ten or twenty years ago - then the political will is probably difficult to chivvy into action.

Interestingly though, the per capita casualty figures (and the reduction) are very similar between the UK and Sweden, 1991-2014. Obviously that trend doesn't differentiate between categories of road user, but it does suggest that the Vision Zero stuff maybe isn't (yet?) having a great effect on the headline numbers.

(The slightly meaningless raw numbers say that in 2013, cyclists were 5% of casualties in SE, 6% in GB, while pedestrians were 16%/23%. My Swedish is lousy but I reckon the graph on p39 of this report shows cycle casualties in the UK (2008-2010) were about 22 per bn vehicle km, and in Sweden (2006) were 14, so midway between NL (9, from spindrift's link) and GB. Absolute numbers for SE (2007-2012) are on p25.)

You claimed the UK has:

pretty much the lowest number of deaths per capita or per mile driven of any country in the world of any size.

That's not true. We have one of the worst vulnerable road user fatality and injury rates in Europe. And this despite walking and cycling rates being depressed by our lawless roads.

Those two statements are not incompatible. We do have one of the lowest overall rates of road deaths in the world, and if you claim we don't, you are grossly mistaken.

Within that low number, we have a somewhat higher proportion of vulnerable road user deaths, though still, AFAICS, a fairly low absolute number.

Are you able to point to actual figures, or just to repeat rhetoric?

lets fight

wait lets not

Say you did fight and it spilled out into the road and @7Üp performed that uppercut nose break thing people told you about when you were 9 - the one that that forces the broken bone into the brain and kills the opponent - is that counted as a road death?

Only if i'm wearing a helmet.

Let's wrastle.

Wrastlin' is fun.

@jsabine Can you check your PM's please :)

Let's revive this with some Bikeyface.

A lot of the anti-infrastructure arguments seem to be that the newly built infrastructure is a bit shit so infrastructure is not the solution.

Surely the conclusion from that should be that shit infrastructure is not the solution.

I'm happy enough riding with traffic, but I'm a relatively young male who rides a road bike, wears cycling clothes, etc. Personally, the current position, particularly with the addition of stricter laws, would be the better route for me. I suspect that's the same for many posters on here.

However, I'd like those people I know who are nervous about cycling to ride, primary school kids, etc. Get some cars off the road and have more people cycle. Realistically, this isn't going to happen when you're sharing the road with buses, lorries, tipper trucks, vans and the rest. However strict the laws, however considerate the drivers, people are going to feel nervous with that 40 ton tipper truck next to them or the double decker bus behind them.

In terms of what @Howard was saying about infrastructure potentially being cheaper, the Royal College St lanes are a good example of this. Segregation is by planters and studs in the road so it's easy to move around and test configurations.

I think 'Bikeyface' is simplifying the issues slightly.

In a cartoon? Surely not!

I've never been a fan of segregation.

I particularly dislike the "temporary" plastic segregation that has popped up on the CS8 going East, just before the Vauxhall Bridge junction. Especially when it has been pushed into the lane by vehicles driving into it.

Does anybody have an idea why it is there?

Shoulda written a ten page manifesto ffs

reading the first several pages of this thread and thought it was relevant given that my small town has just put inplace a 2 mile cycle lane from the edge of town to the train station.

I am against it - I have never felt unsafe on that road, ever. The road has now been converted into one-way traffic with the other half a 2 way cycle line (I think, its still a WIP)

Anyway as feared the first thing I over hear in the pub is "yeah theyre making that road one-way for those bloody cyclists!"

Segregated cycle line to encourage people who cant cycle to cycle. But all it will do is cause friction between cyclists and drivers rather than educating drivers that cyclists also share the road. Drivers will now have to take a 2 min detour every morning to get to the station. Cyclists will no longer get over taken by 4-5 cars in the space of 2 miles during peak hour. Result.

PLANTERS, NOT PAINT lololol