I think there is a subtle difference here. Existing pedestrians and cyclists are very aware of the deficiencies of the infrastructure, and are therefore very good at helping to design better infrastructure for cycling and walking.
In general we (existing cyclists) are less appreciative of the fears, perceptions and predjudices of the non-cyclists, and so we don’t take these into account when suggesting infrastructure improvements. Many people seem to think that the streets are full of feral children and knife-wielding hoodies and rapists, because that is what the media tells them, so they won't walk anywhere. There is a perception that 'it always rains', they fear that they will have a puncture every few days and not know how to fix it. Existing cyclists have probably told them horror stories about irate motorists trying to drive them off the road, and people crushed by HGVs. And of course the fact that many cyclists nowadays choose to dress like a council workman in full reflective gear and a nerdy helmet is hardly aspirational or cool, adds to the impression that cycling is 'dangerous' and therefore requires the sort of fully segregated infrastructure that is typically suggested by non-cyclists and non-cycling engineers.
Non-cyclists on the other hand have no direct experience of the negative aspects of segregated infrastructure, delays at junctions (and often greater hazards at side road crossings compared to on-carriageway cycling), poor sightlines, poor surfaces, lower cycling speeds, the ubiquitous dogs on a long string and the fact that most pedestrians have a mobile phone glued to their ear and are therefore effectively deaf, as well as the ones that are actually deaf, and of course after dark the canal towpaths, parks and subways used by segregated cycle routes are the places where the feral knife-wielding teenagers really do choose to hang out. It is virtually impossible and prohibitively expensive to create continuous off-road routes that go to anywhere useful when retro-fitting to existing streets, even the Dutch go on-carriageway and employ other methods to enable cycling in town and city centres. The non-cyclists will never actually get the sort of segregated infrastructure that they are expecting, but that doesn't matter so long as the traffic is moving slowly, the roads are quiet enough that they don't feel scared, and there are lots of other pedestrians and cyclists around.
I think that there are a lot of engineers and planners who are quite capable of designing good infrastructure, even if they don't ride a bike, but it is hard to fight the political battle about exactly how we arrange limited space between buildings when there is an assumption that the 40% of people who are not driving will squeeze into two narrow strips of pavement (and if they are lucky, an advisory cycle lane) at the edge, and the 60% who are driving will get all the rest. It is that presumption that results in 'bad' infrastructure. Until the public appreciate that the 'restrictions on parking and reallocation of carriageway space' that are demanded by existing cycle and pedestrian campaigners are actually exactly the same as 'creating safer walking/cycling routes' demanded by non-cyclists, we won't get anywhere.
Adrian
-----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: 12 September 2011 00:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Digest - 9 Sep 2011 to 11 Sep 2011 (#2011-90)
There are 2 messages totaling 107 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Please ignore cyclists, especially when they are telling you to ignore
cyclists... (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:16:55 +0100
From: Richard Burton <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Please ignore cyclists, especially when they are telling you to ignore cyclists...
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?
-----Original Message-----
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Mann
Sent: 08 September 2011 12:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Please ignore cyclists, especially when they are telling you to
ignore cyclists...
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/news/sustainability/when-designing-for-new-cyclists
-ignore-the-existing-ones-says-study/
The latest from the Understanding Walking & Cycling project.
I think it could have been expressed a bit more carefully!
Richard
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:44:34 +0100
From: Richard Mann <[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
------------------------------
End of CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Digest - 9 Sep 2011 to 11 Sep 2011 (#2011-90)
************************************************************************
____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses
|
