In most central areas of smaller dutch towns and cities there is not 'cycle infrastructure', just road space shared or perhaps released by taking out on street parking etc.  It is the 'hieraarchy of measures' in practice.  I think that there is a problem within 'cycle campaigning' in that most campaigners are focussed on what makes things better and safer for existing cyclists rather than wht will attract more people onto bikes.  If more people ride bikes of course, then a lot of the difficult political moves about reallocating road space to create cycle tracks, lanes or 20mph areas suddenly become easier.....



-----Original Message-----

From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY automatic digest system

Sent: 27 August 2011 00:00

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Digest - 25 Aug 2011 to 26 Aug 2011 (#2011-84)



There is 1 message totaling 393 lines in this issue.



Topics of the day:



  1. Urban vs rural



----------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:    Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:34:25 +0100

From:    Dave du Feu <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: Urban vs rural



I largely agree with Richard.   For years we have been plagued by those

campaigners who appeared to think that cycle facilities are largely not

needed and that we just need to train up everyone enough so that they can

use the roads as they are.



Let's not go to the extreme opposite where we support nothing except wholly

segregated very wide bike paths.



An 'unambiguous position' is just not feasible given physical and political

(including cost) realities.



Research seems pretty clear that to get the absolute maximum cycle usage an

infrastructure such as Netherlands/ Denmark is required.   We should

aim/fight for that where it is physically and politically realistic.



However in many places it is not realistic, either in the short/medium term

for political reasons or often in the medium/long term for physical reasons

(as Richard points out).  Yet cities like Oxford and Edinburgh have shown

that quite substantial increases in bike use are perfectly feasible using

non-physically-segregated onroad measures such as widespread onroad bike and

bus/bike lanes, ASLs, parking restrictions, bus priorities, etc.   No, these

cities have not risen to European levels of bike use, but they have risen

substantially, in a situation where European-style infrastructure was

absolutely not feasible, usually for both physical and political reasons.



Perhaps ironically, by succeeding in raising bike use significantly, such

cities are increasing the pressure to gradually develop a segregated

infrastructure.  That is certainly the case in Edinburgh where the recent

Active Travel Action Plan [

http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2010/09/cec-active-travel-action-plan/]

has a 2-pronged approach - first, to make the road system appear as safe and

welcoming as possible with measures such as above (called "cycle friendly

city") and second, at the same time, to gradually develop a network (the

"family network") which would be segregated as far as possible, as and when

physical and cost realities allow.  This pragmatic dual approach seems to me

highly realistic and to be commended.



Dave (du Feu) involved with Spokes the Lothian Cycle Campaign





On 24 August 2011 12:57, Richard Mann <[log in to unmask]>wrote:



> People are more mutable than property boundaries. What happens on the

> A48 is mostly a matter of cost and priorities: the crux of the matter

> is what happens in towns, and there we come up against the unfortunate

> fact that we built a lot of our main roads with 50ft between

> properties (and 30ft between drainage channels). We'd be a bit stuck

> if it weren't for people being adaptable. What we probably need is

> some academic understanding of how people can (and are prepared to)

> change to fit the roads, just as much as the other way round (hint:

> they drive more slowly).

>

> Richard

>

> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Horton, Dave

> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> > Hi Ian, Richard and all

> >

> > I absolutely agree with Ian about this, and I also wonder whether it is

> perhaps time that those of us who engage in thinking about cycling and/or

> who have conducted empirical research into cycling start figuring out how

> best to throw our collective weight behind as unambiguous a position as we

> can muster.

> >

> > I personally believe (based on recent empirical research with which I

> have been involved) that such a position should be based firmly around the

> idea that a mainstream culture of ordinary cycling (whether across England,

> across Britain, or indeed, across anywhere else) will only emerge if we

> create the structural-material affordances to it - this would include the

> kind of provision which Ian suggests is required along the A48. More

> broadly, it would include starting boldly on the path - to be continued over

> a generation and more - of designing and building our mobility environments

> (whether 'urban' and/or 'rural') around the assumption that cycling is the

> most sensible and obvious mode of mobility for most people, for most of the

> time, for journeys of five miles (8 km) or less.

> >

> > If the 'research community' could reach consensus around the kinds of

> changes required, it could potentially have a much more significant effect

> on the 'advocacy', 'practitioner' and 'policy' communities.

> >

> > Best wishes

> >

> > Dave Horton

> >

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list on behalf of Ian

> Perry

> > Sent: Fri 19/08/2011 12:22

> > To: [log in to unmask]

> > Subject: Re: Urban vs rural

> >

> > Hi Richard,

> >

> > In this case then, it is best to do nothing - and accept that the Dutch

> are

> > the only nation in Europe "foolish" enough to invest their money in

> > rural/intercity cycling infrastructure.

> >

> > There are a number of villages, with children along the A48 - but we do

> not

> > see the children as they are safely locked away...  Each day buses move

> > children short distances along the A48 (and other main-roads) to schools,

> > which are just a short cycle ride away.  Not only do segregated rural

> > cycling paths allow daily utility cycling, but also leisure cycling and

> > infrequent travel to visit neighbouring towns.  Yes, very few make these

> > journeys by bicycle today, but no one in the towns and villages along the

> > A48 uses a train to travel from home...  because there are no trains...

> >

> > If we build the right infrastructure, people will use it, and the larger

> we

> > build the network, the more often they will use it!

> >

> > Rural infrastructure is probably as good an investment as urban

> > infrastructure - without it, cycling will remain in a tiny niche.

> >

> > Ian

> >

> >

> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Richard Mann <

> > [log in to unmask]> wrote:

> >

> >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Ian Perry

> >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> >> > There are some who would like to see a cycle lane painted in the

> gutter

> >> of

> >> > the A48 (and other main routes).  However, I would not let my child

> (or

> >> want

> >> > to see any child) use them, with vehicles speeding past at 60, 70, 80

> mph

> >> > just centimetres away!  Cheap is not good, and often unusable. It is

> time

> >> > that in the UK we did things well - cheap is often a waste of time and

> >> > money!

> >> > What should happen is that the road is narrowed, and the saved space

> (on

> >> one

> >> > side) used to provide a segregated, two-way cycle path that everyone

> >> > considers safe and attractive to use.  Painted hard-shoulders are not

> >> > acceptable or attractive to most, provide limited safety, and thus the

> >> most

> >> > expensive form of cycling infrastructure.

> >>

> >> Nobody is going to spend that money if only a handful will use it.

> >> You'd be exceedingly lucky to get a child that far out of Bridgend,

> >> regardless of facility (maybe if you installed a free sweet-dispenser

> >> every hundred yards, but otherwise forget it). It's not pleasant

> >> cycling alongside high-speed traffic, even if you've got a segregated

> >> route.

> >>

> >> It's time we did things well = it's time we did things exceedingly

> >> slowly, and probably not even start.

> >>

> >> Alternatively, you can copy places in the UK that have been successful

> >> (cue ad for my paper in Glasgow)

> >>

> >> Richard

> >

>







-- 

** Spokes: www.spokes.org.uk <http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress>;

twitter.com/SpokesLothian

** Personal:  twitter.com/DaveduFeu;

www.flickr.com/photos/34847720@N03/sets

** Great sites: badscience.net, 38degrees.org.uk, copenhagenize.com,

thebikestation.org.uk, ghgonline.org, www.sei.se



------------------------------



End of CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Digest - 25 Aug 2011 to 26 Aug 2011 (#2011-84)

*************************************************************************

____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup  business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses