Not Dangerous

asquithea

Quite a nice post for the new year:
Not Dangerous

(Spotted on reddit.com/r/ukbike)

Also, a bonus post linked from the comments on that blog:
Dutch scenes in a British context

merkin

Is the man giving a backy in the 6th image wearing a wig?

pblakeney

Just a moment to ponder over a minuscule question that occurred to me whilst looking at those images..

....



....



....

What is the average speed of those cyclists verses those reading this thread?

It is a two way street.

asquithea

Here's a fairly lengthy post that addresses that question:
http://www.voleospeed.co.uk/2011/11/som ... cling.html

Their routes are wider, conflict less with traffic, and have a better road surface (not being damaged by cars).
Some more pictures: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/20 ... -cars.html

tgotb

This is all very well, but there's no reason to believe what works in Amsterdam will work in London. As far as I can see, the distance from the outside edge of Amsterdam to the centre is about 5 miles, which implies that most commutes are this distance or less. This means you can commute at relatively low speeds but still arrive at your destination in reasonable time. In London, cycle commutes of 15 miles each way are commonplace, and a very small proportion of commuters live within 5 miles of their workplace. Force cyclists onto the sort of low-speed infrastructure seen in the Netherlands, and you make it impractical for the large majority of London residents to commute by bicycle. The population of London is 10 times that of Amsterdam, in fact not far short of the entire Netherlands.

Introducing a much wider 20mph speed limit might be more practical, notwithstanding the law of unforseen consequences...

pblakeney

That is a very interesting article Mr. Asquithea and very well argued.

However, put Mr. UK Pinarello* onto those paths in the images and chaos will ensue.

Mr. UK Pinarello* will be socially unwelcome on the paths (and possibly even illegal) but even more so on the roads once the cycling infrastructure is in place. Is that really what we desire? That the roads become a no-go area?

*Mr. UK Pinarello is simply my basic stereotype for anyone cycling more that 12 mph in town.

rick_chasey

Ah, welcome to the 'vehicular cyclist'.

Certainly a majority here .

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ah, welcome to the 'vehicular cyclist'.

Certainly a majority here .

Its hard to be anything other than a vehicular cyclist when you're surrounded by as much traffic as London cyclists are... There are barely any moving motor vehicles on the "Not Dangerous" blog.

ddraver

PBlakeney wrote:

That is a very interesting article Mr. Asquithea and very well argued.

However, put Mr. UK Pinarello* onto those paths in the images and chaos will ensue.

Mr. UK Pinarello* will be socially unwelcome on the paths (and possibly even illegal) but even more so on the roads once the cycling infrastructure is in place. Is that really what we desire? That the roads become a no-go area?

*Mr. UK Pinarello is simply my basic stereotype for anyone cycling more that 12 mph in town.

I don't know if I love or pity British Society's lack of faith in itself. You don't think that there is a De Heer Giant*/Van Nichols** in Amsterdam too?

Funnily enough, chaos does not ensue.

The difference between the Dutch attitude to driving/cycling and the british was made very clear to me this morning when I drove into Hammersmith to drop the hire car off...

*Cos of Belkin
**Cos they is Dutch, Santos would have been an alternative

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ah, welcome to the 'vehicular cyclist'.

Certainly a majority here .

Its hard to be anything other than a vehicular cyclist when you're surrounded by as much traffic as London cyclists are... There are barely any moving motor vehicles on the "Not Dangerous" blog.

There's behaving like one out of necessity, and there's resisting cycle infrastructure because you might not be able to hoon it wherever you go, using the flimsy excuse of 'it just won't work here'.

roger_merriman

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ah, welcome to the 'vehicular cyclist'.

Certainly a majority here .

Its hard to be anything other than a vehicular cyclist when you're surrounded by as much traffic as London cyclists are... There are barely any moving motor vehicles on the "Not Dangerous" blog.

There's behaving like one out of necessity, and there's resisting cycle infrastructure because you might not be able to hoon it wherever you go, using the flimsy excuse of 'it just won't work here'.

To be fair it's so awful on the whole with few exceptions that one get a tad cynical. I avoided the CS3 last year since I didn't trust it, to stop and start or leave me marooned etc.

And equally the argument Dutch equal good is as simplistic as the it just work here.

And again not helping is LCC and Sustrans both coming out with some Tribal tripe last year, both of which seeming out of touch yet attempting to speak for cyclist as a whole. LCC is probably isn't even known by over 50% of London cyclists let alone supported.

rick_chasey

Sure.

But the Netherlands in the '50s was in a similar situation to the UK now. Cars ruled, car congestion was everywhere, and there were a number of high profile cyclist and pedestrian deaths.

Car lobbies said there was no room etc etc.

Local councils just poured vast amounts of money into infrastructure and a big law change left it in the state it is now. A pain to drive around, lovely to cycle around.

It didn't happen organically. It was a concerted effort over a number of years.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

There's behaving like one out of necessity, and there's resisting cycle infrastructure because you might not be able to hoon it wherever you go, using the flimsy excuse of 'it just won't work here'.

Well, I don't buy into that excuse. But I can see why some might. To be honest though, its not the type of people who frequent this forum that need to be convinced to be casual cyclists, its the rest of the population. The Netherlands didn't have its cycling revolution by converting all their mamils :P

tgotb

Everything I've seen about Dutch cycling suggests a typical speed of something in the area of 10mph. This is entirely consistent with stories of people not getting changed to ride to work, and not needing a shower when they get there. This would be fine for trips up to 3 or 4 miles, and indeed if I'm riding that sort of distance I tend to do it in civvies, on the Brompton. Funnily enough, as I mentioned above, this is also consistent with the size of Amsterdam and the other major Dutch cities, where it seems unlikely that the average commute is more than a few miles.

Drop this into London, which is 10 times the size of Amsterdam, and suddenly a cycle commute of more than 3-4 miles becomes impractical. Currently it's feasible to cycle into Central London on a regular basis from just about anywhere inside the M25. Force people onto infrastructure that halves their speed, and you make a cycle commute unrealistic for 75% of that area, because it simply takes too long to get to work. Many existing cyclists will actually be forced back onto the train.

In what way is this argument a "flimsy excuse"?

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There's behaving like one out of necessity, and there's resisting cycle infrastructure because you might not be able to hoon it wherever you go, using the flimsy excuse of 'it just won't work here'.

Well, I don't buy into that excuse. But I can see why some might. To be honest though, its not the type of people who frequent this forum that need to be convinced to be casual cyclists, its the rest of the population. The Netherlands didn't have its cycling revolution by converting all their mamils :P

Maybe but the cycling lobbies are full of them.

I've told the story about the bridge by my school that saw two fatal cyclist accidents in 3 months, as we as one per year for the previous 3?

I was asked to help represent the school from a student perspective (and someone who used it every day) in a council round table to discuss what changes to the infrastructure need to be made.

The cycling lobby present just argued to remove any cyclist specific infrastructure that existed (which was a narrow white line) and expect cyclists to use both car lanes "as cars" which was ridiculous given cars easily did 30mph up the bridge.

This was after the council had proposed an entire car lane width cycle path up each side, removing the central reservation and narrowing the wide pavement by 30cm to make room.

I was flabbergasted.

awavey

Rick Chasey wrote:

Maybe but the cycling lobbies are full of them.

I've told the story about the bridge by my school that saw two fatal cyclist accidents in 3 months, as we as one per year for the previous 3?

I was asked to help represent the school from a student perspective (and someone who used it every day) in a council round table to discuss what changes to the infrastructure need to be made.

The cycling lobby present just argued to remove any cyclist specific infrastructure that existed (which was a narrow white line) and expect cyclists to use both car lanes "as cars" which was ridiculous given cars easily did 30mph up the bridge.

This was after the council had proposed an entire car lane width cycle path up each side, removing the central reservation and narrowing the wide pavement by 30cm to make room.

I was flabbergasted.

I know it sounds counter intuitive, but I dont think that cycling lobby was necessarily wrong. It sounds like what was proposed, whilst it might give some more space to cyclists, would encourage overtaking on the bridge as theres now no central reservation so cars have the impression they have extra space to play with, until something potentially bigger comes the other way and whose space do you think theyll try and borrow if that happens, unless the cars cant physically enter the cyclists space, theyll just ignore the road markings. I mean do dutch people ever just dump cars in cycle lanes?

so actually saying remove all the pretend magic lines for cyclists, and treat us as proper traffic,might not be a dutch solution, or good for Dutch style cycling, but might turn around to be better than trying to squeeze us all together on this bridge

I mean what you really needed to do was accept the bridge just didnt work, remove it completely, and start from scratch, but I think thats where we say the Dutch model doesnt work in the UK because a UK council would rarely have the (Dutch) courage to take that option.

timothyw

I do take issue with the OP that fiddling with your Ipod isn't dangerous - I've twice had other cyclists come across out of their lane (going the other way) and into mine while they fiddle with their smart phones.

Fortunately it hasn't been a problem with me actually paying attention and shouting at them, but had I been playing with my ipod also... well, might not have gone so well.

rick_chasey

awavey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Maybe but the cycling lobbies are full of them.

I've told the story about the bridge by my school that saw two fatal cyclist accidents in 3 months, as we as one per year for the previous 3?

I was asked to help represent the school from a student perspective (and someone who used it every day) in a council round table to discuss what changes to the infrastructure need to be made.

The cycling lobby present just argued to remove any cyclist specific infrastructure that existed (which was a narrow white line) and expect cyclists to use both car lanes "as cars" which was ridiculous given cars easily did 30mph up the bridge.

This was after the council had proposed an entire car lane width cycle path up each side, removing the central reservation and narrowing the wide pavement by 30cm to make room.

I was flabbergasted.

I know it sounds counter intuitive, but I dont think that cycling lobby was necessarily wrong. It sounds like what was proposed, whilst it might give some more space to cyclists, would encourage overtaking on the bridge as theres now no central reservation so cars have the impression they have extra space to play with, until something potentially bigger comes the other way and whose space do you think theyll try and borrow if that happens, unless the cars cant physically enter the cyclists space, theyll just ignore the road markings. I mean do dutch people ever just dump cars in cycle lanes?

so actually saying remove all the pretend magic lines for cyclists, and treat us as proper traffic,might not be a dutch solution, or good for Dutch style cycling, but might turn around to be better than trying to squeeze us all together on this bridge

I mean what you really needed to do was accept the bridge just didnt work, remove it completely, and start from scratch, but I think thats where we say the Dutch model doesnt work in the UK because a UK council would rarely have the (Dutch) courage to take that option.