 |
 |
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.