tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864052595440250048.post4088387692491690765..comments2024-02-25T08:36:14.759+00:00Comments on Keep Pushing Those Pedals: What is the problem?Jmehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18078208384599353066noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864052595440250048.post-11905951261918193712012-11-02T08:51:32.174+00:002012-11-02T08:51:32.174+00:00Piecemeal aptly describes the provision for cyclin...Piecemeal aptly describes the provision for cycling in Cambridge that's for sure...<br /><br />Mind you the everyday politics and budgets associated with strategic routes are not always that easy - the <a href="http://www.camcycle.org.uk/vision2016/chisholmtrail.html" rel="nofollow">The Chisholm Trail</a> has/is requiring a lot of effort from the Cambridge Cycling Campaign.Jmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18078208384599353066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864052595440250048.post-19354726559455327752012-11-01T12:43:17.976+00:002012-11-01T12:43:17.976+00:00Hi Jamie, I see what you mean: more cycling in tow...Hi Jamie, I see what you mean: more cycling in towns and cities - fewer journeys under five miles made by car - better quality of the urban environment - happier, healthier population. <br /><br />If that is the 'end', a strategic network of high quality routes is the 'means' to that end. Given that your philosophy of life is summed up, in part, by the maxim, "structure provides a framework to push and experiment", it is not so much of a surprise that you would agree with this.<br /><br />Introducing a cycle network so that if functions, albeit at a minimum level, would not be opposed by the motoring lobby, nor by those who resist change. All of the opposition would come from within the cycling community. And yet, strange to tell, <i>Cycling: the way ahead</i> regards this approach as "a prudent course to follow." It's the tried and tested method, it comes highly recommended, and yet it is routinely ignored.<br /><br />I was recently told that, whilst a strategic plan is agreeable, in Britain we don't do things that way: "We do things piecemeal in practice. Look what happened when Wren tried to rebuild London compared to Haussmann in Paris." This is as good a reason as any that I have heard not to plan, study and then introduce a strategic network of cycle routes (as a sort of progenitor to a quality network). <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06078005892204789394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864052595440250048.post-55974711687144043252012-11-01T10:04:40.831+00:002012-11-01T10:04:40.831+00:00Hi Tom,
Sorry, I was a bit unclear there. What I ...Hi Tom,<br /><br />Sorry, I was a bit unclear there. What I meant is that I reckon the overall goal is to get more people cycling (and fewer people using motor cars). I am not sure that cyclists are in agreement about how we might do that or what an acceptable level of quality might be for a strategic network. Over the years I have changed from viewing segregated cycle routes as unnecessary to now fully supporting them. (I see a strategic cycling network as a means to an end to deliver a healthier, happier and more pleasant place to live.)<br /><br />There are also issues of cost and fitting a decent cycle network into a road system designed for motor traffic by transport experts focused on motor traffic flow. Look at the fixation on cycling helmets and high-vis in much official literature in the UK, cycling can be inherently safe - look at the Dutch levels of helmet wearing/accidents - an existence proof that cycling safety should be inherent in the network.<br /><br />---JamieJmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18078208384599353066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864052595440250048.post-35369739004785675672012-11-01T08:41:12.366+00:002012-11-01T08:41:12.366+00:00We do agree on what we are trying to achieve? But ...We do agree on what we are trying to achieve? But we don't agree how to get there?<br /><br />If the thing that we want to achieve is a strategic network of routes that look really attractive to cycle on, as David Arditti has suggested, then why is there no town or city in the country that has even a strategic network, never mind one that is really attractive to cycle on?<br /><br />Perhaps you're right to say that even if we were to agree on how to get what we would like, there would still be resistance; but it would be disparate, and not really very effective: cyclists are their own worst enemies.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06078005892204789394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864052595440250048.post-66833486679474175032012-10-31T21:40:09.364+00:002012-10-31T21:40:09.364+00:00To clarify I think we don't agree on how to ac...To clarify I think we don't agree on how to achieve our goals rather than on what the goal might be. The lack of agreement ranges from segregation or not, to how to lobby for the changes.<br /><br />However even if we were to agree I reckon we would still get resistance from both the motoring lobby and those who resist change.<br /><br />Mind you I also think that the situation will have to change as the cost of energy will continue to rise along with the economic and political implications behind its importation.Jmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18078208384599353066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864052595440250048.post-87792362632106577952012-10-31T21:04:30.392+00:002012-10-31T21:04:30.392+00:00Interesting, Jme, that in your blog you ask whethe...Interesting, Jme, that in your blog you ask whether or not we (advocates of mass cycling) agree on what we are trying to achieve. (By implication, the answer is no.) But in your comment above, it's the motor lobby that is hindering the development of an amenable cycling environment.<br /><br />If cycling advocates were united on the fundamentals, beginning with the not unreasonable demand to introduce a functioning cycle network, do you honestly believe that the motor lobby would put up any resistance at all?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06078005892204789394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864052595440250048.post-867495114455173082012-10-31T09:35:16.068+00:002012-10-31T09:35:16.068+00:00Yes I have read Freewheeler's latest post and ...Yes I have read Freewheeler's latest post and as you say I agree with it and your preference for segregated cycle track routes. <br /><br />So why isn't it happening? I fear that the view that the motor vehicle represents progress over the bicycle is so entrenched that such an approach is considered unthinkable as it would move motor vehicles down the pecking order - then how would we proclaim our status to our fellow citizens!Jmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18078208384599353066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864052595440250048.post-84509750555094941342012-10-30T21:26:48.489+00:002012-10-30T21:26:48.489+00:00Excellent stuff, Jme. I really like the way you ha...Excellent stuff, Jme. I really like the way you have expanded on the bloodstream analogy. <br /><br />Have you read <a href="http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/where-go-dutch-is-going-nowhere-case-of.html" rel="nofollow">Freewheeler's latest blog</a> yet? He writes: "A genuine Cycle Action Plan should, to my mind, have two basic features. First and foremost it needs to build a network of primary segregated cycle track routes across the [city]; secondly it would close all residential areas to rat-running."<br /><br />Freewheeler explains that these primary routes would be "safe, convenient, attractive segregated cycling routes (which obviously would require priority over all side roads and dedicated cycling-only green phases at major junctions)." <br /><br />I wholeheartedly accept this, and given what you have written, I would think that you do too. The question is, how do we get there?<br /><br />The most pragmatic way forward is expressed in an EU publication entitled <i>Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities</i>. The article published on the Movement for Liveable London website is based heavily on the ideas contained within this handbook.<br /><br />The essential thing is take those first steps towards the development of "a network of primary segregated cycle track routes". That means planning the network (on a map) and then getting out on the ground and looking at the feasibility of this plan. What would you need to do in order to get the network up and running? What would you want the routes on this network to look like in an ideal world? <br /><br />My preference is for segregated two-way cycle tracks, as in <a href="http://aseasyasridingabike.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/dscn9320.jpg" rel="nofollow">this example</a> from AsEasyAsRiding. (This sort of infrastructure can accommodate up to 14,000 bikes an hour.) But however you want your cycle network to look, it's important that there is a timetable in place, otherwise things can easily drift.<br /><br />In order to get the network up and running, it may be necessary to implement a number of priority interventions (even if these are just interim measures), but this done, no more delays, get the network up and running.<br /><br />In the same way that, if you decide to build a house, once the plans have been drawn up and construction work begun, you would lay the foundations all at once, so you would also introduce the network all in one go. According to <i>Cycling: the way ahead</i>, this is "a prudent course to follow." <br /><br />Once the network has been introduced, it's just a question then of developing the network according to the timetable. Obviously the locally-elected politicians need to bring the public along with them, but in truth, the public are generally receptive to initiatives such as this, particularly if it is properly explained to them.bikemapperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16902775699101288384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864052595440250048.post-50997520636395104972012-10-30T09:07:24.164+00:002012-10-30T09:07:24.164+00:00One of my concerns is that cycling is not really t...One of my concerns is that cycling is not really taken seriously as a mode of transport. Hence my interest in your approach - which takes a network view and so can promote discussion about what is required.<br /><br />We cyclists often stumble on the question of what might make a route "attractive". Indeed if we are to attract more people to use cycling as a mode of transport then we need to know their answers. Depending upon what type of cycling I am doing then my answers would differ. However I do come back to whether one problem is that cycling is considered a leisure activity rather than a transport activity. To be attractive as a means of transport cycling routes need to be perceived as efficient and safe.<br /><br />To be efficient then cycle paths need to be direct and have priority over other modes of transport. To be perceived as safe then there needs to be more segregation.<br /><br />So I agree that there needs to be a strategic network of routes, that take into account the areas of travel. For instance in the case of Cambridge both the Science Park near Milton and the Addenbrooke's site would seem to be important destinations. <br /><br />To use the bloodstream analogy - then a strategic network needs to provide appropriate flow to the important "organs" of a city (such as places of work and education). I would consider one important goal of a strategic network would be to get a significant modal shift from cars to cycles for transport to and from schools. Safety would an important factor and given schools can have 500 - 1,000 plus pupils (here in Cambridge) then the routes would also have to be capable of supporting a reasonable flow.<br /><br />The question is whether there is the political appetite, here in Cambridge attempts to make it easier for pupils to cycle to school have been met with opposition because it might take away free transport. (Milton to Impington, Oakington to Impington.)<br />Jmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18078208384599353066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864052595440250048.post-8987964716076373992012-10-30T00:03:12.079+00:002012-10-30T00:03:12.079+00:00Thanks for the link, Jme.
The first issue, you sa...Thanks for the link, Jme.<br /><br />The first issue, you say, is do we agree on what we are trying to achieve? I don't know that we do. David Arditti (Voleospeed) has suggested that what we need is a strategic network of routes that look really attractive to cycle on? Leaving aside the issue of how this might be achieved, do you agree with this?<br /><br />What do you think of <a href="http://data.mapchannels.com/mc4/18420/crm1_18420.htm" rel="nofollow">this map</a>? As strategic networks go, do you think it is of sufficient density?<br /><br />David Hembrow commented on my blog to say that he didn't think so. Probably he is right, in which case would <a href="http://data.mapchannels.com/mc4/18420/crm2_18420.htm" rel="nofollow">this</a> be better, do you think?<br /><br />"Bike paths," the New York Daily News recently opined, "need to flow like bloodstreams: we need networks, not snippets." If the red routes are the arteries, then the blue routes would be the arterioles, and the local routes, such as to school, would be the capillaries. Does that strike you as about right?<br />bikemapperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16902775699101288384noreply@blogger.com