In case this site is not known, may be of interest...

http://uk.youtube.com/user/magnatom

I am involved in Spokes, the Lothian Cycle Campaign
[www.spokes.org.uk] and would like to make a general comment on
research based on this type of evidence.

Clearly incredibly useful information and evidence can be obtained by
helmet cameras (or handlebar cameras as one of our members uses), and
please understand I am in no way suggesting it should not be done.
However, there are points to be aware of in such research.

First, are we working with a motivation to increase the number of
people getting around by bike? or to improve the safety of existing
cyclists? or to provide academic papers? or something else?  My own
motivation is almost entirely on the first of these - getting more
people to use bikes more for their everyday journeys.  From this
perspective, those involved in research need to be conscious of
several points, including...

a. The researcher is almost certainly an experienced and confident
cyclist, whereas we are trying to encourage average cyclists and
non-cyclists.   From that perspective, what is important is to make
cycling seem as normal and acceptable as possible for the average
member of the public (not for enthusiasts, etc); and to make the roads
*feel* safe and welcoming (rather than concentrating on relatively
minor points which may or may not marginally improve or worsen actual
safety).

b. There is a tendency for research to concentrate on what can be
measured and to forget about what may be more difficult to measure but
may be more significant to increasing modal shift.  One recent example
is the fascinating research based on equipment which measures the
distance between a cyclist and passing motor vehicles.  This is also
an issue to be aware of with research based on video evidence.

c. [perhaps less applicable to researchers, but certainly to many
lobbyists]  A further point is the fun which can be had in pointing
out the ridiculous cycle facility designs which we sometimes see - eg
Warrington Cycle Campaign's Crap Cycle Lanes.  Such facilities clearly
should clearly not be built as they are - but neither should they be
seen as typical or normal.


There is currently a tendency/fashion amongst UK researchers/lobbyists
to downplay the value of onroad cycle facilities, or to insist they
are only acceptable if they are absolutely perfect in every respect.
Much of this I suspect arises from (a)-(c) above, since it is so easy
to measure the problems.   There is also big enthusiasm/fashion at the
moment for 'shared space' - a great idea in certain environments, but
far from everywhere (as Steve Melia points out).

Unfortunately what is lost in the above is what I believe to be the
fact that widespread coloured onroad cycle facilities have a major
promotional impact.  Such facilities are seen every day by every road
user of every type.   They make cycling look expected, acceptable and
normal, and thus are a major promotional tool.

Also, note that if this theory is correct then the 'safety in numbers'
research [Jacobsen] suggests that the promotional effect of widespread
onroad coloured facilities will of itself bring a big safety benefit -
which might greatly outweigh any negative intrinsic safety defects of
the occasional badly designed individual facility.

This is very difficult to measure and so is generally disregarded by
researchers.   I have made the point several times in recent years,
but it is not taken seriously - presumably because research is so much
easier when you are taking concrete measurements.   Or, research is
done on the impact of one individual facility, which again is a
'feasible' research project  - not on the impact of all road users
seeing every day on all their journeys that cycling is expected and
normal.

Our view on this in Spokes in Edinburgh is based on our experience in
the city over the last 20 or so years, going through a period first of
zero cycle facilities, then a decade or so of building of a fairly
substantial and high quality offroad network (largely invisible to the
average member of the public) then a decade or so of installing fairly
widespread onroad coloured facilities throughout the city.  At a time
when bike use was static or falling across the UK, Edinburgh achieved
a marginal rise in bike use during the 'offroad decade' then an
accelerating increase during the 'onroad decade.'

The onroad facilities don't form anything like a complete network,
they are often disconnected, and some of them could be designed
better.   But the point is that they are widespread and they are
coloured (red/brown).   Every road user - motorist, bus user, walker,
cyclist - sees them every day on every journey, so cycling becomes
seen as expected and normal, not just for freaks.   Also, potential
and novice cyclists feel safer - regardless of whether or not these
facilities do or don't intrinsically improve safety.   But if they
bring out more cyclists, then we get 'safety in numbers.'

Of course, this theory has not been tested in any academic way and so
tends to be ignored in favour of 'hard' evidence on issues which are
highly specific and miss the overall picture.   Howver, for more on
the (non-academic) evidence supporting the theory, see Spokes Bulletin
103 page 3 and Spokes Bulletin 93 page 3, both in downloads at
www.spokes.org.uk. The latter in particular I feel to be about as
powerful as you can get anecdotal evidence to be.

There are also further relevant documents in downloads - technical.
Moreover, this theory is in line with the evidence from the many
surveys as to what would make people cycle more.

--
** If you have an @ed, @staffmail or @care2 address for me please
change it to DaveduFeuATgmail.com.
** For Spokes Bulletins, submissions, papers, etc  see downloads at
www.spokes.org.uk.
** This month's favourites:  transformscotland.org.uk,
thebikestation.org.uk,  grist.org,  ghgonline.org,  ecba.org.uk.