Hi all (and Dave)
Please keep the responses on the Forum (not off), as I find this
extraordinarily useful.
My sense in the Cape Town context is that it is inequitable the way
authorities ignore current utility cyclists (who are the urban poor)
in their cycle planning, consult sports clubs and build largely
high-end infrastructure in wealthier areas with a few token bike lanes
here and there in outlying areas. But South Africa is an entirely
different context. So the contrast is particularly interesting. And it
raises questions about the different intentions of cycle planning
(i.e., is it to increase mode-share/get more people onto bikes / get
people out of cars, or in the SA context where most people don't have
cars, is it to provide safer mobility options for the poor who have
been failed by SA's lack of public transport, etc). (Something Dave
and I have discussed).
These require different interventions and different stakeholder
consultations, etc, and highlights how research is not necessarily
transferable to different contexts (which bicycle planners would do
well to note...)
all the best
Gail
uoting "Horton, Dave" <[log in to unmask]>:
> Dear all
>
> Of course I have a vested interest here, but I also strongly believe
> in the accountabilities and responsibilities which come with the
> research enterprise, and am very happy to debate (for so long as
> it's useful) the value/s of the Understanding Walking and Cycling
> research.
>
> Richard, I take offence at being labelled 'blinkered' - I went into
> 3 years of research as a passionate cyclist and cycling advocate,
> but also one who believes that research is vital to improving and
> broadening current understandings. It is not at all 'blinkered' to
> be prepared to question, challenge and perhaps change what you
> think/know (indeed, that is a key hallmark of good research).
>
> And our research has I think achieved some important things (whether
> or not you like what we say is an altogether different matter):
>
> - we have produced strong scientific evidence that the majority of
> people in England are still far from jumping onto bikes, and for the
> range of reasons why this is the case;
> - we have discovered a good deal about the social-spatial unevenness
> of attitudes to and practices of cycling;
> - to some extent our research has undoubtedly corroborated "what
> everyone already know" (about cycling in England), but scientific
> research does not lose its value when it confirms the
> taken-for-granted (and practitioners and policy-makers require a
> strong evidence base in order to defend and legitimise their
> decisions).
>
> I could go on, but I'll stop here. But if anyone wants to raise
> critiques and/or has questions about the Understanding Walking and
> Cycling project, I'm very happy to respond to them on this forum, if
> others are interested.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Dave Horton
> (Researcher on the Understanding Walking and Cycling project)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list on behalf
> of Richard Burton
> Sent: Mon 12/09/2011 08:19
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Please ignore cyclists, especially when they are
> telling you to ignore cyclists...
>
> I don't think it's harsh at all: everything I've read about what this
> research "discovered" was well known already by all practitioners in the
> field.
>
>
>
> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Mann
> Sent: 11 September 2011 23:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Please ignore cyclists, especially when they are telling you to
> ignore cyclists...
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Richard Burton
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> There would appear to be no limits to the stupidity of blinkered researchers
> or their limited, unimaginative research. Can whoever funded this ask for
> their money back, especially if it was tax payers i.e. me. £936,000 and
> three years to produce this rubbish?
>
>
>
> That's a bit harsh. The research has taught us a lot about how people think
> about cycling and walking, in the absence of serious interventions to
> facilitate them.
>
>
>
> I'm not convinced it cracks what we should do about it, but then it'd be
> miraculous if it had.
>
>
>
> Maybe the next focus needs to be elsewhere, maybe into the gentle art of
> taming motorists, or how the taming of motorists affects how people think
> about cycling and walking.
>
>
>
> (In the mean time, it would be helpful if the report was available in a pdf
> that can be read on a Windows machine...!)
>
>
>
> Richard
>
|