JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Archives


CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Archives

CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Archives


CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Home

CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Home

CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY  September 2009

CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY September 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Passing distances to cycle traffic with and without cycle lanes

From:

"Paul Rosen" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:55:28 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (206 lines)

John,

My response to the post by Dave was actually about broader issues which I felt
his comments raised regarding research in  general, and not your project
specifically, which I know about only from a brief report on Radio  4 and Dave's
comments.  I haven't created any divisions, just commented  on the fact  that
Spokes appear to disagree with CTC.  That said, I have never experienced the
world of cycling advocacy as homogeneous in its views and that's not a bad
thing.  Anyway, I thought the general implications for research might be an
interesting issue to discuss on the list, but unfortunately nobody else seems to
want to get involved.

Oh well.

Paul

on 23/9/09 8:37 AM, Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> a) Yes, the answers are not clear cut. The research slowly but surely tackles
> aspects which provide evidence where previously there was merely conjecture
and
> anecdotal evidence.
> b) Yes, the concerns are intersting, but what happens is, as I pointed out in
my
> last email, people read far more into the research than was originally there
in
> order to peddle their own opinions
> c) The research does not propose certain dimensions for cycle lanes, it was
> beyond the scope of the question which was considered and remains one of the
> gaps I noted in my last email: that is still work which usefully could be
looked
> into.
> d) It is strange of you to create divisions between cycle advocates where none
> exist before the research in question and, so far as I can tell, none exist
> after the research in question. (Of course many of the thousands of words
> generated on this subject bear no relation to the original research and of
> course I cannot be held responsible for people not properly informing
themselves
> about the original research, or misinterpreting it.)
> e) Publicity is always difficult to handle. I have already said to Dave Du Feu
> that I think the Times did a brilliant job in reporting it in a really well
> balanced and accurate way: it is all the discussion forums that followed that
> which seem to be reading more into it than is in fact there. We all develop
our
> skills with the media with experience. In this instance it has been a
generally
> very positive experience.
> f) It has its origins in some unscientific work done by the Warrignton Cycle
> Campaign. I talked with them about what they had done, and carried through the
> research on a more scientific basis (and this is no disaparagement to them).
It
> also leads on from Walker's work and fills some of the gaps there. It was also
> discussed wth CTC. Just because it has not been discussed with every cycle
> campaigner who has an interest in this area does not make it inappropriate. I
> understand what you mean about processes being value laden (and in fact all
the
> big words too!), the reader of the research can be the judge of that if he or
> she so wishes by reading the original research which spells out the approach
> taken in coming to the point of doing the work.
> g) Of course researchers think these things through. What evidence do you have
> to the contrary?
>
> There we go, another few hundred words on the subject :)
> Dr John Parkin
> Reader in Transport Engineering and Planning
> Department of the Built Environment
> The University of Bolton
> Deane Road, Bolton, BL3 5AB, UK
> Tel 01204 903027 Fax 01204 399074 mob 07903 523 017
> www.bolton.ac.uk/staff/jp10
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list on behalf of Paul
Rosen
> Sent: Wed 23/09/2009 12:25 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Passing distances to cycle traffic with and without cycle lanes
>
> Come on, John, the words weren't that big for an academic discussion list!
>
> As somebody who is fairly removed from the worlds of cycling advocacy,
> policy and even research at the moment, I was just interested to see a
> discussion/debate where the answers aren't clearcut, and the concerns
> raised are actually a bit more interesting than the surface question of
> whether cycle lanes should be x metres wide or y metres.  Here we have a
> situation where a piece of research supporting one group of cycling
> advocates is disputed by another group, compounded by publicity that
> leads to apparent misinterpretation of the whole thing anyway.
>
> The questions that interest me here are things like: how and by whom was
> the need/gap you mention identified, and how did the research question
> get designed to answer this need - and by extension what approach might
> have been taken had a different group of people been involved in this
> process?  If you know the media is hard to tame, are there different
> ways of dealing with/managing them (which Dave suggests)?  I don't know
> whether the approaches you took with problem definition, research design
> and media engagement were right or wrong, but I do think researchers
> need to think these kinds of things through at the start of the process.
>
> Paul
>
> Parkin, John wrote:
>> Paul,
>>
>> My research came out of a need as a policy engaged advocate and to do some
> appropriate science. There was a gap (and there remain gaps) to fill in this
> area. All those big words you use are exactly what has happened. I have to say
> the original paper was written in about 6,000 words. Frankly I am absolutely
> flabergasted at the enormous number of additional words it has generated in
> discussion forums and the media. Some of these words have been well informed.
> Others have been extremely ill informed and highly opinionated. And of course
it
> goes without saying that the media is a beast that is hard to tame....
>>
>>
>> Dr John Parkin
>> Reader in Transport Engineering and Planning
>> Department of the Built Environment
>> The University of Bolton
>> Deane Road, Bolton, BL3 5AB, UK
>> Tel 01204 903027 Fax 01204 399074 mob 07903 523 017
>> www.bolton.ac.uk/staff/jp10
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list on behalf of Paul
> Rosen
>> Sent: Tue 22/09/2009 8:43 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Passing distances to cycle traffic with and without cycle lanes
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave and everybody else,
>>
>> Stepping back a little from the immediate issues you raise, I think your
>> piece raises some interesting points about how to define
>> valid/legitimate research questions, and the relationship of science (in
>> its broadest sense) to policy.  This seems to me to go back to the
>> thorny question of to what extent scientists are responsible for the
>> uses to which their research is put, as well as what perspectives and
>> which stakeholders etc should be taken into account in designing
>> research (especially given the need to show user engagement when
>> applying for research funding).  Given that cycling is such a complex
>> and sometimes contradictory research field these are important questions
>> for cycling researchers to grapple with when designing projects. That
>> said, I'm not sure there are easy answers, but it's good to see John's
>> research is perhaps sparking some methodological/epistemological debates
>> for this list to grapple with, as well as practical ones.  Any comments,
>> anyone?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> Dave du Feu wrote:
>>
>>> I am concerned (though not surprised) at the message being given by
>>> the publicity around this interesting research.  I have prepared a
>>> paper outlining my concerns, which you can find at...
>>>
>>>
>
http://www.spokes.org.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=DownloadsPlus&file=index&re
> q=viewdownload&cid=20&orderby=dateD
>>>
>>> [or find it at   www.spokes.org.uk   in downloads - technical]
>>>
>>> Dave du Feu
>>> Spokes, the Lothian Cycle Campaign
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2009/9/10 Parkin, John <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> With apologies for cross-posting.
>>>>
>>>> The Times ran an article and editorial today on the different passing
> distances to cycle traffic with and without cycle lanes based on the work of
> Ciaran Meyers and myself.
>>>>
>>>> The Radio has picked it up and there may be something on Radio 4 "pm"
> programme, and Radio five live drive time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr John Parkin
>>>> Reader in Transport Engineering and Planning
>>>> Department of the Built Environment
>>>> The University of Bolton
>>>> Deane Road, Bolton, BL3 5AB, UK
>>>> Tel 01204 903027 Fax 01204 399074 mob 07903 523 017
>>>> www.bolton.ac.uk/staff/jp10
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager