I'm not sure which particular CE report you are referring to, I presume the SQW report on cycling economics.
One of the problems with the methodology SQW used is that it took a very deterministic approach to calculating economic value of cycling, focussing on, if I remember, the monetary value of individual cyclists/journey's then multiplying up to produce an overall number. My experience is that the deterministic evaluations are not particularly robust when there is a degree of uncertainty in variables needed to scale the output. Fine for a manufacturing production line, but I'm not really comfortable with it for this type of problem. The idea seems to be that " increasing the precision of measurement increases the accuracy of the result".....it doesn't because as precision increases the effects of uncertainty increase disproportionately (I have case studies of this capital engineering). Furthermore SQW, along with many others who've tried this, avoid calculating the congestion value of increased cycling....probably the easiest number to calculate due the availability of (national traffic) models......and an approach, and numbers, that transport professionals and planners understand.
The well-publicised LSE report also poses some difficulties. As someone who has tracked cycle sales (and bored research friends) for quite some years, the numbers didn't add up. (Reliable) sales data has been collected to a consistent methodology for many years and is published annually, both volume and average unit price (import price). Whilst the headline volume (anticipating ProdComs figures) proved to be correct the sales value number didn't jive with the unit costs from Prodcom, so called into question the rest of the numbers.
As a matter of principle, I have a lot of problems not only with numbers produced by bodies to justify their own positions and actions (and, in some cases, not upset their sponsors), but also with the questions they seem to be posing to produce the numbers, particularly public and quasi-public sector organizations. In my view, if they really want people to believe them, it is incumbent on those bodies to produce robust and grounded analysis that has been rigorously and independently challenged. I don't see that with either of those reports.
I've also seen a number of attempts by other individuals and researchers to put forward a robust valuation of cycling, but all seem to miss key elements, or ignore them without any reason stated (the congestion one being the favourite for being ignored). In some respects I think many seem to start with an aim of looking at a couple of elements of value, elements in subjects they are comfortable with, and then add more on as their understanding grows....fine if you have a particular experience or specialisation, but not if the aim is to produce a rounded, and grounded, economic analysis. In knowledge terms we are all biased towards the disciplines and concepts we are familiar with, but less so for those we aren't so comfortable with. We perhaps need to start at another position (and personally I prefer to take a multi-discipline systems approach).
So, if I could, I'd like to pose a macro-economic question as a starting point:
"If all the 23.5m cycle owners in the UK got on their bikes instead of using a car, would the GDP of the UK go up, down or stay the same?" I believe that should capture all the cost/value arguments outside of the non-monetary ones (but I'm open to suggestions).
Because, in my view, if we want to make an economic argument that carries real weight..... that's the question that needs to be answered.
Cheers
John Meudell
Ps: ....how about we have a side session kicking this one around at the CiS symposium in September?
-----Original Message-----
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nick Cavill
Sent: 03 February 2012 13:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Digest - 31 Jan 2012 to 1 Feb 2012 (#2012-13)
Dear John
I wonder if it would be helpful if I directed you to some of the published reports on the impact of Cycling England's work? Notably the economic analysis, that directly addresses your unsubstantiated notion of CE money having been 'wasted'. As a fellow 'research associate', I usually find it helpful to read the research on a topic before resorting to offensive public proclamations.
Nick Cavill PhD MPH MFPH
Research Associate, University of Oxford
Senior Honorary Research Fellow, University of Salford
On 3 Feb 2012, at 12:57, Adrian Lord wrote:
> John
> Cycling England Board was not paid apart from their expenses. Only their Programme Manager, Cycling Towns Manaager and Bikeability Manager had fixed term contracts with the DfT. Phillip Darnton received an allowance for 2 days input per week but typically put in 5 or 6 days work and still continues to be involved in the Cycle-rail Taskforce for example. Myself and other consultants were employed on a call-off basis to assist the Board with admin and to help out the various Cycling England sponsored projects with advice and information, and occasionally technical help such as design. Every Cycling Town had to go through the usual political battles over removing parking spaces, causing delays to other traffic, unsympathetic and disinterested councillors, adverse anti-cycling press reports, opposition from disability groups and pedestrians, and often the local cycle campaigners who were more interested in their personal journeys and long-standing issues than in getting 'new' people to cycle. Resorting to cliché, everybody I met who was involved in Cycling England gave 110%,travelled around the country, worked overnight and weekends at various times and did way beyond the 'job description' so I'm sorry if you didn't see anyone at Excel but don't on that basis condemn the entire set up and compare them to merchant bankers!
>
> There was no sense of doing things a certain way, and the towns and other partners did try all sorts of ideas, but as with all funding there was pressure to spend the money each calendar year which inevitably leads towards the 'art of the possible' rather than trying to change the world all in one go and getting nowhere. In most cases we are starting from such a low and poor base of infrastructure and knowledge in the UK (e.g. my first visit to xxxx their engineer asked me 'what is an advanced stop line?') that some guidance on what would be helpful to get more people cycling was appreciated.
>
> One thing that Sir George Young (ex transport minister and 'Bicycling Baronet') said to me when we visited Holland to look at Bike and Rail infrastructure was that the whole 'terms of trade' between cyclists and other road users is different to the UK. I think this is very astute (and also becoming apparent in various UK shared-space schemes), and even in the way in which Dutch people step straight onto zebra crossings. Some infrastructure only works if there are lots of cyclists and pedestrians and until we reach that point in the UK we perhaps have to design for a more cautious and defensive style of cycling - while at the same time trying to give cues to the more experienced and confident cyclists about when to 'take the lane' and merge into general traffic. So (together with the fact that there's no political appetite to reduce car tyranny) we end up with two slightly compromised and different approaches instead of the more coherent and uniform infrastructure that is seen in the Netherlands and Denmark.
>
>
> Adrian Lord
> Associate
>
> Arup
> Admiral House, Rose Wharf, East St, Leeds, LS9 8EE United Kingdom
> t +44 (0)113 242 8498 d +44 (0)121 213 3650
> f +44 (0)121 213 3001 m +44 (0)785 031 8882
> www.arup.com
>
>
> -----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: 02 February 2012 00:02
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Digest - 31 Jan 2012 to 1 Feb 2012 (#2012-13)
>
> There are 5 messages totaling 4486 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. A request for help (3)
> 2. A request for help[Scanned-Clean] (2)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:38:40 +0000
> From: Richard Mann <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: A request for help
>
> Tim - there are no Dutch standards. Only guidance. And their guidance isn't
> especially clear on what you do with a busy 30ft road.
>
> I'd agree about not tinkering, but I'm afraid it's a difficult
> engineering/planning/political/social problem that isn't going to be solved
> by demanding that other people be ignored.
>
> Richard
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Tim Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I would agree re Cycling England and Phillip Darnton. Sterling work. He
>> should go down in the anals of trying to do something for cycling in
>> England [with his hands tied]. Realistically then, perhaps we do not need
>> to start from the position of 'every main road' but we could at least agree
>> to put in place appropriate mechanisms in the form of statutory guidance
>> and regulation with teeth (i.e. to Dutch design standards and laws to
>> address power asymetry on the road as we suggested in the UWAC report) and
>> perhaps start by making it incumbent on local authorities to implement a
>> significant corridor within their jurisdiction to Dutch design standards
>> matched by central government funding. We need an equivalent 'Traffic in
>> Towns' moment, 'Cycling in Towns', perhaps rather than tinkering around the
>> edges to ill effect.
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:55:30 +0000
> From: John Meudell <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: A request for help
>
> Cooo
> .didn’t think I’d start this sort of debate. This could be fun.
>
>
>
> Let’s make this clear. I realise that there are cities in the UK more
> hazardous to cyclists health but, having cycled extensively in Europe, North
> America and the Far East over a period of 35 years, I stand by my statement
> that “If you can cycle confidently in London, you can cycle anywhere in the
> world
> and stay alive!” Cyclists in any other UK city can take heart from
> the fact that, on that basis, they have an even greater chance of staying
> alive than their London based counterparts!
>
>
>
> Secondly, cycling in London can in no way be described benign. It was
> (reasonably) benign when I started regularly cycling there (or should that
> be here, ‘cos I do it so often) in the mid-80’s, with a bunch of people who
> were no way as confident or experienced cyclists as myself. I’ve lived and
> cycled in and around London since then and it has become ever more
> hazardous. It was probably at its worst in the mid 90’s pre-congestion
> charge, at a time when I was commuting from Dorking to Central London by
> bike a couple of times a week. Since then it hasn’t really got much better
>
> the hazards have only changed. That is reflected in the significant rise in
> serious accidents involving cyclists in London
> ..though I suspect that
> objective evaluation would reveal the rise is, in part, the result of the
> general increase in cyclists on the road, reinforcing a view that cycling’s
> safety hasn’t improved in the capital, but the numbers exposed to the
> hazards of cycling in the capital have increased. On the other hand there’s
> also been an increase in the number of large vehicles in the city and a
> police force and public authority with little interest in objective
> investigation of the causes of accidents (I know, I’ve tried to report
> dangerous driving on a number of occasions, on one recent occasion an
> incident which took place in front of six police officers
> .and you’ve no
> chance). In practice there’s little objective, grounded research to
> determine causality or to guide safe design and enforcement.
>
>
>
> I totally agree with Tim’s comments that it’s only a few very experienced
> cyclists who think that the hazards aren’t real but only “perceptions”.
> Anyone who tried the “Scalextrics” designed facilities in Torrington
> Place/Tavistock Place and elsewhere will agree that cyclists have really
> only swapped one source of hazard for another. The worrying part is the
> acceptability of statements included in the Highway Code that “cyclists
> should use the cycle infrastructure if they feel it’s safe to do so”. If
> you are of the view that cycling safety is all about perceptions of safety,
> then there’s no such thing as unsafe infrastructure (and that applies not
> just to cycle infrastructure). That’s patently not true and, as someone who
> has spent a lifetime in seriously hazardous industries, talking down safety
> hazards in that way is irresponsible in the extreme.
>
>
>
> (On that basis I’d hope contributors would forgive me for my occasional
> tirades against the highways engineering establishment. In all my career,
> and all the countries I’ve worked in, I’ve never seen this level of attitude
> and aptitude deficiency in engineering for safety in capital facilities
> (which is what infrastructure is))
>
>
>
> Thirdly, however, I disagree that Cycling England has actually contribute to
> improvements for cycling
> .even if, as suggested, its hands were tied. In
> truth Cycling England has only served as a distraction from addressing core
> problems, problems whose roots not only lie in the (lack of) quality in
> transport and spatial planning and infrastructure design and implementation,
> but also in the politicisation of safety for road users and convenience for
> cyclists and pedestrians.
>
>
>
> Comments by both Darnton and Grimshaw, since leaving Cycling England, beg
> the question “why did they bother”?. Had the great and the good stood back
> and evaluated the context within which their efforts would take place, then
> maybe they’d’ve taken a different and, probably, more effective position,
> and developed a different Terms of Reference. Either that or, as
> professionals whose hands are being tied, just walked away. Instead they
> lobbied that (only) they knew how to implement cycle friendly policies and
> infrastructure (yeah, right!) and fell into the politicians standard
> trap
> .of being bought off without any long term commitment to change and
> policy implementation.
>
>
>
> I’d argue that Cycling England efforts were limited by the (self defined)
> lack of remit in three areas; research into cycling and it’s interaction
> with other modes, provisions for cycling and cyclists within the overall
> spatial and transport planning frameworks, and into the cycling safety
> dimension.
>
>
>
> In fact the writing was on the wall from day one, CE weren’t going to listen
> to anyone except their own voices. I recall attending the Cycle Show in
> Excel, some months after the setting up of Cycling England, at which CE had
> taken a stand. Except there was no-one on it except some plinths with
> computer screens and a looped glossy ad
> .and no people. Whilst they may
> have shown up for the PR photo call on press day, the members clearly
> weren’t going to hang around to talk to the people who were paying their
> wages and/or expenses. (Obviously todays senior bankers have been taking
> lessons from CE board members
> ..”our policy is not to talk to the people who
> pay us wages to act in their best interests”. )
>
>
>
> Since the demise of Cycling England Darnton has commented he was shocked at
> the attitude of some local authorities on the subject of cycling
> .yet CE
> continued to plough on without much in the way of change, or even impact, in
> that dimension being apparent. And, since retiring, Grimshaw has made
> similar comments about the quality of cycling infrastructure (only repeating
> comments made some years earlier by one of his Technical Directors, who left
> shortly after making his comments, only five months after joining Sustrans).
> Since then most of the infrastructure we have seen (CE or otherwise)
> continues to be poorly engineered, the “soft” schemes poorly thought through
> and structured, and all questionable in terms of effectiveness in the long
> term.
>
>
>
> In truth all that has happened is that time and opportunities have been
> wasted for, in truth, a paltry sum of money. Were transport planners and
> engineers to take an integrated, safety conscience and cost effective
> approach to major, and minor, infrastructure projects, and integrate the
> provisions for cyclists (and other modes) into their knowledge base and
> thought processes, even those amounts of money would not be necessary. Why
> is it that CE didn’t take this on board?
>
>
>
> I’d note a recent Treasury report of infrastructure cost comparisons with
> the Netherlands suggested our costs were 12 – 15% higher than theirs. The
> Panorama programme on “Cost of the Railways” ventured to suggest that rail
> costs were 30% higher then in Europe, whilst my own cost comparisons
> indicate that for some projects in the Netherlands it is higher again
> (double on a comparative basis). When you consider that these projects will
> included quality provision to cater for much higher levels of cycling, along
> with integration with other modes, you have to ask the question whether we
> should be talking about costs in such a disaggregated manner. Even today,
> cycle facilities in major projects are often stuck on as an
> after-thought
> ..the consequence of disintegrated thinking. So, in truth,
> discussing about spend on cycling dis-aggregated from basic infrastructure
> spend is a meaningless and, ultimately, fruitless discussion.
>
>
>
> Over the last twenty or thirty years cycling in the UK has become an
> increasingly frustrating and scary experience, with many of the claimed
> improvements in truth just monuments to the failure of the planning and
> infrastructure establishments. In that same period I’ve been in a position
> to look hard at developments in thinking and doing in other countries
> (including North America) and the improvement their planners and engineers
> have achieved. There is no comparison and there has been little or no
> improvement here.
>
>
>
> And in that, it must be said, cycling’s own establishment has to shoulder
> some of the accountability.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> John Meudell
>
> C.Eng, MIMechE
>
> Research Associate, Swansea University
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
> <mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]>
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Jones
> Sent: 31 January 2012 14:34
> To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A request for help
>
>
>
> Chris
>
> <<How also are non-cyclists supposed to understand the details that make a
> Dutch-designed cycle paths work well? Would they not simply say that the
> unmaintained, unswept, bumpy pavement conversion with liberal ‘cyclists
> dismount’ signs are perfectly acceptable?>>
>
> I find that a rather patronising assumption. People who are not committed to
> cycling under the current system do not need a qualification in road and
> traffic engineering to be able to posit that they (or close others) wish to
> be kept away/protected from busy traffic whilst reaching vital destinations
> directly, safely and with dignity (i.e. humanely without recourse to speed
> or dressing up for battle). And they do not need a qualification to render
> the current offering wholly unacceptable vis-a-vis jumping in the car.
>
> <<I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who is prepared to campaign for a cycle
> path from x to y who isn’t a cyclist,>>
>
> This is the privilege we had as dedicated researchers on the UWAC project
> where we witnessed strong evidence that people (whether they are committed
> or potential practitioners or indeed are thinking about significant others
> cycling i.e. typically children, partner) WANT better conditions for cycling
> (and walking) even if they could not articulate that as eruditely as those
> supposedly purporting to represent the 'cycling community'.
>
> I would agree re Cycling England and Phillip Darnton. Sterling work. He
> should go down in the anals of trying to do something for cycling in England
> [with his hands tied]. Realistically then, perhaps we do not need to start
> from the position of 'every main road' but we could at least agree to put in
> place appropriate mechanisms in the form of statutory guidance and
> regulation with teeth (i.e. to Dutch design standards and laws to address
> power asymetry on the road as we suggested in the UWAC report) and perhaps
> start by making it incumbent on local authorities to implement a significant
> corridor within their jurisdiction to Dutch design standards matched by
> central government funding. We need an equivalent 'Traffic in Towns' moment,
> 'Cycling in Towns', perhaps rather than tinkering around the edges to ill
> effect.
>
> BTW - I'd like to draw your attention to a thoughtful post from my UWAC
> colleague Dave Horton on his Thinking About Cycling Blog
>
>
> Who is cycling
> <http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/who-is-cycling-for/>
> for?
>
>
> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/
>
> Best wishes
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 31 January 2012 13:42, Chris Peck <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Indeed Damien – the damage from that omission is already being felt. The
> draft Northern Ireland Active Travel Strategy cited UWAC saying:
>
>
>
> “to improve walking and cycling we need to listen to the majority who don’t
> already choose greener modes of transport rather than the minority who do.”
>
>
>
> ( <http://applications.drdni.gov.uk/publications/document.asp?docid=23517>
> http://applications.drdni.gov.uk/publications/document.asp?docid=23517 p 15)
>
>
>
> I’m not sure how a statement telling policy makers to ignore the views of
> existing cyclists and pedestrians is going to unlock political will and
> funding if the only people pushing for better facilities for cycling and
> walking are themselves existing committed cyclists and pedestrians. How also
> are non-cyclists supposed to understand the details that make a
> Dutch-designed cycle paths work well? Would they not simply say that the
> unmaintained, unswept, bumpy pavement conversion with liberal ‘cyclists
> dismount’ signs are perfectly acceptable?
>
>
>
> I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who is prepared to campaign for a cycle
> path from x to y who isn’t a cyclist, just as I, a non-driver, don’t
> campaign against my local council raising car parking charges or
> implementing residents’ parking. However, the latter campaigning topics
> contribute a great deal more to local councillors’ postbags than new cycle
> paths.
>
>
>
> As for funding, Tim’s suggestion that this lies with the stroke of a
> Ministerial pen is true, but that’s easier said than done. The final
> settlement for Cycling England (since abolished) gave it an annual budget of
> around £60m, or a little over £1 per person per year. That funding was
> extracted thanks mainly to some heroic lobbying by Phillip Darnton, but it’s
> chicken feed against the scale of the problem: to transform every major road
> and provide it with proper quality segregation (even after you’ve managed to
> obtain the political will etc) would likely be in the tens of billions. Not
> impossible, but not a realistic call on Government.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Christopher Peck
>
> Policy Co-ordinator
>
> CTC, the national cyclists' organisation
>
>
>
> Tel: 01483 238313
>
> Mob: 07951 213 554
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Damien O'Tuama
> Sent: 31 January 2012 12:20
>
>
> To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A request for help
>
>
>
> Hi Tim and Chris et al,
>
> Following the debate from Dublin here and much of it resonates with local
> discussions.
>
> I realise (from correspondence with Dave Horton) that the word "solely" was
> omitted inadvertently from the final UWAC report. A very unfortunate and
> unhelpful little omission, I must say, as committed cyclists through (for
> example here in Ireland) the Dublin Cycling Campaign have spent many years
> developing their ideas on how to make cities and streets bicycle friendly
> based on careful research and reasoning and that final UWAC wording is
> likely to be music to the ears of some policy-makers here who would much
> prefer not to listen to any reasoning from advocates challenging their
> thinking.
>
> When appending "segregation" with "[quality]" above, I really think we also
> always need to be appending "integration" with "[quality]" e.g. through
> pushing the arguments re safe (1.5m+) overtaking distances etc.
>
> Damien
>
>
>
>
>
> On 31 January 2012 11:41, Tim Jones < <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Chris
>
> The point that I am trying to make is nit picking claims by Meudell by
> arguing that the war in X (Rural A Roads) is more dangerous than Y (Minor
> Roads) whether based on 'objective' or subjective measures is somewhat of a
> distraction and perhaps reflects the malaise within the cycling advocacy
> community.
>
> UWAC - We made clear in the recommendations (somewhat controversially),
> "...do not base policies about walking and cycling [solely] on the views and
> experiences of existing committed cyclists and pedestrians."
>
> This could be a significant move towards unlocking political will and
> funding given the mixed messages that are received about infrastructure
> (i.e. integration v [quality] segregation) which has larged allowed the
> 'do-nothing' (or to put it another way, 'appear to do something' approach)
> to perpetuate over the last half century - but a unified message is
> beginning to emerge amongst the Cycle Embassy of Great Britain and London
> Cycling Campaign.
>
> Unfortunately in the UK the hard-line vehicular cycling principle
> (perpetuated by John Forester in the USA and John Franklin in the UK*)
> persists whilst the rest of northern Europe where most cycling gains are
> taking place rolls out purpose built cycle systems properly integrated into
> the transport system. And of course the funding to do so is down to the
> stroke of a Minister's pen - meanwhile the cycling advocacy world still
> squabbles about the 'expense' of building quality segregated infrastructure!
>
> Best wishes
>
> Tim
>
> *See John Pucher's tussle John Forester on this one
> <http://www.vtpi.org/puchertq2.pdf> http://www.vtpi.org/puchertq2.pdf
>
>
>
> On 31 January 2012 11:01, Chris Peck < <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Eh? Of course subjective safety is important, which is I appended the phrase
> ‘as well’, indicating that in this occasion the subjective feeling of danger
> which Gary experiences on rural A-roads is also backed up by the fact that
> it is in fact a significantly more dangerous place to cycle. I’m not saying
> the latter is more important than the former, rather I’m just putting some
> numbers to a qualitative judgment.
>
>
>
> There will be lots of people who find cycling on minor urban roads far too
> risky as well. Huge changes are required to shift those people’s
> perceptions. Many, but not all those changes are set out in the UWAC
> findings. What was distinctly lacking from that document was the means to
> achieve that ‘radical overhaul’, ie how to obtain the political will and
> funding. Still – we can’t expect everything from a single research project!
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Jones
> Sent: 31 January 2012 10:46
>
>
> To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A request for help
>
>
>
> Dear Chris and all
>
> Interesting use of the word 'objectively'. Subjective is 'real' enough to
> the 'subjects'. Of course people on this list will step forward and state,
> "that is really not my experience of cycling in London..." with implication
> that folk really just ought to get over it and try cycling to overcome their
> fears (and cycle training can help prepare for this!).
>
> I read an interesting analogy by Blogger Cyclinginfo (an adept racing and
> commuter cyclist) <http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/> http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/
> this morning paraphrasing Michael Hutchinson writing in Cycling Weekly a
> couple of weeks ago: "Cycle around Kings Cross, London, and you can feel
> like a Lancaster bomber on a low flying mission across occupied Europe –
> trying to remain unmoved by all the flack coming from every angle. It’s not
> a surprise American and London cyclists are the most likely to wear a
> helmet, fluorescent jacket et al. , even if the effect is purely
> psychological, you feel like you need some kind of protection."
>
> As our Understanding Walking and Cycling research based on extensive
> in-depth research across four cities outside of London made clear, we are
> kidding ourselves if we think that a democratic landscape of cycling will
> emerge out of the current transport system without radical overhaul. The key
> is to eradicate the war not to encourage the trembling troops to train to go
> into battle.
>
> Tim Jones
>
> On 31 January 2012 10:00, Chris Peck < <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> “This really is not my experience of cycling in London (UK), I'd suggest
> London (UK) is one of the more benign areas to cycle in in Britain hence
> some areas of the inner city with 10% modal share of cycling and rising.
> Cycling on rural A4 roads in Britain outwith built up areas can be far more
> intimidating.”
>
>
> and objectively more risky as well:
>
> * 313 deaths per billion kms cycled on rural A-roads last year.
>
> * 11 deaths per billion kms cycled on minor urban roads.
>
> (see:
> <http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/1110_CTC_Transcom_RSS-con-final.p
> df>
> http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/1110_CTC_Transcom_RSS-con-final.pd
> f, from RAS30018)
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of gary cummins
> Sent: 31 January 2012 09:40
> To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A request for help
>
>
>
> John Meudell said:
>
>
> On that particular point, I’d suggest making a clear distinction between the
> UK and Europe. My experience is that, if you can cycle confidently cycle
> around London without getting intimidated, run off the road or killed, you
> can survive anywhere!
>
>
>
>
> This really is not my experience of cycling in London (UK), I'd suggest
> London (UK) is one of the more benign areas to cycle in in Britain hence
> some areas of the inner city with 10% modal share of cycling and rising.
> Cycling on rural A4 roads in Britain outwith built up areas can be far more
> intimidating.
>
> Gary Cummins
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation provides a comprehensive
> range of services, advice, events, and protection for its members.
>
> CTC Charitable Trust, CTC's charity arm, works to promote cycling by raising
> public and political awareness of its health, social and environmental
> benefits, and by working with all communities to help realise those
> benefits.
>
> To find out more, to join or support CTC visit <http://www.ctc.org.uk>
> www.ctc.org.uk, or phone 0844 736 8451.
>
> Cyclists' Touring Club, a company limited by guarantee, registered in
> England number 25185.
>
> CTC Charitable Trust, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England
> number 5125969. Registered as a charity in England and Wales number 1104324
> and in Scotland number SCO38626
>
> Registered office: Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, GU2 9JX
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by CTC. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> <http://www.star.net.uk> http://www.star.net.uk
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> --
> Research Fellow
> Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
> & Department of Planning
> Faculty of Technology Design and Environment
> Oxford Brookes University
> Gipsy Lane Campus
> Oxford OX3 0BP
> Tel <tel:%2B44%20%280%291865%20483436> +44 (0)1865 483436
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
> <http://www.brookes.ac.uk/about/faculties/tde>
> http://www.brookes.ac.uk/about/faculties/tde
>
> EPSRC Understanding Walking and Cycling summary findings now available for
> download:
>
> <http://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/17bb3ed2-1209-b3e9-5357-614f329af72e
> /1/>
> http://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/17bb3ed2-1209-b3e9-5357-614f329af72e/
> 1/
>
> Quote: "“A society which measures man’s [sic] worth in terms of volume of
> publications accumulated is no less sick than one which measures his worth
> in terms of dollars amassed” (Stea 1969:1)."
>
>
>
> Stea D (1969) Positions, purposes, pragmatics: A journal of radical
> geography. Antipode 1(1):1–2
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation provides a comprehensive
> range of services, advice, events, and protection for its members.
>
> CTC Charitable Trust, CTC's charity arm, works to promote cycling by raising
> public and political awareness of its health, social and environmental
> benefits, and by working with all communities to help realise those
> benefits.
>
> To find out more, to join or support CTC visit <http://www.ctc.org.uk>
> www.ctc.org.uk, or phone 0844 736 8451.
>
> Cyclists' Touring Club, a company limited by guarantee, registered in
> England number 25185.
>
> CTC Charitable Trust, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England
> number 5125969. Registered as a charity in England and Wales number 1104324
> and in Scotland number SCO38626
>
> Registered office: Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, GU2 9JX
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by CTC. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> <http://www.star.net.uk> http://www.star.net.uk
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> --
> Research Fellow
> Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
> & Department of Planning
> Faculty of Technology Design and Environment
> Oxford Brookes University
> Gipsy Lane Campus
> Oxford OX3 0BP
> Tel <tel:%2B44%20%280%291865%20483436> +44 (0)1865 483436
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
> <http://www.brookes.ac.uk/about/faculties/tde>
> http://www.brookes.ac.uk/about/faculties/tde
>
> EPSRC Understanding Walking and Cycling summary findings now available for
> download:
>
> <http://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/17bb3ed2-1209-b3e9-5357-614f329af72e
> /1/>
> http://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/17bb3ed2-1209-b3e9-5357-614f329af72e/
> 1/
>
> Quote: "“A society which measures man’s [sic] worth in terms of volume of
> publications accumulated is no less sick than one which measures his worth
> in terms of dollars amassed” (Stea 1969:1)."
>
>
>
> Stea D (1969) Positions, purposes, pragmatics: A journal of radical
> geography. Antipode 1(1):1–2
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation provides a comprehensive
> range of services, advice, events, and protection for its members.
>
> CTC Charitable Trust, CTC's charity arm, works to promote cycling by raising
> public and political awareness of its health, social and environmental
> benefits, and by working with all communities to help realise those
> benefits.
>
> To find out more, to join or support CTC visit <http://www.ctc.org.uk>
> www.ctc.org.uk, or phone 0844 736 8451.
>
> Cyclists' Touring Club, a company limited by guarantee, registered in
> England number 25185.
>
> CTC Charitable Trust, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England
> number 5125969. Registered as a charity in England and Wales number 1104324
> and in Scotland number SCO38626
>
> Registered office: Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, GU2 9JX
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by CTC. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> <http://www.star.net.uk> http://www.star.net.uk
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> --
> Research Fellow
> Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
> & Department of Planning
> Faculty of Technology Design and Environment
> Oxford Brookes University
> Gipsy Lane Campus
> Oxford OX3 0BP
> Tel +44 (0)1865 483436
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.brookes.ac.uk/about/faculties/tde
>
> EPSRC Understanding Walking and Cycling summary findings now available for
> download:
> http://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/17bb3ed2-1209-b3e9-5357-614f329af72e/
> 1/
>
>
>
> Quote: "“A society which measures man’s [sic] worth in terms of volume of
> publications accumulated is no less sick than one which measures his worth
> in terms of dollars amassed” (Stea 1969:1)."
>
>
>
> Stea D (1969) Positions, purposes, pragmatics: A journal of radical
> geography. Antipode 1(1):1–2
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 18:59:36 +0000
> From: gary cummins <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: A request for help
>
>
> John, I'd still have to disagree with you. However, my statement mentioned Britain only, not Europe or anywhere else. I'd still say look at the figures, some parts of London easily have 10% as a modal share. Yes some bits are still dreadful to cycling in, but the removal of some of the big one way systems has led to real change to some pretty rough areas. Hoxton is now a London village when it was little more than a gyratory ten years ago. Compared some part os the UK I'd still say London is relatively benign. I'd agree with your views on Bloomsbury too. What seems to have come about in London is the change in behaviour (of all highway users) due by the sheer volume of cyclists there.
> I certainly don't think hazards are just perceptions, but can for some part be mitigated. I'd argue that little of this change though has been as a result of the real efforts of transport planners or engineers however.
> Gary Cummins
> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:55:30 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A request for help
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> Cooo….didn’t think I’d start this sort of debate. This could be fun. Let’s make this clear. I realise that there are cities in the UK more hazardous to cyclists health but, having cycled extensively in Europe, North America and the Far East over a period of 35 years, I stand by my statement that “If you can cycle confidently in London, you can cycle anywhere in the world…and stay alive!” Cyclists in any other UK city can take heart from the fact that, on that basis, they have an even greater chance of staying alive than their London based counterparts! Secondly, cycling in London can in no way be described benign. It was (reasonably) benign when I started regularly cycling there (or should that be here, ‘cos I do it so often) in the mid-80’s, with a bunch of people who were no way as confident or experienced cyclists as myself. I’ve lived and cycled in and around London since then and it has become ever more hazardous. It was probably at its worst in the mid 90’s pre-congestion charge, at a time when I was commuting from Dorking to Central London by bike a couple of times a week. Since then it hasn’t really got much better… the hazards have only changed. That is reflected in the significant rise in serious accidents involving cyclists in London…..though I suspect that objective evaluation would reveal the rise is, in part, the result of the general increase in cyclists on the road, reinforcing a view that cycling’s safety hasn’t improved in the capital, but the numbers exposed to the hazards of cycling in the capital have increased. On the other hand there’s also been an increase in the number of large vehicles in the city and a police force and public authority with little interest in objective investigation of the causes of accidents (I know, I’ve tried to report dangerous driving on a number of occasions, on one recent occasion an incident which took place in front of six police officers….and you’ve no chance). In practice there’s little objective, grounded research to determine causality or to guide safe design and enforcement. I totally agree with Tim’s comments that it’s only a few very experienced cyclists who think that the hazards aren’t real but only “perceptions”. Anyone who tried the “Scalextrics” designed facilities in Torrington Place/Tavistock Place and elsewhere will agree that cyclists have really only swapped one source of hazard for another. The worrying part is the acceptability of statements included in the Highway Code that “cyclists should use the cycle infrastructure if they feel it’s safe to do so”. If you are of the view that cycling safety is all about perceptions of safety, then there’s no such thing as unsafe infrastructure (and that applies not just to cycle infrastructure). That’s patently not true and, as someone who has spent a lifetime in seriously hazardous industries, talking down safety hazards in that way is irresponsible in the extreme. (On that basis I’d hope contributors would forgive me for my occasional tirades against the highways engineering establishment. In all my career, and all the countries I’ve worked in, I’ve never seen this level of attitude and aptitude deficiency in engineering for safety in capital facilities (which is what infrastructure is)) Thirdly, however, I disagree that Cycling England has actually contribute to improvements for cycling….even if, as suggested, its hands were tied. In truth Cycling England has only served as a distraction from addressing core problems, problems whose roots not only lie in the (lack of) quality in transport and spatial planning and infrastructure design and implementation, but also in the politicisation of safety for road users and convenience for cyclists and pedestrians. Comments by both Darnton and Grimshaw, since leaving Cycling England, beg the question “why did they bother”?. Had the great and the good stood back and evaluated the context within which their efforts would take place, then maybe they’d’ve taken a different and, probably, more effective position, and developed a different Terms of Reference. Either that or, as professionals whose hands are being tied, just walked away. Instead they lobbied that (only) they knew how to implement cycle friendly policies and infrastructure (yeah, right!) and fell into the politicians standard trap….of being bought off without any long term commitment to change and policy implementation. I’d argue that Cycling England efforts were limited by the (self defined) lack of remit in three areas; research into cycling and it’s interaction with other modes, provisions for cycling and cyclists within the overall spatial and transport planning frameworks, and into the cycling safety dimension. In fact the writing was on the wall from day one, CE weren’t going to listen to anyone except their own voices. I recall attending the Cycle Show in Excel, some months after the setting up of Cycling England, at which CE had taken a stand. Except there was no-one on it except some plinths with computer screens and a looped glossy ad….and no people. Whilst they may have shown up for the PR photo call on press day, the members clearly weren’t going to hang around to talk to the people who were paying their wages and/or expenses. (Obviously todays senior bankers have been taking lessons from CE board members…..”our policy is not to talk to the people who pay us wages to act in their best interests”. ) Since the demise of Cycling England Darnton has commented he was shocked at the attitude of some local authorities on the subject of cycling….yet CE continued to plough on without much in the way of change, or even impact, in that dimension being apparent. And, since retiring, Grimshaw has made similar comments about the quality of cycling infrastructure (only repeating comments made some years earlier by one of his Technical Directors, who left shortly after making his comments, only five months after joining Sustrans). Since then most of the infrastructure we have seen (CE or otherwise) continues to be poorly engineered, the “soft” schemes poorly thought through and structured, and all questionable in terms of effectiveness in the long term. In truth all that has happened is that time and opportunities have been wasted for, in truth, a paltry sum of money. Were transport planners and engineers to take an integrated, safety conscience and cost effective approach to major, and minor, infrastructure projects, and integrate the provisions for cyclists (and other modes) into their knowledge base and thought processes, even those amounts of money would not be necessary. Why is it that CE didn’t take this on board? I’d note a recent Treasury report of infrastructure cost comparisons with the Netherlands suggested our costs were 12 – 15% higher than theirs. The Panorama programme on “Cost of the Railways” ventured to suggest that rail costs were 30% higher then in Europe, whilst my own cost comparisons indicate that for some projects in the Netherlands it is higher again (double on a comparative basis). When you consider that these projects will included quality provision to cater for much higher levels of cycling, along with integration with other modes, you have to ask the question whether we should be talking about costs in such a disaggregated manner. Even today, cycle facilities in major projects are often stuck on as an after-thought…..the consequence of disintegrated thinking. So, in truth, discussing about spend on cycling dis-aggregated from basic infrastructure spend is a meaningless and, ultimately, fruitless discussion. Over the last twenty or thirty years cycling in the UK has become an increasingly frustrating and scary experience, with many of the claimed improvements in truth just monuments to the failure of the planning and infrastructure establishments. In that same period I’ve been in a position to look hard at developments in thinking and doing in other countries (including North America) and the improvement their planners and engineers have achieved. There is no comparison and there has been little or no improvement here. And in that, it must be said, cycling’s own establishment has to shoulder some of the accountability. Cheers John MeudellC.Eng, MIMechEResearch Associate, Swansea University From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Jones
> Sent: 31 January 2012 14:34
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A request for help Chris
>
> <<How also are non-cyclists supposed to understand the details that make a Dutch-designed cycle paths work well? Would they not simply say that the unmaintained, unswept, bumpy pavement conversion with liberal ‘cyclists dismount’ signs are perfectly acceptable?>>
>
> I find that a rather patronising assumption. People who are not committed to cycling under the current system do not need a qualification in road and traffic engineering to be able to posit that they (or close others) wish to be kept away/protected from busy traffic whilst reaching vital destinations directly, safely and with dignity (i.e. humanely without recourse to speed or dressing up for battle). And they do not need a qualification to render the current offering wholly unacceptable vis-a-vis jumping in the car.
>
> <<I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who is prepared to campaign for a cycle path from x to y who isn’t a cyclist,>>
>
> This is the privilege we had as dedicated researchers on the UWAC project where we witnessed strong evidence that people (whether they are committed or potential practitioners or indeed are thinking about significant others cycling i.e. typically children, partner) WANT better conditions for cycling (and walking) even if they could not articulate that as eruditely as those supposedly purporting to represent the 'cycling community'.
>
> I would agree re Cycling England and Phillip Darnton. Sterling work. He should go down in the anals of trying to do something for cycling in England [with his hands tied]. Realistically then, perhaps we do not need to start from the position of 'every main road' but we could at least agree to put in place appropriate mechanisms in the form of statutory guidance and regulation with teeth (i.e. to Dutch design standards and laws to address power asymetry on the road as we suggested in the UWAC report) and perhaps start by making it incumbent on local authorities to implement a significant corridor within their jurisdiction to Dutch design standards matched by central government funding. We need an equivalent 'Traffic in Towns' moment, 'Cycling in Towns', perhaps rather than tinkering around the edges to ill effect.
>
> BTW - I'd like to draw your attention to a thoughtful post from my UWAC colleague Dave Horton on his Thinking About Cycling Blog Who is cycling for?http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/
>
> Best wishes
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 31 January 2012 13:42, Chris Peck <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Indeed Damien – the damage from that omission is already being felt. The draft Northern Ireland Active Travel Strategy cited UWAC saying: “to improve walking and cycling we need to listen to the majority who don’t already choose greener modes of transport rather than the minority who do.” (http://applications.drdni.gov.uk/publications/document.asp?docid=23517 p 15) I’m not sure how a statement telling policy makers to ignore the views of existing cyclists and pedestrians is going to unlock political will and funding if the only people pushing for better facilities for cycling and walking are themselves existing committed cyclists and pedestrians. How also are non-cyclists supposed to understand the details that make a Dutch-designed cycle paths work well? Would they not simply say that the unmaintained, unswept, bumpy pavement conversion with liberal ‘cyclists dismount’ signs are perfectly acceptable? I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who is prepared to campaign for a cycle path from x to y who isn’t a cyclist, just as I, a non-driver, don’t campaign against my local council raising car parking charges or implementing residents’ parking. However, the latter campaigning topics contribute a great deal more to local councillors’ postbags than new cycle paths. As for funding, Tim’s suggestion that this lies with the stroke of a Ministerial pen is true, but that’s easier said than done. The final settlement for Cycling England (since abolished) gave it an annual budget of around £60m, or a little over £1 per person per year. That funding was extracted thanks mainly to some heroic lobbying by Phillip Darnton, but it’s chicken feed against the scale of the problem: to transform every major road and provide it with proper quality segregation (even after you’ve managed to obtain the political will etc) would likely be in the tens of billions. Not impossible, but not a realistic call on Government. Chris Christopher PeckPolicy Co-ordinatorCTC, the national cyclists' organisation Tel: 01483 238313Mob: 07951 213 554From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Damien O'Tuama
> Sent: 31 January 2012 12:20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A request for help Hi Tim and Chris et al,
>
> Following the debate from Dublin here and much of it resonates with local discussions.
>
> I realise (from correspondence with Dave Horton) that the word "solely" was omitted inadvertently from the final UWAC report. A very unfortunate and unhelpful little omission, I must say, as committed cyclists through (for example here in Ireland) the Dublin Cycling Campaign have spent many years developing their ideas on how to make cities and streets bicycle friendly based on careful research and reasoning and that final UWAC wording is likely to be music to the ears of some policy-makers here who would much prefer not to listen to any reasoning from advocates challenging their thinking.
>
> When appending "segregation" with "[quality]" above, I really think we also always need to be appending "integration" with "[quality]" e.g. through pushing the arguments re safe (1.5m+) overtaking distances etc.
>
> Damien
>
>
>
> On 31 January 2012 11:41, Tim Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Chris
>
> The point that I am trying to make is nit picking claims by Meudell by arguing that the war in X (Rural A Roads) is more dangerous than Y (Minor Roads) whether based on 'objective' or subjective measures is somewhat of a distraction and perhaps reflects the malaise within the cycling advocacy community.
>
> UWAC - We made clear in the recommendations (somewhat controversially), "...do not base policies about walking and cycling [solely] on the views and experiences of existing committed cyclists and pedestrians."
>
> This could be a significant move towards unlocking political will and funding given the mixed messages that are received about infrastructure (i.e. integration v [quality] segregation) which has larged allowed the 'do-nothing' (or to put it another way, 'appear to do something' approach) to perpetuate over the last half century - but a unified message is beginning to emerge amongst the Cycle Embassy of Great Britain and London Cycling Campaign.
>
> Unfortunately in the UK the hard-line vehicular cycling principle (perpetuated by John Forester in the USA and John Franklin in the UK*) persists whilst the rest of northern Europe where most cycling gains are taking place rolls out purpose built cycle systems properly integrated into the transport system. And of course the funding to do so is down to the stroke of a Minister's pen - meanwhile the cycling advocacy world still squabbles about the 'expense' of building quality segregated infrastructure!
>
> Best wishes
>
> Tim
>
> *See John Pucher's tussle John Forester on this one http://www.vtpi.org/puchertq2.pdf On 31 January 2012 11:01, Chris Peck <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Eh? Of course subjective safety is important, which is I appended the phrase ‘as well’, indicating that in this occasion the subjective feeling of danger which Gary experiences on rural A-roads is also backed up by the fact that it is in fact a significantly more dangerous place to cycle. I’m not saying the latter is more important than the former, rather I’m just putting some numbers to a qualitative judgment. There will be lots of people who find cycling on minor urban roads far too risky as well. Huge changes are required to shift those people’s perceptions. Many, but not all those changes are set out in the UWAC findings. What was distinctly lacking from that document was the means to achieve that ‘radical overhaul’, ie how to obtain the political will and funding. Still – we can’t expect everything from a single research project! From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Jones
> Sent: 31 January 2012 10:46
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A request for help Dear Chris and all
>
> Interesting use of the word 'objectively'. Subjective is 'real' enough to the 'subjects'. Of course people on this list will step forward and state, "that is really not my experience of cycling in London..." with implication that folk really just ought to get over it and try cycling to overcome their fears (and cycle training can help prepare for this!).
>
> I read an interesting analogy by Blogger Cyclinginfo (an adept racing and commuter cyclist) http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/ this morning paraphrasing Michael Hutchinson writing in Cycling Weekly a couple of weeks ago: "Cycle around Kings Cross, London, and you can feel like a Lancaster bomber on a low flying mission across occupied Europe – trying to remain unmoved by all the flack coming from every angle. It’s not a surprise American and London cyclists are the most likely to wear a helmet, fluorescent jacket et al. , even if the effect is purely psychological, you feel like you need some kind of protection."
>
> As our Understanding Walking and Cycling research based on extensive in-depth research across four cities outside of London made clear, we are kidding ourselves if we think that a democratic landscape of cycling will emerge out of the current transport system without radical overhaul. The key is to eradicate the war not to encourage the trembling troops to train to go into battle.
>
> Tim JonesOn 31 January 2012 10:00, Chris Peck <[log in to unmask]> wrote:“This really is not my experience of cycling in London (UK), I'd suggest London (UK) is one of the more benign areas to cycle in in Britain hence some areas of the inner city with 10% modal share of cycling and rising. Cycling on rural A4 roads in Britain outwith built up areas can be far more intimidating.”… and objectively more risky as well:* 313 deaths per billion kms cycled on rural A-roads last year. * 11 deaths per billion kms cycled on minor urban roads. (see: http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/1110_CTC_Transcom_RSS-con-final.pdf, from RAS30018) From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of gary cummins
> Sent: 31 January 2012 09:40
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A request for help John Meudell said:
> On that particular point, I’d suggest making a clear distinction between the UK and Europe. My experience is that, if you can cycle confidently cycle around London without getting intimidated, run off the road or killed, you can survive anywhere!
> This really is not my experience of cycling in London (UK), I'd suggest London (UK) is one of the more benign areas to cycle in in Britain hence some areas of the inner city with 10% modal share of cycling and rising. Cycling on rural A4 roads in Britain outwith built up areas can be far more intimidating.Gary Cummins________________________________________________________________________
> CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation provides a comprehensive range of services, advice, events, and protection for its members.
>
> CTC Charitable Trust, CTC's charity arm, works to promote cycling by raising public and political awareness of its health, social and environmental benefits, and by working with all communities to help realise those benefits.
>
> To find out more, to join or support CTC visit www.ctc.org.uk, or phone 0844 736 8451.
>
> Cyclists' Touring Club, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England number 25185.
>
> CTC Charitable Trust, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England number 5125969. Registered as a charity in England and Wales number 1104324 and in Scotland number SCO38626
>
> Registered office: Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, GU2 9JX
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by CTC. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> Research Fellow
> Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
> & Department of Planning
> Faculty of Technology Design and Environment
> Oxford Brookes University
> Gipsy Lane Campus
> Oxford OX3 0BP
> Tel +44 (0)1865 483436
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.brookes.ac.uk/about/faculties/tde
>
> EPSRC Understanding Walking and Cycling summary findings now available for download:
> http://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/17bb3ed2-1209-b3e9-5357-614f329af72e/1/Quote: "“A society which measures man’s [sic] worth in terms of volume of publications accumulated is no less sick than one which measures his worth in terms of dollars amassed” (Stea 1969:1)." Stea D (1969) Positions, purposes, pragmatics: A journal of radical geography. Antipode 1(1):1–2 ________________________________________________________________________
> CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation provides a comprehensive range of services, advice, events, and protection for its members.
>
> CTC Charitable Trust, CTC's charity arm, works to promote cycling by raising public and political awareness of its health, social and environmental benefits, and by working with all communities to help realise those benefits.
>
> To find out more, to join or support CTC visit www.ctc.org.uk, or phone 0844 736 8451.
>
> Cyclists' Touring Club, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England number 25185.
>
> CTC Charitable Trust, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England number 5125969. Registered as a charity in England and Wales number 1104324 and in Scotland number SCO38626
>
> Registered office: Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, GU2 9JX
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by CTC. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> Research Fellow
> Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
> & Department of Planning
> Faculty of Technology Design and Environment
> Oxford Brookes University
> Gipsy Lane Campus
> Oxford OX3 0BP
> Tel +44 (0)1865 483436
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.brookes.ac.uk/about/faculties/tde
>
> EPSRC Understanding Walking and Cycling summary findings now available for download:
> http://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/17bb3ed2-1209-b3e9-5357-614f329af72e/1/Quote: "“A society which measures man’s [sic] worth in terms of volume of publications accumulated is no less sick than one which measures his worth in terms of dollars amassed” (Stea 1969:1)." Stea D (1969) Positions, purposes, pragmatics: A journal of radical geography. Antipode 1(1):1–2 ________________________________________________________________________
> CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation provides a comprehensive range of services, advice, events, and protection for its members.
>
> CTC Charitable Trust, CTC's charity arm, works to promote cycling by raising public and political awareness of its health, social and environmental benefits, and by working with all communities to help realise those benefits.
>
> To find out more, to join or support CTC visit www.ctc.org.uk, or phone 0844 736 8451.
>
> Cyclists' Touring Club, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England number 25185.
>
> CTC Charitable Trust, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England number 5125969. Registered as a charity in England and Wales number 1104324 and in Scotland number SCO38626
>
> Registered office: Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, GU2 9JX
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by CTC. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> Research Fellow
> Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
> & Department of Planning
> Faculty of Technology Design and Environment
> Oxford Brookes University
> Gipsy Lane Campus
> Oxford OX3 0BP
> Tel +44 (0)1865 483436
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.brookes.ac.uk/about/faculties/tde
>
> EPSRC Understanding Walking and Cycling summary findings now available for download:
> http://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/17bb3ed2-1209-b3e9-5357-614f329af72e/1/
>
> Quote: "“A society which measures man’s [sic] worth in terms of volume of publications accumulated is no less sick than one which measures his worth in terms of dollars amassed” (Stea 1969:1)." Stea D (1969) Positions, purposes, pragmatics: A journal of radical geography. Antipode 1(1):1–2
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:58:24 -0000
> From: "Oddy, Nicholas" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: A request for help[Scanned-Clean]
>
> What you have is the same problem that beset the high bicycle, fine when
> you are on it, but it looks very dangerous...a long way to fall. There
> was no solution, but the riders who were attracted to the machine did
> not really want one. I'd suggest that many confident urban and A-road
> cyclists rather enjoy their elite do-or-die status and are not that
> worried about increasing the numbers.
>
>
>
> Nicholas Oddy
>
>
>
> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Jones
> Sent: 31 January 2012 10:46
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A request for help[Scanned-Clean]
>
>
>
> Dear Chris and all
>
> Interesting use of the word 'objectively'. Subjective is 'real' enough
> to the 'subjects'. Of course people on this list will step forward and
> state, "that is really not my experience of cycling in London..." with
> implication that folk really just ought to get over it and try cycling
> to overcome their fears (and cycle training can help prepare for this!).
>
> I read an interesting analogy by Blogger Cyclinginfo (an adept racing
> and commuter cyclist) http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/ this morning
> paraphrasing Michael Hutchinson writing in Cycling Weekly a couple of
> weeks ago: "Cycle around Kings Cross, London, and you can feel like a
> Lancaster bomber on a low flying mission across occupied Europe - trying
> to remain unmoved by all the flack coming from every angle. It's not a
> surprise American and London cyclists are the most likely to wear a
> helmet, fluorescent jacket et al. , even if the effect is purely
> psychological, you feel like you need some kind of protection."
>
> As our Understanding Walking and Cycling research based on extensive
> in-depth research across four cities outside of London made clear, we
> are kidding ourselves if we think that a democratic landscape of cycling
> will emerge out of the current transport system without radical
> overhaul. The key is to eradicate the war not to encourage the trembling
> troops to train to go into battle.
>
> Tim Jones
>
> On 31 January 2012 10:00, Chris Peck <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> "This really is not my experience of cycling in London (UK), I'd suggest
> London (UK) is one of the more benign areas to cycle in in Britain hence
> some areas of the inner city with 10% modal share of cycling and rising.
> Cycling on rural A4 roads in Britain outwith built up areas can be far
> more intimidating."
>
> ... and objectively more risky as well:
>
> * 313 deaths per billion kms cycled on rural A-roads last year.
>
> * 11 deaths per billion kms cycled on minor urban roads.
>
> (see:
> http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/1110_CTC_Transcom_RSS-con-fina
> l.pdf, from RAS30018)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of gary cummins
> Sent: 31 January 2012 09:40
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A request for help
>
>
>
> John Meudell said:
>
>
> On that particular point, I'd suggest making a clear distinction between
> the UK and Europe. My experience is that, if you can cycle confidently
> cycle around London without getting intimidated, run off the road or
> killed, you can survive anywhere!
>
>
>
>
> This really is not my experience of cycling in London (UK), I'd suggest
> London (UK) is one of the more benign areas to cycle in in Britain hence
> some areas of the inner city with 10% modal share of cycling and rising.
> Cycling on rural A4 roads in Britain outwith built up areas can be far
> more intimidating.
>
> Gary Cummins
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation provides a comprehensive
> range of services, advice, events, and protection for its members.
>
> CTC Charitable Trust, CTC's charity arm, works to promote cycling by
> raising public and political awareness of its health, social and
> environmental benefits, and by working with all communities to help
> realise those benefits.
>
> To find out more, to join or support CTC visit www.ctc.org.uk, or phone
> 0844 736 8451.
>
> Cyclists' Touring Club, a company limited by guarantee, registered in
> England number 25185.
>
> CTC Charitable Trust, a company limited by guarantee, registered in
> England number 5125969. Registered as a charity in England and Wales
> number 1104324 and in Scotland number SCO38626
>
> Registered office: Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, GU2 9JX
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by CTC. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> --
> Research Fellow
> Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
> & Department of Planning
> Faculty of Technology Design and Environment
> Oxford Brookes University
> Gipsy Lane Campus
> Oxford OX3 0BP
> Tel +44 (0)1865 483436
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.brookes.ac.uk/about/faculties/tde
>
> EPSRC Understanding Walking and Cycling summary findings now available
> for download:
> http://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/17bb3ed2-1209-b3e9-5357-614f329af
> 72e/1/
>
>
>
> Quote: ""A society which measures man's [sic] worth in terms of volume
> of publications accumulated is no less sick than one which measures his
> worth in terms of dollars amassed" (Stea 1969:1)."
>
>
>
> Stea D (1969) Positions, purposes, pragmatics: A journal of radical
> geography. Antipode 1(1):1-2
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 21:45:29 +0000
> From: gary cummins <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: A request for help[Scanned-Clean]
>
>
> Come on Nicholas, do you really believe that the active participants among the 10,000 plus member of the London Cycling Campaign join, pay their £30 plus fee and spend weekends running stalls at civic events, volunteering at repair workshops and leading recreational easy rides NOT to increase the numbers cycling?
> In all my time living in and cycling around London I never encountered the type you describe above. I did not hang about with couriers I admit, but my fellow cyclists were really in for the transport, not a lifestyle or sport, simply a way to get about.
> Gary Cummins
>
> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:58:24 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A request for help[Scanned-Clean]
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What you have is the same problem that beset the high bicycle,
> fine when you are on it, but it looks very dangerous…a long way to fall.
> There was no solution, but the riders who were attracted to the machine did not
> really want one. I’d suggest that many confident urban and A-road cyclists
> rather enjoy their elite do-or-die status and are not that worried about
> increasing the numbers.
>
>
>
> Nicholas Oddy
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Cycling and Society
> Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Tim Jones
>
> Sent: 31 January 2012 10:46
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Subject: Re: A request for help[Scanned-Clean]
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Chris and all
>
>
>
> Interesting use of the word 'objectively'. Subjective is 'real' enough to the
> 'subjects'. Of course people on this list will step forward and state,
> "that is really not my experience of cycling in London..." with
> implication that folk really just ought to get over it and try cycling to
> overcome their fears (and cycle training can help prepare for this!).
>
>
>
> I read an interesting analogy by Blogger Cyclinginfo (an adept racing and
> commuter cyclist) http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/
> this morning paraphrasing Michael Hutchinson writing in Cycling Weekly a couple
> of weeks ago: "Cycle around Kings Cross, London, and you can feel like a
> Lancaster bomber on a low flying mission across occupied Europe – trying
> to remain unmoved by all the flack coming from every angle. It’s not a
> surprise American and London cyclists are the most likely to wear a
> helmet, fluorescent jacket et al. , even if the effect is purely
> psychological, you feel like you need some kind of protection."
>
>
>
> As our Understanding Walking and Cycling research based on extensive in-depth
> research across four cities outside of London made clear, we are kidding
> ourselves if we think that a democratic landscape of cycling will emerge out of
> the current transport system without radical overhaul. The key is to eradicate
> the war not to encourage the trembling troops to train to go into battle.
>
>
>
> Tim Jones
>
>
>
> On 31 January 2012 10:00, Chris Peck <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> “This really is not
> my experience of cycling in London (UK), I'd suggest London (UK) is one of
> the more benign areas to cycle in in Britain hence some areas of the inner city
> with 10% modal share of cycling and rising. Cycling on rural A4 roads in
> Britain outwith built up areas can be far more intimidating.”
>
> … and
> objectively more risky as well:
>
> * 313 deaths per
> billion kms cycled on rural A-roads last year.
>
> * 11 deaths per
> billion kms cycled on minor urban roads.
>
> (see: http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/1110_CTC_Transcom_RSS-con-final.pdf,
> from RAS30018)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Cycling and Society
> Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of gary cummins
>
> Sent: 31 January 2012 09:40
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Subject: Re: A request for help
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Meudell said:
>
>
>
> On that particular
> point, I’d suggest making a clear distinction between the UK and
> Europe. My experience is that, if you can cycle confidently cycle around
> London without getting intimidated, run off the road or killed, you can survive
> anywhere!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This really is not
> my experience of cycling in London (UK), I'd suggest London (UK) is one of
> the more benign areas to cycle in in Britain hence some areas of the inner city
> with 10% modal share of cycling and rising. Cycling on rural A4 roads in
> Britain outwith built up areas can be far more intimidating.
>
> Gary Cummins
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation provides a comprehensive range
> of services, advice, events, and protection for its members.
>
>
>
> CTC Charitable Trust, CTC's charity arm, works to promote cycling by raising
> public and political awareness of its health, social and environmental
> benefits, and by working with all communities to help realise those benefits.
>
>
>
> To find out more, to join or support CTC visit www.ctc.org.uk, or phone 0844 736 8451.
>
>
>
> Cyclists' Touring Club, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England
> number 25185.
>
>
>
> CTC Charitable Trust, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England
> number 5125969. Registered as a charity in England and Wales number 1104324 and
> in Scotland number SCO38626
>
>
>
> Registered office: Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, GU2 9JX
>
>
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by CTC. The
>
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Research Fellow
>
> Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
>
> & Department of Planning
>
> Faculty of Technology Design and Environment
>
> Oxford Brookes University
>
> Gipsy Lane Campus
>
> Oxford OX3 0BP
>
> Tel +44 (0)1865 483436
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> http://www.brookes.ac.uk/about/faculties/tde
>
>
>
> EPSRC Understanding Walking and Cycling summary findings now available for
> download:
>
> http://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/17bb3ed2-1209-b3e9-5357-614f329af72e/1/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quote: "“A
> society which measures man’s [sic] worth in terms of volume of
> publications accumulated is no less sick than one which measures his worth in
> terms of dollars amassed” (Stea 1969:1)."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Stea D (1969) Positions, purposes, pragmatics: A
> journal of radical geography. Antipode 1(1):1–2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Digest - 31 Jan 2012 to 1 Feb 2012 (#2012-13)
> ************************************************************************
> ____________________________________________________________
> Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
> systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses
|
