90% scared of cycling in UK cities — new research suggests fear of collisions, road rage and theft putting people off

Rendel Harris wrote:

I'm wondering if his Mrs ran off with a Dutch cyclist? There must be some explanation for this monomaniacal desire desperately to try to prove the utterly risible assertion that the USA is actually more of a cycling nation than the Netherlands.

If pathetic ad hominem attempts are all you can muster in reply, then I am very obviously correct.

That said, I never claimed anything remotely like the US status as a "cycling nation". I merely explained to y'all that Dutch cyclists die at a rate approximately triple that of the US -- which is not renowned for its cycling infrastructure. No one except Belgium and theoretically France can compare to the Dutch love of cycling -- which is partly why some of the statistics quoted here are, as I explained, made excessively rosy by Dutch officials.

I only talk about the Netherlands because the topic is cycling infrastructure and they've been conducting that failed experiment longer and more vociferously than anyone -- with, by now, predictably terrible results.

dh700 wrote:

If pathetic ad hominem attempts are all you can muster...

also dh700 wrote:

you're probably beyond your depth here [...]  I have to suggest this pool may be a bit deep for you.

also also dh700 wrote:

Really Bob Woodward? That's some investigation right there.

Glass houses, etc.

dh700 wrote:

I only talk about the Netherlands because the topic is cycling infrastructure and they've been conducting that failed experiment longer and more vociferously than anyone -- with, by now, predictably terrible results.

Well, having visited both Holland and USA, I'm pretty sure about where I'd rather be cycling.

But did you go to The Netherlands though?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Holland,_Illinois

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts_of_Holland

On a serious note if I went back now I guess I'd be more interested in less sexy stuff like how utilities and highways works are done and coordinated.  Or how local government is measured and held accountable on their responsibilities for safety and environmental criteria.  Or the intricacies of politics, planning and funding.

In all of which I would be well out of my depth!  But these places are probably where the actual (boring, grubby, political) magic happens which ensures that the entire country offers incredible places with real transport choice, Dutch adults and adolescents are more physically active than those in most other EU countries etc.

As I said earlier, I travel to the US a lot for work (and vacations too sometimes). I also travel to European countries a lot. I've been to many major cities in the US and have cycled in a few of them too. In no US city have I ever seen anything like the numbers of cyclists on the road as I have in Amsterdam or Copenhagen, not even close. We get more regular cyclists commuting here in London than in any US city, and even more in Paris or Munich where I go regularly too. To try and claim the percentage of regular cyclists is high in the US in comparison to the Netherlands is ridiculous. You just need to stand on a street corner in Amsterdam to see that. 

Hear hear! I don't know why he's so desperate to prove the opposite of what is blindingly obvious, but he can only do it by a) saying other countries lie about their numbers and b) counting every American who rides a bike once a year as a regular cyclist, then throwing in every kid who rides a pushalong scooter on the sidewalk as a cyclist too. Surprised he hasn't thrown in every under-three who pushes a tricycle round their yard as well.

That's a bit silly.  Never really got to the bottom of it though (I did try previously).

Most people have reasons for why they put energy into something.  I believe it's worth knowing "where they're coming from" though I might still disagree on where they then take that (or how they argue it).  At least you then know the things that it's likely not worth discussing.  As it won't be an argument because they "know" - we all are set up for motivated reasoning.  And on this topic they're defending the truth.  (Even if it involves shifting the goalposts and/or bringing in stuff which just ain't factually true - details).

OTOH internet forum so some people just like "being right" and engaging is just volunteering to be made wrong.

chrisonabike wrote:

Well hello again.  Hope you're still enjoying the ride.  What's got you excited again after all this time?

Twas apparently road.cc's turn to pop up in my feed. There are many dens of disinformation on the Internet, and I'm sure you'll be disappointed to learn that road.cc doesn't get all my attention.

chrisonabike wrote:

Seems as last time you see a triumph of theory over practice (or reality).  Or maybe you actually got to visit some of these places and are here to tell us it's a lie (turned out wrong since the last time e.g. I visited) - all the videos were filmed in a lot in Los Angeles?

No actual idea to what you are attempting to reference. Seems I made a bigger impression on you than vice versa.

If you think videos are an effective means of study compared to data, again I have to suggest this pool may be a bit deep for you.

chrisonabike wrote:

You're quite right that reducing the speed and volume of motor traffic definitely helped in NL but "decimation" is an odd word to use - particularly when motor traffic distance driven has increased (at a greater rate than population increase from e.g. 2022-2017)

Again as previously observed, Dutch cyclists die at an excessively high rate. You appear to be missing that premise, and suggesting that their environment is far safer than it actually is. Which is why, again, around 70% of Dutch cyclists feel road safety is a major problem.

So tell me again how all that construction was so effective.

Rome73 wrote:

I'm not sure you are correct.

Thanks, but I am, since I've been studying this for many years.

Rome73 wrote:

Pavements are specific infrastructure for a specific group. Would you suggest doing away with those? If you have contiguous, safe cycle routes that avoid busy roads then of course people will use them and feel safer doing so. The KSI rate in the Netherlands may be high but how many people, as a percentage of population and journeys, cycle in the Netherlands? Surely more  than the 2% in the UK

I would not tear up pavements, but neither should we build more, since they also do not work -- pedestrian fatalities are vastly more than cyclists everywhere -- and do not scale.

No construction will work to improve safety without law enforcement. The only reason pavements are even mildly useful is because a driver who drives on one might actually face prosecution.

As I already said, the Netherlands fatality rate per cyclist is exceedingly high. It is roughly triple that of the US' rate -- a country not exactly known for its cycling infrastructure. I don't have the UK number handy. The Dutch rate per km cycled is not great, either, since they only ride about 14 city blocks per day, on average, at 12 km/h.

All that said, pavements are often shared, and not dedicated to just one group.

dh700 wrote:

Out of curiosity, why do you believe this when all evidence is to the contrary?

And what evidence is this of which you speak? The absolute number of cycling deaths in a given country isn't a very useful metric since it tells you nothing about exposure. Whilst the average cycling journey in the Netherlands might be fairly slow and fairly short, that is the result of the fact that a lot of people cycle for the majority of their journeys. When you properly account for exposure, you'll see that the Netherlands is actually one of the safest places to cycle (image below; source). Followed closely by countries such as Denmark, Germany and Norway - all countries that have invested heavily in segregated cycling infrastructure.

OnYerBike wrote:

And what evidence is this of which you speak?

I already explained that the Netherlands has been forced to resort to other strategies, since their decades of construction completely failed to achieve a safety improvement. The same pattern has been followed everywhere else.

That said, your chart is inaccurate. For political and cultural reasons, the Netherlands grossly undercount their cycling injuries and over count their cyclists and mileage. https://www.dutchnews.nl/2021/09/cycling-injuries-three-times-more-than-... Official Dutch statistics claim roughly 80% of the population rides, but when polled, the actual number is half that. https://www.peopleforbikes.org/news/best-kept-secret-dutch-biking-dutch-...

OnYerBike wrote:

The absolute number of cycling deaths in a given country isn't a very useful metric since it tells you nothing about exposure.

Cf preceding -- the alleged Dutch exposure is wildly overstated, and they are killed at an extremely high rate. Which is precisely why the Dutch are implementing lower speed limits, even for cyclists, and 70-ish percent of them report feeling unsafe when cycling.

OnYerBike wrote:

Whilst the average cycling journey in the Netherlands might be fairly slow and fairly short, that is the result of the fact that a lot of people cycle for the majority of their journeys. When you properly account for exposure, you'll see that the Netherlands is actually one of the safest places to cycle (image below; source). Followed closely by countries such as Denmark, Germany and Norway - all countries that have invested heavily in segregated cycling infrastructure.

Which has proven completely ineffectual, resulting in all of those countries pivoting to the strategies I previously mentioned.

Have you read the pages you linked to?

The Peoplesforbike.org page doesn't support your assertion at all. All it says is that the Dutch do a lot of short journeys by bike. This can lead to some slightly counter-intuitve statistics (such as the average length of a cycled journey in the Netherlands being short), but does nothing to detract from the fact that the total amount cycled in the Netherlands by the average person is high.

The dutchnews.nl site makes a valid argument that injuries may well be underreported in national statistics (that's not a problem that would just affect the Netherlands I would add). However, I would expect fatalities - which is what the report I showed focuses on - are far more likely to be accurately captured. Indeed, that very page notes "fatalities are very low per km cycled". It also notes that "Cycling levels in the Netherlands are the highest in the world, with more than a quarter of all journeys taking place and up to half of travel within cities." - so that would seem to undermine your previous point too.

I'm not saying that the Netherlands is perfect - yes there is a problem with infrastructure designed for cyclists being used by faster/heavier vehicles than it was designed for (some legally, many illegally) - this is nothing new (https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/the-moped-menace-in-the-ne...) although the rise of e-scooters and high powered "ebike" electric motorbikes is probably making this worse.

Quote:

Which has proven completely ineffectual, resulting in all of those countries pivoting to the strategies I previously mentioned.

How exactly has it "proven completely ineffectual" if those countries (with the best infrastructure) are objectively the safest for cyclists? The official statistics might not be perfect, and infrastructure alone isn't a complete panacea, but you're yet to present a shred of evidence that actually supports your argument. 

OnYerBike wrote:

Have you read the pages you linked to?

Yes, and many others.

OnYerBike wrote:

The Peoplesforbike.org page doesn't support your assertion at all. All it says is that the Dutch do a lot of short journeys by bike. This can lead to some slightly counter-intuitve statistics (such as the average length of a cycled journey in the Netherlands being short), but does nothing to detract from the fact that the total amount cycled in the Netherlands by the average person is high.

Yes, it does, because until the Dutch add more days to their year, riding extremely short daily distances means they ride few miles per year. That, coupled with the fact that their number of cyclists is quite small compared to many countries means their shockingly high fatalities indicate a severe problem.

And this is reinforced by polling which reveals the huge majority of Dutch recognize a cycling safety problem, and by the Dutch slashing speed limits even for cyclists.

OnYerBike wrote:

The dutchnews.nl site makes a valid argument that injuries may well be underreported in national statistics (that's not a problem that would just affect the Netherlands I would add). However, I would expect fatalities - which is what the report I showed focuses on - are far more likely to be accurately captured. Indeed, that very page notes "fatalities are very low per km cycled".

And yet fatalities are not particularly low per km when we use accurate statistics, even if we trust that they are only lying about injuries. Why, exactly, would they only misstate injuries and not fatalities?

OnYerBike wrote:

It also notes that "Cycling levels in the Netherlands are the highest in the world, with more than a quarter of all journeys taking place and up to half of travel within cities." - so that would seem to undermine your previous point too.

I'm not sure what point you think this undermines, but this statement depends entirely on the definition of "levels". If one is referring to percentage of population that cycles, the Netherlands is very high. If one is referring to number of cyclists, they are not at all. If one is referring to km per cyclist, that is almost impossible to know, since hardly any countries track that with useful precision.

OnYerBike wrote:

I'm not saying that the Netherlands is perfect - yes there is a problem with infrastructure designed for cyclists being used by faster/heavier vehicles than it was designed for...

Precisely one of the reasons that infrastructure dedicated to a single vehicle type does not work, and does not scale, and is a fool's errand. By the time you build even a fraction of it, it is obsolete because vehicles change faster than construction can happen.

We should have learned this lesson a long time ago. Let's consider not repeating the same mistake over and over again.

OnYerBike wrote:

How exactly has it "proven completely ineffectual" if those countries (with the best infrastructure) are objectively the safest for cyclists? The official statistics might not be perfect, and infrastructure alone isn't a complete panacea, but you're yet to present a shred of evidence that actually supports your argument.

This is simply a misstatement of the situation, first of all. Among other reasons, the safest country for cyclists is Japan, which has no dedicated infrastructure to speak of, and frankly a rather terrible road system for geographic reasons, but does have strict enforcement of traffic law.

Stop spewing nonsense if you wish to argue with me.

Furthermore, as discussed ad nauseum above, the Netherlands is not nearly as safe for cyclists as you are attempting to claim -- despite half a century or so of infrastructure construction.

Finally, in none of the countries you are using as examples did construction-based solutions effect their desired result. In every case, failed construction strategies were followed by traffic reduction and increased enforcement -- which, again, do work.

OnYerBike wrote:

Have you read the pages you linked to?

dh700 wrote:

Yes, and many others. 

Really? 

dh700 wrote:

Fairly sure we've been over this -- you are quoting adult cyclists. There are an additional 80M or so children, and the enormous majority of them bike

...and from the PeopleForBikes website from which you quote so approvingly:

Quote:

“Last year, we measured a gradual but repeated drop in ridership among youth ages 3-17,” says Patrick Hogan, senior research manager at PeopleForBikes, noting that his team is still working to understand why we are seeing this trend. “While about 49% of youth ages 3-17 rode a bicycle at least once in 2022, ridership among younger Americans has continued to drop since 2016.”

Do explain how 49% is an "enormous majority"...no actually don't bother, I think people can judge the validity of your data and your interpretation of it for themselves…

Rendel Harris wrote:

Do explain how 49% is an "enormous majority"...no actually don't bother, I think people can judge the validity of your data and your interpretation of it for themselves…

Because -- as I already explained -- they distinguish between bicycles and scooters and one-wheels and such -- which is irrelevant from a road safety perspective. The enormous majority of children use one or more of those devices.

I'm still waiting for some actual evidence to back up any of your assertions.

Nothing in the Peoplesforbike.org page provides the slightest evidence that the Dutch statistics on cycling rates is incorrect. Individual journeys might be short, but when a significant proportion of the population cycles a significant proportion of their journeys it adds up. The graph I included previously indicates that the average distance cycled per person per year is highest in the Netherlands of all European countries with good data, and the rate of fatalities per km cycled is the lowest. If you've got evidence to the contrary, then do please share.

Quote:

And yet fatalities are not particularly low per km when we use accurate statistics, even if we trust that they are only lying about injuries. Why, exactly, would they only misstate injuries and not fatalities?

Where are these "accurate statistics" of which you speak? Again, do share.

No-one (other than you) has claimed that the Dutch are deliberately manipulating statistics. The dutchnews.nl article you link says that injuries may be underreported because statistics in the Netherlands (as in other countries, including the UK) are based on Police reports, and not all incidents (especially minor injuries) will require police attendance. It is reasonable to assume that fatalities are far more likely to involve a police officer attending and so be captured in the statistics.

Quote:

Stop spewing nonsense if you wish to argue with me.

Oh, the irony.

Completely agree.  However as Chris Boardman has (I think correctly identified) money is in some ways not the issue.  Or rather it's one of the last issues to address when trying to get change at the political level.  If our lords and masters really get it they'll almost certainly be able to do *something* useful - even before substantial moneys were available given the (relatively) vast funds available for "road transport" and other things which sorting our streets could be filed under.

Apparently it works in the opposite direction! (e.g. IIRC councils have managed to get "active travel" funding to pay for improvements for drivers and bus companies...)

You don't need to retest people frequently, if you regularly hold & keep people to the tested standard, it involves more road coppers though, and a willingness to prosecute for road offences.

And fwiw despite the fact a collision is more likely to be fatal, I don't encounter a tenth of the hassle or safety concerns on rural roads that I get from urban areas riding.

We barely have enough capacity to handle existing demand for tests...

But courts should be able to mandate ongoing testing as a penalty for driving offences (i.e. after ban is spent offender is required to repass test every 5 years); For offences above a given severity retesting should be part of court investigation (i.e. you have to do a driving test BEFORE it goes to court and the result + examiner review is submitted as evidence)

Courts should also be able to time limit existing licences (i.e. we aren't banning you immediately, but you have 3 months to pass a test if you want to keep licence)

This focuses limited test resources on problematic drivers.

OF course all of these penalties need to be in addition not instead of current penalties.

Not being able to cover demand is not a good enough reason to re-test. Increase the capacity.  Grade tests as beginner, refresher etc. Fail a refresher one and you're back to the start. Increase the cost of the test to cover the cost of the extra infrastructure.

These are all possible solutions rather than just saying "too hard, give up".

The standards of driving in this country are atrocious. I suspect a lot of this is due to laziness or main character syndrome, but some of it is due to people not realising that they're not doing things well. When I've tried to educate drivers about what they could do better it usually results in a threat of a fight, when I've tried to get the police to educate them I get ignored, so who is going to correct their behaviour? Regular meetings with a trained and impartial examiner could help a lot here.

At work I have to be re-trained and tested regularly on everything from lifting boxes to cyber security. Why should it be any different when I streets?

Cycling competence should be part of the driving test.

And it should be compulsory for anyone renewing a licence. Anyone unable to ride a bicycle would have the option of a tricycle, e-bike or e-assisted hand cycle.

Agree.  It's those "barriers" overcoming which is necessary (but not sufficient) for people to switch modes *.

Policing is a "necessary" for road safety but I'm just not sure how important.  I certainly don't think that has much to do with people's feeling of safety or the lack of it on the roads.  Plenty people die in car crashes but I'm not seeing people saying "I would drive, but feel the police just won't protect me...".  And it has zero to do with convenience of cycling and also zero to do with the relative appeal of driving a given journey over cycling it.

People won't necessarily know good solutions themselves ** and they also might simply assume some things are given if you cycle (e.g. getting sweaty, "but how will I carry anything" etc.)

Ultimately I doubt how much this is about "personal choice" (unless that is people choosing to pressure their MP / councillor / other people).  Personal choice gets our current 1% of journeys cycled (and falling, without further work).   The people with the power to actually change things (councils, and ultimately the government for allocating funding / setting direction of travel / amending laws) have to feel this is worth not just having (otherwise we get ineffectual "encouraging cycling") but worth the long-term, contentious hard work of selling and making a major change to our transport systems (and indeed philosophy).

FWIW Cycling Embassy of GB have a comprehensive page on people's reported barriers to cycling.

* While it's possible for e.g. extra road capacity to create new driven journeys in general this is about switching from using one mode to another.  Another complication is that for journeys previously driven it may be these are replaced by multi-modal transport, or by "substitution" e.g. used to drive to the out of town shopping centre for a big weekly shop, now realise that I can do this e.g. using the bike on the way home from work at more local shops but split over a couple of shops over the week.

** A bit like asking "why do you drive to the shops?" - it's unlikely that people would identify "you can buy cars which have lights, storage space, locks and weather protection, right from the dealer.  Then there are well-maintained roads for me to drive on between here and there where I don't feel I'll get killed and parking both by my house and the shop, oh, and everyone else does this" - but without those conditions there probably wouldn't be much motorised shopping.