In de loop der jaren raken steeds meer fietsers betrokken bij dodelijke landbouwongevallen. Gemiddeld komen jaarlijks 3 of 4 fietsers om het leven bij zo’n ongeval.
An exercise I’ve been planning for a while is to categorise all the streets and roads of the town of Horsham. Some of this work had been started by Paul James of Pedestrianise London. A while back we had discussed a Sustainable Safety categorisation of the town, deciding which streets and roads should fall into which category of through, distributor, or access road, and Paul had started a base map of distributor roads.
With some free time over the weekend, I’ve managed to bite into this exercise even more, starting at the opposite end of the scale, and I’ll discuss my method and the outcomes here. I think it’s a useful thing to do for towns and cities in Britain, for a number of reasons. Firstly, it gets us thinking about which roads and streets require more expensive interventions like cycleways; which streets might require some kind of filtering; and which streets (actually the vast majority, in the case of Horsham) that don’t require any action at all. Secondly, it also helps to identify the ‘problem’ areas, those roads and streets that don’t fall immediately into an obvious distributor road category, but that will require some action.
The first step was to plot all the cul-de-sacs in the town. By my definiton ‘cul-de-sac’ I included every single road or street that has a single entry and exit point for motor traffic, regardless of length – in other words, every driver using one of these streets will have to leave via the point they entered.
This includes the obvious short cul-de-sacs –
… as well as some much longer sections of road.
I think it’s a reasonable assumption that all these cul-de-sacs are by definition ‘cycle friendly’, without any adaptation, or addition of cycling infrastructure. Even the largest – like the one above – will only include a hundred or so dwellings, meaning that traffic levels will still be reasonably low. The key point is that cul-de-sacs will have no ‘extraneous’ traffic, i.e. drivers going somewhere else. The only drivers on them will be using them to access dwellings or properties within the cul-de-sac itself, meaning even the largest ones will not have a great deal of motor traffic.
Once I’d finished plotting all of these streets, I could then take a look at the town overall. To my slight surprise, a very large percentage of the town is composed of cul-de-sacs.
All the streets in green are essentially safe enough for anyone to cycle on – they will be quiet, low traffic streets, requiring little or no modification.
The map also shows a clear distinction between housing age. Houses built in the period before mass motoring tend to be on ‘open’ streets, like this late Victoria housing area to the east of the town centre.
This contrasts strongly with the areas of post-war housing – particularly that built from the 1960s and 1970s onwards – in the northern parts of the town, where nearly every single residential street is a cul-de-sac.
This is perhaps a consequence of the influence of Traffic in Towns, but it’s most likely a rational response to the increasingly pervasive influence of the motor car on society. In the Victorian era, there wasn’t any need to build ‘closed’ roads, because there wasn’t really a ‘traffic problem’. The cul-de-sac emerged as a design solution to that problem, allowing people to live on streets that were safe and quiet, not dominated by people driving somewhere else. The challenge, of course, is ‘converting’ the streets of the pre-motor car age into ‘virtual’ cul-de-sacs, creating those pleasant and safe residential environments that the majority of the town already enjoys, and this exercise reveals which particular streets will be an issue – something we will come to.
I then chose to ‘add on’ to this cul-de-sac layer those residential streets that have more than one entry and exit point, but will realistically still only be used for access. For instance, this network of residential streets to the east of the town.
Clearly, it’s possible to drive through and around these streets, but there’s no real reason to do this unless you are accessing properties on them – so they fall neatly into another category of streets that require little or no remedial action to make them ‘cycle friendly’. Some of this requires a degree of local judgement, and knowledge about the routes drivers might be taking as short cuts, but I’ve been quite conservative in the ‘open’ streets I added to this category.
Add these two layers together, and we can see that even more of the town becomes ‘green’.
I then wiped the slate clean, removing both these layers, and approached the town from the opposite end of the scale, adding the obvious through road (the town’s bypass), and what I consider to be the distributor roads – the roads that will remain ‘open’ to drivers, and that will therefore require cycling infrastructure to separate people cycling from these higher volumes of motor traffic.
There might be a case for adding more roads to this category, or removing some from it – again, this is a matter for local judgement, and there is one road on this map that probably shouldn’t be in this category. (I’ll leave you to spot it!)
We can then add all the layers together to reveal the streets and the roads that haven’t fallen into any of these categories.
The good news is that there aren’t very many of them. Given the discussion above, they mostly lie, as expected, in the areas of the town built before the middle of the twentieth century – the 1930s housing to the west, and housing of similar age (or earlier) to the east).
What kind of intervention is required is obviously a matter for local discussion – there might be an obvious (but naturally controversial) filter that could be applied in many of these locations, but on slightly wider streets painted lanes might suffice, given that motor traffic levels are not exceptionally high on any of these streets. Or there might be no need for action at all.
The final step – and one I haven’t started on yet! – is to add on the existing walking and cycling connections between these areas, and to highlight obvious connections for cycling that are not legal or need to be upgraded, or that simply don’t exist at present. One particular problem that has emerged from this exercise is railway line severance in the north east of the town – it would be good (albeit expensive) to get a walking and cycling underpass, under the railway line, connecting these large, otherwise isolated, residential areas.
Clearly, doing this kind of Google Map is only a first step. It’s easy enough to draw lines on a map; the harder part is actually getting the interventions in place. But it’s very helpful in focusing attention on precisely where those interventions are required. The main roads jump out; but also the more problematic roads in-between the obvious main roads and the quiet access streets, that remain white on my map, and will need some discussion at a local level.
Behandel de leasefiets op dezelfde manier als de leaseauto. Op dit moment betaalt de leasefietser loonbelasting over de volledige waarde van de fiets, wat leidt tot hoge kosten.
Enschede wil in 2020 fietsstad zijn. Diverse investeringen en een intensieve campagne moeten het fietsklimaat verbeteren en het fietsgebruik laten groeien.
Binnenkort start een nieuwe service om gestolen e-fietsen op te sporen. Vanuit een speciale control room spoort een beveiligingsbedrijf fietsen die zijn voorzien van een chip op, en zorgt dat ze terugkomen bij de eigenaar.
On January 11. 2017, Klaus Bondam, CEO of the Danish Cyclists Federation and member of The Cycling Embassy of Denmark (CED) is participating and speaking at the World Resources Institute´s event in Washington, D.C. In his presentation, Klaus Bondam will be speaking on ways of rethinking urban transportation. As the former deputy-mayor of Copenhagen and […]
The post Shaping great cities for cycling and public space – the Danish way appeared first on Cycling Embassy of Denmark.
Unfortunate news – magazine production stopped in December 2016 after Issue 52. At this stage, it appears unlikely to be published in either print or digital format, although efforts to restart production are being investigated.
Some new products for review have already been tested and write-ups will probably be published on this site.
Readers with print subscriptions will be receiving individual communications in due course, regarding refunds in cash or otherwise. There is no need to get in touch specifically to request an allocation – everyone should be contacted, but if in doubt, please do get in touch, quoting your postcode or subscriber number. Digital subscribers will for the time being have continued access via Exact Editions to all issues to date.
Do please get in touch if you have any good ideas – the future changes everything! Thank you so much to all subscribers and advertisers – past and present, and contributors for your support to the magazine. It’s been a privilege to serve the readership over the past few years and many have taken the time to offer encouragement and express appreciation for which I am truly grateful.
Het aanpassen van de Sarphatistraat naar een fietsstraat is volgens de gemeente succesvol. De doorstroming voor fietsers is flink verbeterd, zonder dat het autoverkeer vastloopt.
Amsterdam test een nieuw type fietsenrek, speciaal bedoeld voor kratjesfietsen.
Bijna vier op de tien fietsers in Amsterdam vindt de drukke plekken in de stad stressvol. De drukke plekken vindt men vooral in en rond het centrum van de stad.
Afgelopen jaar hebben 800.000 mensen hun fiets in één van de 5 bewaakte openbare, gemeentelijke stallingen of in één van de 4 POP-up stallingen in de Utrechtse binnenstad gezet.
For us the highlight of 2016 – and indeed for a longer period – is the policing of close passing of cyclists by West Midlands police , to be followed by similar policing by Camden MPS, and our award recognising this work. While, in itself, the enforcement exercise of “Give Space: Be Safe” won’t make a difference for the average cyclist in the UK, it is noteworthy for a number of reasons. As we say in the post, this policing recognises:
(a) The fundamental difference in the effects on others of errant behaviour by drivers on the one hand and cyclists on the other, and accordingly focusing on the driver misbehaviour.
(b) That behaviour which is intimidatory and deters potential cyclists from cycling – in this case close passing/overtaking – is worth addressing even if it is not just linked to causation of Killed and Seriously Injured casualties.
In other words, both approaches take a “harm-reduction” – or as we would say, danger reduction – approach. The award event at the House of Lords was packed out by campaigners, transport professionals and police officers. Cycling UK have referred to “Give Space: Be Safe” as “the best cyclist safety initiative by any police force, ever”What is “road danger reduction”?
Elsewhere we note an increasing use of the phrase “road danger reduction”. There is a Road Danger Reduction Manger at City of London, as well as the RDR Officer at LB Lambeth. However, sometimes the phrase is used in ways which are not the same as intended when RDRF was set up. We will be in contact with those claiming to support RDR offering support and hoping for them to sign up to the Road Danger Reduction Charter.
As with “sustainable transport policy” many supposed adherents do not , in fact, support what it says on the tin. We will point out to them where they differ from what we advocate – but ultimately there will be difficulties in us policing what is meant by “road danger reduction”. To assist clarity, watch out for further definitions of “road danger reduction” from us – the founders of the phrase – in 2017Some good things…
We, and our supporters, are still here! Sometimes seen as solipsistic – just talking to ourselves – the world of Twitter and this website can be limited. But it gives us a chance for the like-minded to support each other. In particular, we would single out @beztweets and beyondthekerb.org.uk for informative reading. (A favourite for me is how crashes caused by motorists seem to be reported without any driver agency apparent – but not so with crashes involving cyclists)…but mostly
The bottom line is that we still have a government committed to increasing car dependence with road building for more motor traffic. Car use has become cheaper and the sustainable modes, particularly cycling, languish compared to many similar countries in (northern) Europe.
Above all, we still have the dead hand of the “road safety” establishment. As regular readers know, we have pointed out in great detail how we think it has been part of the problem of danger on the road: failing to address danger at source, exacerbating much bad driving through accommodating it by vehicle and highway design, and victim-blaming users of the less dangerous modes. The fact that this is on often practiced with the best of intentions doesn’t excuse it, indeed makes it less acceptable.
So here’s a thought to take into 2017:
If it TAKES one life…
At the end of December in the UK we have had two high profile crashes occurring in foggy conditions: the A40 crash on 28th killing one person, and a coach overturning on 30th. Of course, we don’t know the exact chain of events leading to these incidents, and it is quite possible that sudden changes in conditions may have it difficult for even the most careful driver to avoid crashing. Nevertheless, it is commonly accepted that collisions in such foggy conditions often occur because drivers drive too fast for the conditions.
In short, they have not obeyed the most basic rule: “Never drive in such a way that you cannot stop in visible distance”.
Our take on this is that one of the reasons why this kind of rule infraction happens is precisely because of efforts of the “road safety” establishment. We are relentlessly bombarded with the “road safety” industry’s attempts to get the potential victims of drivers to “be seen” (for a recent example see this post , otherwise the posts over the years under “Conspicuity”). Highway engineers have spent generations increasing sight lines: in general, the mood has often been to accommodate not watching out for potential hazards.
Popular culture takes the lead from this shifting of responsibility away from the driver. Consider how The Times twitter feed reported the coach incident, at 1.20 pm on December 30th: “17 people are left injured after thick fog caused a coach to overturn” (my emphasis). Fortunately plenty of twitter followers were keen to point out that the agency of the driver has been missed out and effectively excused, even if responsible.
We will continue to p0int out this, and other examples of “road safety” being part of the problem as we believe it is necessary if we are going to have a civilised approach to danger on the road.
So here’s a thought: often, when we complain about the victim-blaming, non-evidence based approach of campaigns such as those to get pedestrians to wear hi-viz, we hear the phrase “if it saves only one life, it will have been worth it”. In fact, the “road safety” industry likes to claim exaggerated) large numbers for its interventions, but let’s consider the sentiment.
The fact is that in the road danger reduction movement we think that shifting responsibility away from drivers contributes to road danger. Exactly how the effect works through is difficult to tell – changes in culture and behaviour across societies are subtle and intangible – but definite nevertheless. So our retort, based on assessment that danger may have been exacerbated is: “if it takes only one life, it should have been opposed”.
We continue our work into 2017. Thanks to our supporters, and we renew our commitment to assisting those trying to tackle danger on the road at source.
In 2016 hebben is in Amsterdam de zeswekenregel ingevoerd in een aantal gebieden en zijn ongebruikte fietsen en fietswrakken opgeruimd. Eén op de tien fietsen is afgevoerd.
Van 13-16 juni 2017 vindt het congres Velo-city plaats in Arnhem-Nijmegen. Maar nu al is bekend gemaakt dat de volgende editie (2019) in Dublin zal zijn.
Het ministerie van IenM, NS, ProRail, VNG, IPO, Vervoerregio’s, Fietsersbond, FMN, ANWB en Rover hebben een bestuursovereenkomst ondertekend die ertoe moet leiden dat de fietsparkeerproblemen bij stations gezamenlijk worden aangepakt.