Feed aggregator

Missing link completed

BicycleDutch - 23 July, 2014 - 23:01
A cycle route in ʼs-Hertogenbosch leading to an industrial zone was not well-connected to the rest of the cycling network. To get from the normal cycle network to the start … Continue reading →
Categories: Views

What’s wrong with Transport for London’s Cycle Safety Action Plan (Part Two)

Road Danger Reduction Forum - 23 July, 2014 - 17:40

(continued from the previous post)

Seeing cyclists as the problem

I have already discussed the basic problem of how “road safety” measures and generally conceptualises the safety of cyclists. But a further element of this needs consideration. By looking at the people who are hurt or killed rather than those hurting or killing them, crucial issues for other road users are avoided. Consider these issues:

 1.Speed

Excessive, illegal or inappropriate speed of the other vehicle involved does not  appear to be a major factor in cycling collisions.” (p.16)

Speed is indeed not implicated in most cyclist Serious Injuries in London. But this is because most cycling in London is concentrated in inner London where speeds are low.  Motor vehicle speeds are higher in outer London where there is little cycling. That doesn’t mean that speed is not an issue there – indeed, high speeds may be a deterrent and one of the reasons for relatively low uptake there. The suggestion would then be that speed control (or separate cycle paths on higher speed roads if speeds can’t be reduced) is indeed an issue.

But the more important issue is that excess speed is discussed solely in terms of its effects on (existing) cyclists. Speed has been a preoccupation for transport professionals concerned with safety from the beginning. Even Colin Buchanan, architect of the car-centred urban transport systems of the 1960s onwards, advocated default urban speed limits of 20 mph. Would it not make sense to be part of initiatives for speed control and 20 mph which primarily benefit pedestrians? If you look at reducing danger at source you would do that – for the benefit of the safety of all road users. If you concentrate on cyclists as casualties, you miss out on that.

 

  2. Other law breaking

The same applies to policing. There are areas where law enforcement would benefit the safety of all road users through a road danger reduction approach

 

 3. Conspicuity.

A key feature of focussing on those hurt or killed – essentially a victim-focused approach – is that it easily slips into victim-blaming. I have argued that this is a feature of the emphasis on hi-viz clothing for cyclists and pedestrians herehere , and here   ,for example. Despite the lack of evidence for the value of hi-viz, we have measure 12: TfL will work with manufacturers and cycle businesses to help cyclists be safe by: challenging cycle manufacturers to increase the conspicuity of bicycles, for example building into the frame… retro-reflective equipment…, through innovator seminars.

 

4. Lights

On the same theme, there is a strong focus on lights, which are at least a legal requirement.

2007 -2011 fatalities. Fourteen of the collisions in the sample (26%) occurred in darkness or partial light, and in half of these collisions the cyclist did not have lights. Bicycle lights are a mandatory requirement and this lack of compliance needs to be addressed Page19

But how important is this issue for cyclists in London as what might be considered a cause of collisions? Firstly, the analysis I have carried out in one London borough (confidentiality required by use of official figures means I can’t name it) indicates that in no more than 1.5% of cases is contributory factor 506 (non-use of lights) a factor for all casualties (see this ). Secondly, while I might have taken an unrepresentative borough, at least some 300 casualties’ were looked at, rather than some 64.

But most important, a detailed manual analysis – easily done with small numbers – would show whether this factor was actually key to the collision occurring. Was the behaviour of the cyclist and other road user(s) exemplary apart from the non-use of lights? Was it the case that an alert driver capable of seeing unlit pedestrians on typical well-lit urban roads would be unable to see an unlit cyclist?

 

 5. Close overtaking during 2010-12 Conflict rank Manoeuvre description Seriously injured casualties (% of total) Fatal casualties (% of total) 1 Other vehicle turns right across path of cyclist 219 (13%) 2 (5%) 2 Cyclist and other vehicle travelling alongside each other. 180 (11%) 4 (10%) 3 Cyclist hits open door / swerves to avoid open door of other vehicle. 160 (10%) 3 (7.5%) 4 Other vehicle turns left across the path of cyclist 134 (8%) 9 (23%) 5 Other vehicle disobeys junction control & turns right into path of cyclist 114 (7%) 0 (0%)

 

One of the key complaints from cyclists is that drivers constantly overtake without giving enough room. Conflict types 2 and 4, covering some 20% of cyclist KSIs, involve changing driver behavior here. Some of this can be solved by segregation, but since this is not going to happen on most roads in London (and would take decades to install anyway even if desired) there is clearly scope for addressing the issue.

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 213 and 214 to 215).”. Lengthy discussion with MPS officers indicate that there are problems in addressing this without specific distances given, but there is apparently precedent with regard to cyclist “wobble-room” being required when overtaking. At the very least: Is it really too much to expect some sort of police activity in this key area when officers have been giving (misguided) advice to cyclists on helmets etc. in Operation Safeway?

 

 And also…  “16: TfL will extend the safety principles of FORS”

Given the amount of time taken to get TfL to see sense over the “Cyclists stay back” stickers and the fact that they (with a new variant above) are still around, one hopes that these principles are properly sorted out.

 

  • The Boroughs :

    Although TfL is taking the lead to make roads safer, TfL cannot achieve safe cycling for all alone. Ninety five per cent of London’s streets are the responsibility of London’s boroughs, making them essential to the success of this draft plan.”. Matters like policing are actually much more in TfL’s control than the boroughs. Also, TfL often dictates – over matters such as “smoothing the traffic” – borough behaviour, and of course allocates substantial funding to boroughs. Can it not similarly direct boroughs in the right direction on safety?

  • 2.2 While only two per cent of all trips in London in 2012 were made on a bicycle its importance is greater in the places and at the times that matter most. (p.7)

    Why does it “matter” which times and places people choose to cycle, and who has the right to decide this?

 

  • The Cycle Task Force upgrade

    We have been critical of the way enforcement is done in London, but agree with a properly resourced enforcement programme. Only some of this will involve the Cycle Task Force but “increasing the number of police officers in the Cycle Task Force from 39 to 50 “ is hardly impressive.

 

 

Conclusion

We have made it clear to TfL, along with the other cyclist and road danger reduction organisations, that they need to measure danger in more appropriate ways in order to properly  understand safety of cyclists and other road users, and to implement measures to control road danger at source.  There isn’t much evidence that TfL are  listening to this message.

 

 


Categories: Views

What’s wrong with Transport for London’s Cycle Safety Action Plan (Part One)

Road Danger Reduction Forum - 23 July, 2014 - 17:14

This is our response to the draft Cycle Safety Action Plan  issued by Transport for London, which you can respond to here  by Thursday July 25th .

The draft CSAP is a fundamentally flawed document which fails in three main respects. Firstly, its idea of “safety” for cyclists is measured in a way which can indicate that having fewer cyclists and a higher cyclist casualty rate is BETTER than having more cyclists and a lower casualty rate. Secondly, it fails to differentiate between measures which reduce danger to cyclists (and other road users) and those which do not. Thirdly, it has no real way of assessing the effects of measures implemented.  

Let me refer to my experience here: for some years I sat on the Cycle Safety Working group at Transport for London (then representing the Borough Cycling Officers Group) and had a role in preparing the first CSAP. Reviewing its effects in September 2012 I wrote The above report indicates ways in which the CSAP has been inadequate. It also shows that insofar as issues are addressed and attempts made to implement necessary changes, the impacts made have been minimal or very limited. Pursuing the overall objectives of the CSAP will require substantially more commitment and resources to achieve a significant reduction in danger to cyclists (and often other road users) and a reduction in the cyclist casualty rate.”

I don’t think there has been any fundamental change since then. In fact, we seem to have gone backwards on the key issue of actually defining what the problem is. This is so basic that nothing worthwhile can really progress unless a clear definition of what the problem is has been agreed upon.

What is ”Cyclist safety”? The measurement issue.

This is not an abstract academic issue. It is absolutely critical as a basis for any discussion about cyclist safety.

As far as traditional “road safety” is concerned, “Cyclist safety” is about the total number of reported cyclist casualties (generally “Killed and Seriously Injured”) per head of the population or in a given location – in this case London. It is NOT about what the cyclists’ organisations asked for – and what TfL for many years at the CSWG agreed on – namely an indicator based on exposure. This is sometimes referred to as a “rate-based” indicator, in that casualties are expressed in terms of the exposure of cyclists, for example cyclist casualties per journey made, distance travelled, or time taken cycling.

At various places in the draft CSAP the casualty rate is indeed considered as the indicator, but elsewhere it is not. For example, take this graph prominently displayed:

Figure 2 : International cyclist fatalities per million population, 2012

 So, the casualty rate per journey, per mile or per hour spent cycling may be far lower in Amsterdam than in London. The experience of cycling in Amsterdam may be far more pleasant and inviting because of the lower levels of danger presented to cyclists. But for TfL, reviewing this graph: “London is performing well when cycling in London is compared against national statistics” (Page 9). TfL takes precisely the opposite view that we take, and as far as we are concerned this is a fundamental problem. Unless they invert this position we disagree on what we are trying to achieve.

In fact we need to go a lot further. Even casualty rates are inadequate as measures. We should be looking at whether casualties result from a third party’s rule- or law-breaking, or from careless behaviour on the part of the cyclist. We should be stating that locations laid out so that cyclists are subjected to unacceptably high  levels of road danger  (gyratory systems like Bow Roundabout or Staples Corner) are just that: particularly dangerous locations for cyclists, and that this is objectively so. When actual or potential cyclists are scared to travel through such locations we don’t need to talk about “subjective safety” – these people are making a correct analysis of the objective danger presented to them.

But considering these issues systematically – as I attempted in Local Transport Today last year – is apparently not on TfL’s agenda. There is some reference (“This draft plan, taken as a whole, seeks to improve the reality and the perception of cycle safety.” Page 9)  to concerns about people being deterred by their perception of safety – but this is not followed through.

This is a classic difficulty with traditional “road safety” which we have pointed out numerous times before, whether the offenders are TfL or  Government ministers  and where we agree with our colleagues in the London Cycling Campaign: “London Cycling Campaign has always called for casualties to be measured against exposure to risk. How risky is cycling per mile travelled compared to other ways of travel? Without such measurements the benefits of increasing cycling can be misrepresented in casualty data.”

 

Road Danger Reduction versus “Road Safety”: The “Who-Kills-Whom” question.

Our colleagues in the LCC correctly say: “…(we) will be assessing the 32 actions in the plan for their impact on reducing road danger. For each action we will ask:

  • Does this reduce the source of danger on the roads?
  • Will this action tend to encourage more people to choose a sustainable mode of transport?

 

… too few of the actions really address sources of danger.”

For us there is a fundamental issue about the difference between those road users who kill, or hurt, or endanger others and those who are killed, hurt or endangered. All road users may well have responsibilities, but there is a fundamental difference in actual or potential lethality between (broadly speaking) the motorised and those outside motor vehicles endangered by them. This difference is routinely and systematically neutralised by the “road safety” lobby. So:

Sharing the road

Research also shows that Londoners are concerned by safety on the roads; however they tend to consider the need for change to lie with others rather than themselves. This is a fundamental barrier to improving safety at present. Even though many people acknowledge that they take risks at times, they feel that they have appropriately accounted for the safety of themselves and others and that any risks that they take are calculated and ‘safe’.”

This paragraph perfectly demonstrates the determination to deny the difference in lethality between the different modes.

In this context, Figure 3 is interesting, because it shows that casualty rates for cyclists and pedestrians vary with age (excluding the over-80s) much less than for drivers and motorcyclists. This strongly implies that it is largely the behaviour of others, rather than their own behaviour, that causes cyclist and pedestrian casualties. For pedestrians and cyclists, the ratio between highest and lowest risk  ages is just over 3 to 1. For drivers it’s over 12 to 1, and for motor-cyclists 33 to 1.

 

Analysing effects

Even without tackling this basic moral issue properly, there is a point about analysing the effects of interventions. “This new draft Cycle Safety Action Plan (CSAP) builds on the original, published in 2010,” (Page 4). But, as I argued in 2012,   with the possible exception of resources directed at the freight industry to reduce cyclist deaths involving HGVs, there was precious little evidence for the effects of interventions. This doesn’t stop TfL baldly stating:  “There are some notable successes achieved through the previous CSAP that have made cycling safer in London (Page 25)”

These “notable successes” are:

  • The publicity “cycling tips” campaign: publicity has the least success of all interventions, even according to the official “road safety” lobby.
  • The “exchanging places” campaign to warn cyclists of danger from HGVs. No doubt of some use until lorries (and the roads they travel on) are properly designed to minimise danger, but – as with all education – of limited benefit for fallible human beings. And no use for the (majority of?) cases of HGV/cyclist collisions where lorries overtake and cut across cyclists or hit them from behind. Or for the vast majority of cases of cyclist Serious Injury collisions.
  • Changes in regulations on lorry design and design of signals. No doubt worthwhile, but of limited benefit and yet to roll out in most cases.

That may seem like grumbling, but I can’t help wondering whether the changes achieved so far – or even those mentioned as potentially to be lobbied for  in the new CSAP – are rather less than might be pushed for with other modes of transport. For example: “TfL will lobby vehicle manufacturers and representative organisations to make vehicles safer for cyclists by pushing for:

  • Autonomous Emergency Braking Systems to be fitted to all new cars as standard
  • research into the potential of a Rapid Emergency Impact Braking System (RIBS) to rapidly stop HGVs if they hit a cyclist, in order to prevent fatal crushing injuries

Which is all very well, but how about consideration for systems to be retro-fitted? And what happens in the meantime while the motor industry considers these devices? To take just the example of under-run guards on HGVs which could prevent cyclists (and pedestrians) from being crushed? Is it too much to suggest that TfL could actually part- finance installation of such devices – after all, with a £6 billion a year budget it shouldn’t be too hard to find the money. (continued in next post)


Categories: Views

DIY Tours

Cycling Embassy of Denmark - 23 July, 2014 - 12:26
The Danish Arcitecture Centre has made a coprehensive guide to DIY tours in Copenhagen. Visit their toursite here 
Categories: News

Guided Tours

Cycling Embassy of Denmark - 23 July, 2014 - 10:16
  More info coming soon
Categories: News

Turbogate gets weirder

As Easy As Riding A Bike - 22 July, 2014 - 11:09

From the press release, the ‘turbo’ roundabout in Bedford will now be under construction – building was scheduled to start yesterday, Monday the 21st of July.

Pretty much everything you need to know about this strange scheme and its convoluted history is here on the Alternative Department for Transport blog. (The Cycling Embassy of Great Britain also hosted a guest blog critically examining some of the claims made for this design).

Presumably in anticipation of construction starting, the local cycling campaign for North Bedfordshire (CCNB) have put out a statement justifying the design. It’s as curious as the scheme itself. Principally it clings to the sad, failed strategy of attempting to design for two different categories of ‘cyclists’ separately, instead of the proven, successful approach of inclusively designing for everyone. 

CCNB believes that the dual use scheme will improve the safety of all types of cyclists (and pedestrians). Experienced cyclists will use the on-road carriageway around the roundabout while the less confident, new and young cyclists will use an off-road shared use route using four zebras is a good compromise.

For ‘experienced cyclists’ -

The tighter geometry and enforced lane discipline should slow down traffic over what it is at present. An experienced cyclist adopting the primary position should thus avoid being overtaken or cut-up and as a consequence feel much safer. The lane discipline should also ensure that most motorists know what cyclists are doing and in the same way cyclists should also know what motorists are doing.

Well that sounds attractive, on a roundabout that will still be carrying around 25,000 PCUs per day! And for everyone else -

Current regulations stipulate that cyclists can cycle across zebras if there is a dual use path on either side but unlike pedestrians must give way to motor vehicles. The zebras will be wider than normal and the design will allow easy modification to a more traditional Dutch style junction when the DfT allows cyclists to use them in the same way as pedestrians, hopefully sometime next year.

The experience of cycling like a pedestrian.

I am deeply, deeply sceptical about claims this design can be ‘modified’ to a Dutch-style junction, not only because a Dutch-style junction would have perimeter tracks, clearly distinct from footways, rather than shared use areas, but also because the zebras in this scheme cross multiple lanes on the approaches, at sharp angles, a design that is simply not appropriate to ‘convert’ to a crossing. (To say nothing of the appropriateness of cycling on these zebras while waiting for this ‘conversion’).

Will converting these zebras to ‘cycle zebras’ amount to a ‘Dutch style junction’?

The CCNB response also contains this strange factoid -

The roundabout is generally very busy mainly in the short morning and evening rush hours. The area concerned is fairly small and it is not possible to have Dutch style off-road cycle tracks along any of the four roads involved. [my emphasis].

Really? Looking at the four roads involved – the four arms of the roundabout – in turn -

Union Street -

Tavistock Street -

Roff Avenue -

And Clapham Road -

It is plainly possible to accommodate cycle tracks on these approaches. And you don’t even need to believe me -

In the application, the designer submitted a mocked up version of what the roundabout could look like with a ‘proper’ Dutch design, including side road priority for cyclists on fully segregated cycle tracks and tight curve radii to slow vehicles.

That’s right – the designer of this scheme presented a possible version of this roundabout, with cycle tracks on entry and exit. Here it is!

As the CTC report, Bedford Borough Council vetoed this design on the grounds that it would affect motor traffic capacity; having one lane on each of the approaches wouldn’t be sufficient to cope with current volumes of motor traffic.

So – faced with the intransigence of the council, and the ludicrous constraints of the the DfT’s Cycle Safety Fund – it would be understandable if the local cycle campaign admitted defeat, and grimly accepted this being forced on them, while grumbling about it. But to actually come out and support this dog’s dinner?


Categories: Views

Danish Consul promotes Cycling

Cycling Embassy of Denmark - 22 July, 2014 - 10:04
The Danish Consul in Macon in the state of Georgia, USA, is giving his city a helping hand towards creating a more liveable city by promoting the Danish bicycle culture.  Danish bicycle culture as a good of export The Royal Danish Consulate in Macon has promoted cycling and safety at many events in the city. […]
Categories: News

Kill a cyclist? Get a slap on the wrist. Just who's side is the Law really on? The statistics are shocking...

ibikelondon - 22 July, 2014 - 08:30
The BBC have been making headlines with the revelation that only half of the drivers who kill cyclists go on to face jail sentences. Sadly, this is just the latest demonstration of how the UK’s Courts are failing our most vulnerable road users. 

BBC Radio 1’s Newsbeat obtained Freedom of Information figures that show 109 cyclists were killed on UK roads and more than 3,000 were seriously injured in 2013. 


The scales of the Old Bailey in London, by Steve Calcot on Flickr.
From the figures obtained from 45 Police forces nationwide, the BBC calculate that between 2007 and 2014 there were 276 recorded incidents where a cyclist was killed in a collision involving a motor vehicle. Of those, 148 resulted in the driver of the vehicle being charged with an offence – that’s just 54%. Of the 108 convicted, only 44% - or 47 people - received a prison sentence, with the average spell behind bars less than two years. Just over a quarter of this sample who were convicted for killing a cyclist didn’t receive a driving ban at all. Of those who did, the average length of disqualification was 22 months - or just shy of two years - in return for taking someone’s life.

Currently, the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving is 14 years, and five years for death by careless driving, with British Cycling, the CTC and Road Peace all pushing for longer convictions for the very worst cases. 

Working with families of the deceased, and dealing with the anger of the cycling community around them, these campaigners are all too often aware of the devastation death on the roads can bring.

In a recent debate on road justice with members of the Queens Council, judges, barristers and professions of law, the CTC recently called on the Justice Minister to end the practice of having claims of dangerous driving dismissed in favour of careless driving convictions, which carry a much lower sentence. 

Martin Porter, QC, commenting on the judicial system said; “These laws.. ..are not deterring bad driving and are not keeping bad drivers off the roads to the extent that they should.”



The CTC's new report on Road Justice highlights countless cases where it could barely be said justice has been delivered; 

  • Martin Boulton pleaded guilty to causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving and causing death by driving whilst uninsured. Boulton had been adjusting his car radio before he hit the cyclist. He was sentenced to a suspended six-month jail term, 200 hours of unpaid work, two consecutive 15-month driving bans and was fined £350 and ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge.
  • 17-year-old Lee Cahill already had a conviction for speeding when he pleaded guilty to causing the death of Rob Jeffries by careless driving. He was sentenced to a 12-month community order, ordered to do 200 hours of unpaid work, to re-take his driving test and to pay court costs of £85, and was given an 18-month driving ban.
  • Paul Brown was driving at between 55 and 60mph and eating a sandwich when he hit and killed cyclist Joe Wilkinson. He pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving and was acquitted by a jury of causing death by dangerous driving. He was sentenced to 240 hours of unpaid work and a one-year driving ban. 
In a recent article of my own here on ibikelondon there are even more terrible cases where the “full force of the law” has been found to be seriously wanting: 

  • The lorry driver who ran over and inflicted life altering injuries on Times journalist Mary Bowers was giving directions to a colleague on a phone when he hit her (a fact he later lied about to Police and to Mary’s family. On hearing the screams of a passing cyclist he leapt from his cab to see what was the problem, but forgot to apply the handbrake and watched from the roadside as his truck continued to run over Ms Bowers. A jury of 12 found him not guilty of dangerous driving.
  • Adrianna Skryzpiec was dragged beneath a truck for 140 metres . The driver never stopped, having never even realized he’d run someone over. His legal team argued it would have been impossible for him to have ever seen Adrianna from within his cab – effectively admitting it was impossible for him to safely share the road – and were able to have his case dismissed.

The list of terrible crimes and their lack of punishment is maintained by Martin Porter at his excellent Cycling Silk blog and it goes on and on. Both he and the campaigning organisations like the CTC have highlighted numerous inconsistencies in the statutory framework, and demonstrated that there is a public appetite for more robust sentencing and firmer enforcement of existing laws.



Alongside the terrible deaths, there are a retinue of lesser injuries which have also received scant attention – if a car hits you, breaking both your legs and giving you concussion, your rehabilitation before you can enjoy the same quality of life again may take from 9 months to a year. The driver will likely receive a few penalty points and a fine of a few hundred pounds. Does this seem fair and just?

Too often in Britain death and serious injury on our roads is seen as a “shruggable offence”; just one of those things that just happens as a by-product of society getting round. But cause and effect demonstrates that momentary distractions and seconds of inattention can have very serious implications. Cases where vehicles are willfully driven dangerously are even worse. 

Too often our Court system has been found to come down on the side of the perpetrator, not the victim, and has helped to  perpetuate the myth that death and injury on our roads is inevitable and to be treated with leniency. The Justice system needs to act decively to show that they are listening and that they are prepared to change. 

The Metropolitan Police are appealing for witnesses after a 25 year old man was killed on his bicycle following a collision involving a white Honda Accord on Kingston Road in Merton at 00:45 on Saturday morning.

Share 
Categories: Views

Kopenhagen opent fietssnelweg hoog boven de grond

Fietsberaad - 22 July, 2014 - 01:00

Cykelslangen ofwel Fietsslang is de naam van een opvallende nieuwe fietsverbinding in Kopenhagen. Een vier meter breed fietspad dat zich over 220 meter zo’n 5,5 meter boven het havengebied voort slingert.

Categories: News

Warmtedetectie voor fietsverkeer

Fietsberaad - 21 July, 2014 - 09:29

Op de N237 is de eerste warmtedetector geïnstalleerd door de provincie Utrecht. Dit detectiemiddel voor VRI’s onderscheidt fietsverkeer van auto’s, ziet voetgangers niet aan voor fietsers én kan fietsers tellen.

Categories: News

Why model, when you can experiment?

As Easy As Riding A Bike - 18 July, 2014 - 13:13

The junction outside the Bank of England is truly awful; a vast open space of tarmac, motor traffic thundering through in five directions, and pedestrians accommodated on tiny pavements. What should be a beautiful civic space is devoted to motor traffic flow.

From Google Streetview

To be fair to the City of London, they have recognised the problem, and are looking to make improvements. It seems they are examining the potential for closing off motor traffic from certain directions, or at certain times of day.

But here’s the method they are choosing to employ for examining the options -

At the moment we are establishing how wide the impact might be if we make big changes at the junction. This will give us the starting point of what we will need to look at in detail. We should complete this work by September 2014.

Our next task will be to build a computer traffic model to assess what is likely to happen if traffic is prevented from crossing the junction for example in certain directions or times of day. Information from pedestrian and cycling movements will also help to develop solutions. This is likely to be a big piece of work and will take some time to complete but it is very important to have credible options for alterations to the junction. We hope to have this work completed by early 2016.

They are building a computer traffic model to do so – in their own words, ‘a big piece of work’ that is going to take one and a half years to complete. Eighteen months. There is no word on how much this is going to cost.

I imagine the complexity here is due to the fact that we don’t really know how to model people cycling and walking, as described in this excellent post by smalltown2k. It’s really very difficult, and the City appear to be attempting to do so. Now obviously the ability to model these kinds of movements is going to be very important in the future, and it is valuable that we can start to assess what might happen to traffic flow if we acknowledge how people walk and cycle about, and how they might shift mode under different conditions.

But really, rather than just building a hugely complex model from scratch to find out what happens when a junction is closed to motor traffic, couldn’t the City just do it, on a trial basis? If the result is genuine chaos, then the trial can quickly be abandoned.

There are good reasons for thinking a trial of this kind – closing roads at Bank temporarily – would not result in chaos. The main one is that the area is ringed by major arterial roads, composed of London Wall to the north, Aldgate and Tower Gateway to the east, and Upper Thames Street to the south.

All are designed to carry large volumes of motor traffic, and all lie very close to Bank itself. These are the roads that should be carrying through traffic; the area around Bank should, realistically, only be carrying private motor traffic that is accessing the area. Certainly, the Bank junction should not be carrying through motor traffic in an east-west direction, as there are two major roads to the north and south – just a few hundred metres away – that were built for this purpose.

So – why not just try this? Try it now, rather than spending eighteen difficult months building a model from scratch. You’ll get results that correspond to the real world, and much more quickly!


Categories: Views

Adaptive Streets – New Handbook

Cycling Embassy of Denmark - 18 July, 2014 - 09:23
After an internship with Gehl Architects, two students from the University of Washington in the U.S. have produced a handbook on strategies for making better urban spaces for citizens of all ages based on their experiences with the Gehl approach and the Danish bicycle culture. Read more about Gehl Architects and view the handbook here. […]
Categories: News

Friday Throwback: a blast from the past, from the days when pros ate ice cream...

ibikelondon - 18 July, 2014 - 08:30



As London swelters in the sun this week, perhaps you're thinking an ice cream might help cool you down, but perhaps you're worried about the calories?  Fear not my over-heating friends, because who knew that ice cream - in all its buttery calorific glory - is the "health food of the nation" according to Australian cycling champion Hubert 'Oppy' Opperman. 
We've been celebrating the best historic photos of cyclists from archives around the world in our ongoing series of Friday Throwbacks.  Today's is from the State Library of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and shows Oppy endorsing Peters Ice Cream, which would have been a vital source of revenue for him in the days when competitive cyclists were strictly amateur.
Oppy's career saw him racing in the Tour de France in 1928 - the first time an Australian and New Zealand team were fielded - and he went on to break a series of famous endurance records, including a ride from Lands End to London in just fourteen hours.  He denied doping allegations stating "There is no sporting prize worth the use of drugs or stimulants", though whether he counted ice cream as one of those substances is unclear.  His racing career ended with the outbreak of the second world war, when he joined the Royal Australian Air Force.
He continued cycling in to his 90s, and when he died (exercising on a stationary bike) in 1996 a number of his records were still standing.  In a strange twist ice cream outlived exercise, with the Australian brand Peter's Ice Cream still manufacturing sweet treats today, 107 years after the firm was founded (though it was sold to a European firm earlier this year.)
For a full profile of Oppy see his Wikipedia profile here.  Be sure never to miss a post from ibikelondon blog! You can follow us on Twitter here or join the conversation our Facebook page.
Share 
Categories: Views

Chipping away

As Easy As Riding A Bike - 17 July, 2014 - 11:10

The summer is the season when West Sussex County Council – and presumably many other British councils – decide to start spreading gravel on their country lanes, sticking it down with tar and hoping that motor vehicles will ‘bed it in’. This technique is apparently called ‘chip seal’.

It is simply awful to ride on, especially when it has just been laid – the gravel is still loose, and slippery to ride on. Stones get flung up, particularly by passing vehicles, which rarely stick to the 20mph suggested limit. And it’s a poor surface to ride on, even when it has been ‘bedded in’ – rough, and noisy, and far worse than a machine-laid tarmac surface.

Worse than that, chip seal appears – to me at least – to actually accelerate the deterioration of a road. Here’s an example, a mile away from where the new chip seal has been laid in the photograph above.

This road was ‘chip sealed’ in the last four to five years (I can’t remember precisely when). But as you can see, the layer of gravel has been intermittently blasted off, leaving a bumpy patchwork surface, partly composed of the remaining chipseal, and the underlying original road surface. Again, absolutely awful to ride on, but more problematically, the kind of road surface that is going to deteriorate very rapidly. Potholes are already starting to develop in the areas where the chipseal has been blasted off. The depressions are places where water is retained, perfect for the development of road damage.

I’ve cycled on country lanes in most of the countries of western Europe, including places where roads are subject to extremes of temperature – Switzerland and Sweden. Yet no other western European country appears to employ ‘chip seal’ – they seal roads properly, with machine laid surfaces. My guess is that these roads – while more expensive to lay in the short term – are much cheaper in the long term, because they last much longer than this strange ‘gravel’ approach.

Why does Britain do things differently? Is chip seal genuinely cost-effective? Answers please!


Categories: Views

Onderzoek naar spaakbeknellingen

Fietsberaad - 17 July, 2014 - 01:00

Op initiatief  van het Verbond van Verzekeraars is een Safety Deal Spaakbeknellingen tot stand gekomen. Jaarlijks belanden 2.800 kinderen op de afdeling Spoedeisende Hulp van het ziekenhuis als gevolg van voeten tussen de spaken.

Categories: News

Casual cycling in a building site

BicycleDutch - 16 July, 2014 - 23:01
After all the recent posts on infrastructure, it is time to focus again on who that was all built for: ordinary people on their bicycles. During my lunch break I … Continue reading →
Categories: Views

Brabant pakt uit met fietssite

Fietsberaad - 16 July, 2014 - 01:00

Ons Brabant Fietst is de titel van een nieuwe website met alle fietsactiviteiten in Noord-Brabant. Er is niet alleen informatie te vinden over recreatief fietsen, maar ook aan het utilitaire fietsen wordt aandacht geschonken.

Categories: News

Southend-on-Sea. Missed opportunities to create a better environment for cycling and walking.

A View from the Cycle Path - 15 July, 2014 - 22:36
I spent last weekend in Southend-on-Sea. My daughter and I went there for a short break at the sea-side. This was not a cycling holiday. We mainly walked around the town, and we enjoyed it. However I couldn't help but take photos and videos during our stay and to look up some facts and figures on our return. The result is below. Most of the points that I make could be made about many towns in theDavid Hembrowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14543024940730663645noreply@blogger.com0http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/07/southend-on-sea-missed-opportunities-to.html
Categories: Views

Asking people to behave, instead of making them

As Easy As Riding A Bike - 15 July, 2014 - 11:51

A post by Joe Dunckley yesterday – about how we keep expecting education and awareness to change driver behaviour, ahead of physical engineering – reminded me of something I’d been meaning to write about for a while. It was provoked by this sign I came across in the village of Rotherwick, in Hampshire.Beneath the standard ‘watch out for children’ warning triangle, some locals have evidently felt the need to ask drivers to ‘please’ slow down, attaching a do-it-yourself sign to the pole.

Needless to say, although the locals are asking drivers to slow down to 20mph, the speed limit through the village – and past the school – remains set at 30mph. The official limit is on the pole on the other side of the road.

But hey, drivers have been warned there’s a school here – they’ll all drive carefully, won’t they?

And there’s a similar example in the village of Partridge Green in West Sussex – again, by the village school.

A ‘kill speed not kids’ sign near the junction with the school is, of course, not accompanied by any corresponding low speed limit, or physical measures to enforce it.Although the DIY sign here has a picture of a zebra crossing, there isn’t any crossing, at all, outside the school itself – but there are some barriers to stop people crossing the road where they might actually want to.

Perhaps the pick of the bunch, though, is this DIY sign outside William Penn Primary School in Coolham, which is aimed at… the primary schoolchildren themselves. Behave!

Nice of West Sussex County Council to do absolutely nothing to make this dead straight road – just outside of a 60mph limit – safer for schoolchildren.

And it’s not just outside schools. The residents of Tower Hill – a rural road, but with plenty of housing along it, and no footpath – plainly feel that the 60mph limit through where they live is preposterous, and have made their own speed limit signs. There have been many crashes here.All this is sadly symptomatic of the British approach to dealing with traffic danger. At locations where there really shouldn’t be fast motor traffic, and where there is clear local demand for low vehicle speeds (people are making these signs and attaching them themselves) there isn’t anything to make drivers behave, or design that reduces the danger posed to vulnerable road users; only informal requests and home-made signs.

Perhaps the background assumption here is the one Joe describes in his post – that the British driver is innately well-mannered, and doesn’t really need to be told what to do; he’ll either be behaving sensibly already, and if not, polite requests will be sufficient.

the British tradition of soft measures goes far wider, deeper and further back… Motorists may moan about having been the victim of a “war” that restricts their freedom, polices their movements, or sends campaigns of severe punishment for accidental and unavoidable infringement of petty rules, but the reality is that right from the start, when the red flag acts were repealed, this country’s response (and that of much of the English-speaking world) to the problems that motorists create on the road has largely been light touch and libertarian, in which the children are simply asked again and again to play nice, even as they become ever greater bullies, and only if they’re really bad might they have their pocket money docked. We encourage and raise awareness, appeal to the legendary British sense of fair play, and still believe that the ideal road is within reach if only we can persuade everybody to get along through courtesy, good manners, and communicating our intentions clearly to one another.

But these homemade signs are symptomatic of a failure of that strategy. They wouldn’t exist if drivers responded properly to their environment; there wouldn’t be any need to exhort them to slow down to an appropriate speed if they were already doing it. Moreover, there wouldn’t be any need for barriers to stop children crossing the road where they want to, if we could rely on drivers approaching schools at a sensible speed.

What these signs demonstrate are that ‘soft’ measures – education, exhortation, awareness, and so on – don’t work. We need physical environments that make people behave, and that design in safety. If we want people to drive slowly, that needs to come from the design of the road or the street in question, not from home-made signs that plead desperately for sensible behaviour.


Categories: Views

Cycling is more than getting from A to B

Cycling Embassy of Denmark - 15 July, 2014 - 10:45
In the city of Randers, a group of local women have formed a cycling club with focus on friendly chats and friendship. The group is strictly based on volunteer work, and so far the club has proven a success – for 14 years! By Britt Møller, Municipality of Randers Monday is women’s bike night Come […]
Categories: News

Pages

Subscribe to Cycling Embassy of Great Britain aggregator