Safe cycling author calls for “less exaggeration of danger” and says cycling on the road is “very safe” – but cyclists argue “massive cultural change” for drivers is needed instead; Cav: “I don’t watch cycling”; Xmas bike stands + more on the live blog

Ranty Highwayman has similarly 'strong' views on Franklin

Yeah, saw the name and had a "great dinosaurs of the past" moment (more here, and the "grandad of the movement" here).

Seems the vehicular cycling ideology is still alive in the US (indeed seems oddly popular amongst ex-pat UK folks there also).  There are reasons for that (US culture - not just "car culture" either).  But these folks just sound antediluvian in the light of progress made for "nicer places" and "mass cycling" in Europe.

As always there are some elements of truth on both sides.  The VC folks did promote some helpful "survival techniques" (like taking the lane) - helpful if you're taking on the traffic.  And cycling is statistically a very safe mode of transport in the UK - which has one of the safer road environments overall (especially when compared to the US).

However I'd suggest there is still too much road death, injury and definitely too much intimidation (deliberate or just thoughtless) by motorised road users.  What I think isn't so important though - one of the reasons (reported in many surveys) that most people in the UK do not cycle (and particularly women, the young and the old) is that "it doesn't look / feel safe".

There are plenty of other non-"whatabout" reasons for the low fraction of trips cycled.  We've made it not social, inconvenient (or at least less so than driving), cyclists are an "out group", there's a lack of safe places to park or store a bike, we already have cars.  But without addressing "it doesn't look / feels safe" most people simply won't cycle.  That's not sufficient, but necessary.

But then - "most people cycling" doesn't seem to be a big concern of vehicular cyclists.  Indeed it seems (at least for some) it is predicated on a kind of elitism - the fit and the brave asserting their individuality and agency by cycling despite inconvenience, disapproval and danger.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Cycling is pretty safe in the UK if you look at it statistically in terms of KSI, however a lot of that is down to the fact that regular cyclists know how to ride defensively and watch out for bad driving; it's a very rare ride in London when there isn't at least one incident where I would probably have been hit if I hadn't anticipated that a driver was going to do something stupid and/or illegal. Cycling can only considered to be truly safe when you don't have to ride continually on edge. At the moment it's rather as if there was a high crime neighbourhood but the vast majority of residents had learned how to spot and avoid the criminals and modify their behaviour so they didn't become victims, rather than the authorities having done anything to strike at the root causes of the crime - great, it's a fairly safe area but only because everyone is living in fear.

Exactly - cyclists will receive lots of "almost" incidents on most journeys.

The answer has always been for better road policing and for the courts to apply appropriate penalties.

great, it's a fairly safe area but only because everyone is living in fear

Yes- I suffer from a perception of lack of safety daily, but the universally non-cyclist police (if they were ever called upon to explain their determination to take no action against drivers who offend against cyclists) would say "you're 72 and claim to both cycle every day and be in good health- the roads can't be that dangerous can they?". This one of the cases I sent to the informal Parliamentary inquiry

https://upride.cc/incident/ca70mkc_citroenvan_closepass/

It's the only one I have where I can demonstrate being 'inconvenienced', in the new police dodging phrase- I had to pull over because I was so shocked by the unexpected close pass at speed. The police ignored the offence, of course

Rendel Harris wrote:

Cycling is pretty safe in the UK if you look at it statistically in terms of KSI, however a lot of that is down to the fact that regular cyclists know how to ride defensively and watch out for bad driving; it's a very rare ride in London when there isn't at least one incident where I would probably have been hit if I hadn't anticipated that a driver was going to do something stupid and/or illegal. Cycling can only considered to be truly safe when you don't have to ride continually on edge. At the moment it's rather as if there was a high crime neighbourhood but the vast majority of residents had learned how to spot and avoid the criminals and modify their behaviour so they didn't become victims, rather than the authorities having done anything to strike at the root causes of the crime - great, it's a fairly safe area but only because everyone is living in fear.

The whole cycling-safty in the context of road cycling is a very complex issue, with many factors coming into play. Many of these factors have complex inter-relationships, so it's perhaps a poor approach to try to isolate them and to put them into some sort of hierarchy of importance for fixing one-by-one. 

Consider the factors: driver attitudes to cyclists; mass media cycling opinion pieces; legal system responses to road crimes; life-circumstances of both drivers and cyclists. Altering any of these has fairly obvious effects on all the others.

For example, if drivers & cyclists were less stressed by their life circumstances the anti-cyclist pieces in the gutter press would have less appeal and therefore probably reduce, whislt driver and cyclist antagonistic behaviours would reduce so making road crimes less "usual" such that courts would take those that did occur more seriously.

One aspect emerging from recognising the interdependence of many factors in creating and maintaining "a situation" is that its probably a poor approach to either concentrate on fixing only one factor; and a poor approach to invent some sort of apartheid to prevent the mixing of the prime actors in such situations.

For example, proposing cycling infrastructure separate from roads, covering every route that cyclists could go without encountering cars, does nothing to fix widespread stressful socio-economic circumstances, gutter press yahooing, bad driving or an ineffective legal response to bad driving.  And it would cost billions whilst doing even more damage to the biosphere.

Cugel wrote:

For example, proposing cycling infrastructure separate from roads, covering every route that cyclists could go without encountering cars, does nothing to fix widespread stressful socio-economic circumstances [cyclists are healthier, happier, more relaxed and save considerable amounts of money], gutter press yahooing [the press in Holland were hugely against introducing cycling infrastructure in the 70s when it began, now they point to it as a source of national pride], bad driving [if cyclists aren't sharing the road with bad drivers, bad driving becomes an irrelevant to them] or an ineffective legal response to bad driving [likewise].  And it would cost billions whilst doing even more damage to the biosphere [whilst also mitigating damage to the biosphere by significantly reducing vehicle emissions; it has been estimated that if cycling could be moved from a 3% to a 6% modal share that would save one gigaton of CO2 emissions between now and 2050. Yes, infrastructure can be costly but it easily pays its own way, e.g. the Netherlands spends €500 million a year on cycling and it is estimated that it saves €19 billion a year by doing so in terms of lower health expenditure, reduced absenteeism et cetera.]

Cugel wrote:

For example, proposing cycling infrastructure separate from roads, covering every route that cyclists could go without encountering cars, does nothing to fix widespread stressful socio-economic circumstances, gutter press yahooing, bad driving or an ineffective legal response to bad driving.  And it would cost billions whilst doing even more damage to the biosphere.

That's a bit of a straw-man argument - I don't think anyone is proposing that.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Cugel wrote:

For example, proposing cycling infrastructure separate from roads, covering every route that cyclists could go without encountering cars, does nothing to fix widespread stressful socio-economic circumstances, gutter press yahooing, bad driving or an ineffective legal response to bad driving.  And it would cost billions whilst doing even more damage to the biosphere.

That's a bit of a straw-man argument - I don't think anyone is proposing that.

For many, including around this forum, cycling infrastructure is the be-all and end-all for solving cyclist fear of road traffic.  There's also an assumption that "build it and they will come". 

In practice, there's a lot of very poor cycling infrastructure but even when its well-built, many sections see no increase at all in cycling.  This may not be true in London but that's really an exception, as are the half dozen other places where building cycleways does see a (small) increase in cyclists.

The fact is, Blighters have come to prefer the car, not because its less expensive and provides a better experience than does cycling (a car does the opposite) but because of all sorts of psycho-factors to do with feelings of power, worth, inviulnerability, laziness, desire for cosseting comforts and so forth. Perhaps the largest car-use inducement is the glamoor pasted over the tedious reality by advertising and the infantile antics of Klarksons.

And cars are good for jousting (aka road raging) to service various modern angsts in a way that bicycles aren't.

There's also an assumption that more cycling means less driving. But is this true? I suspect that even habitual cycle commuters will still drive if conditions are less than optimum.

There's also another assumption that removing cyclists from the roads, or encouraging more of them on to the roads, will somehow reduce car aggressions and the associated murder & maiming. There's really no reason to assume that. Car aggression is due to all sorts of factors and affects many more road users than cyclists, not least car drivers themselves.

There's far too much assumption that cycling will somehow auto-construct better humans. It doesn't and it won't.

Cugel wrote:

For many, including around this forum, cycling infrastructure is the be-all and end-all for solving cyclist fear of road traffic.

Who are these imaginary posters?

Cugel wrote:

In practice, there's a lot of very poor cycling infrastructure but even when its well-built, many sections see no increase at all in cycling.  This may not be true in London but that's really an exception, as are the half dozen other places where building cycleways does see a (small) increase in cyclists.

The fact is, Blighters have come to prefer the car, not because its less expensive and provides a better experience than does cycling (a car does the opposite) but because of all sorts of psycho-factors to do with feelings of power, worth, inviulnerability, laziness, desire for cosseting comforts and so forth. Perhaps the largest car-use inducement is the glamoor pasted over the tedious reality by advertising and the infantile antics of Klarksons.

Some truth to that.  I'd say that on a level playing field (and that's kind of what the Dutch managed to establish ... and not just due to the lack of mountains) most people are going to pick the most convenient way to travel.  (But yes - there are clearly psycho-factors).  Where that is cycling, they'll cycle.

In the UK it's almost always "car" (by design - by infrastructure design!).  And in fact when you say "better experience" there's a century of "pimp my ride" making the driving experience nicer - which otherwise could be miserable - sat inside a metal box next to hundreds of other boxes.  (And lots of building concrete and asphalt to make it easier).  And on the flip side making cycling a worse experience - by demanding cyclists are NOT social e.g. can't ride two-abreast or more, shouldn't listen to music, can't chat because of the traffic noise...

Cugel wrote:

There's also an assumption that more cycling means less driving. But is this true? I suspect that even habitual cycle commuters will still drive if conditions are less than optimum.

That is a question.  The biggest experiment we have (NL) shows that over the last 20 years or so there has a generally small increase in total distance travelled each year BUT a greater increase in numbers of cars [from here].  So less distance per vehicle.  Also according to numbers here quoted in this article, from 2012-2022 the average driver drove less far.  There was an increase in distance cycled also - unfortunately the one doesn't balance the other though!

The bigger question is - what sort of change are you hoping for?  No change (which in the UK actually means more driving)?  Far less or even zero car use (unlikely to happen)?  More - a massive drop in usage of ALL powered transport (inc. trains, buses, cars, ... ebikes?)?  Probably even less likely unless we start teleporting via our mobile devices!

I'm not sure anywhere has managed to do better than NL (without someone bombing their infra...) while also reaping benefits of independent mobility for children and the old, health (physical and mental) benefits for the population etc.

Cugel wrote:

There's also another assumption that removing cyclists from the roads, or encouraging more of them on to the roads, will somehow reduce car aggressions and the associated murder & maiming. There's really no reason to assume that. Car aggression is due to all sorts of factors and affects many more road users than cyclists, not least car drivers themselves.

Well perhaps if we had a different overall principle/philosophy than "roads are for cars" and "better roads permit higher throughput of motor vehicles; better places provide more parking"?  Maybe such a philosophy could just change that goal to "the safe and efficient movement of people" and also pay close attention to "human factors" e.g. acknowledge that people make mistakes / break rules and work with that?  Maybe that could guide making our public spaces safer for all?  And that could also make them less frustrating?

Beyond that - I think fixing "humans and their emotions" in general might be above the remit of transport infra!

One idea might be - as you've alluded to - addressing people trying to sell products (vehicles, media) via fear, or through some people's need to prove their superior status over others.

But good luck with fixing that human design feature!

Cugel wrote:

There's far too much assumption that cycling will somehow auto-construct better humans. It doesn't and it won't.

Again - who's proposed that?  As far as I can see people who would like less driving or driving further away from un-armoured people are mostly keen on harm-minimisation.  Take the automatic weapons from people (cars) or remove them to where they are likely only to collide with each other - that's a great start!  Especially as some people can't have them (children, some people with disabilities etc.).

Certainly there are selfish or aggressive idiots in the world and when on bikes they can still hurt or even kill you.  But that is much less likely than with the aid of a powered metal exoskeleton.  It's not just that there's far less potential energy to transfer or crushing force to apply.  Those tempted will know they'll likely hurt themselves also.  And perhaps the law will take more interest than if they'd done it with a motor vehicle?

Cugel wrote:

One aspect emerging from recognising the interdependence of many factors in creating and maintaining "a situation" is that its probably a poor approach to either concentrate on fixing only one factor; and a poor approach to invent some sort of apartheid to prevent the mixing of the prime actors in such situations.

Here we go...

Cugel wrote:

For example, proposing cycling infrastructure separate from roads, covering every route that cyclists could go without encountering cars, does nothing to fix widespread stressful socio-economic circumstances, gutter press yahooing, bad driving or an ineffective legal response to bad driving.  And it would cost billions whilst doing even more damage to the biosphere.

Who's proposing that then?

This article is rather old now but should cover it.  Not sure whether it's entirely fair to say you're attacking a straw man?  There does seem to have been confusion over this.  Certainly in the past cycling advocates did put lots of focus on trying to get some decent separate cycle infra *.  That seems to have caused some people to conclude ** that this was the only thing that was being proposed and ergo it was a) entirely unrealistic and b) plain silly.

* I suspect because a) this was a very visible difference between high-cycling places (not just NL) and the UK, and b) it covers the "feels safe, and IS safe" requirements, and usually "is convenient" and "can be social".  Of course this includes safer junction treatments of various kinds (better than "bike boxes") and "filtered permeability".  Historically there has been less emphasis on also doing traffic calming-and-reduction - and especially making it less direct and ultimately less convenient for motorists.  That's because in the UK people  might grudgingly listen when you asked for better cycling, but if you proposed doing this at the expense of driving that would be a fight, and if you suggested actively reducing convenience for drivers as a goal nobody would listen to you further.

** Example is people wrestling with what this means in the comments to this article on why Milton Keynes isn't a cycling paradise. (Answer - because ultimately whether or not the cycling treatment was much good, it was made far easier to drive!)

Within towns & cities, where most people live, separating cyclists from through motor traffic is the obvious goal/solution, and where new cyclists are likely to be encouraged.

If/where cyclists are on the same road as motor vehicles, then driver behavior & policing is important. This will be the case for most cycling outside of towns & cities, and where assertive cycling helps.

With the number of collisions on motorways & cycle excluded tunnels etc, it's clear that driving behavior is poor, without cyclists or pedestrians involved!

Indeed - the fallacy / confusion seems to have been that:

a) Many advocates for safer cycling have been very loud about the need for separated cycling infra (because the main "streets" - the key routes - are now roads or urban motorways).
b) BUT that doesn't mean that they are only about that (which would be silly).  Or against all the other helpful tools like tackling junctions, using modal filters to give cyclists alternative routes that motor traffic can't use, making some residential streets very low traffic, low speed etc. And then where appropriate using that plus the modal filtering to help build a network using the existing streets.
c) It also doesn't mean that people are simply saying "zero cyclists should / will cycle without a separate cycle path in every circumstance".  (I would however put this as "not sufficient, but necessary" - quite a lot of people simply will not cycle amongst heavy traffic and/or where speed differences are high).
d) Some of the existing quick and brave (or just "bloody minded cyclists") saw in the above a falsehood ("well that's nonsense, I've cycled on A-roads, man and boy, never had a problem...").  Or some of the following potential threats:

So e.g. "but cycling infra will slow us down / be inconvenient / is just building more stuff / give those drivers an excuse to keep on driving AND ammunition to demand that cyclists get off the roads".  Or just missing the point ("we just need to stop all / most drivers driving" or "we can just share the road / if drivers drove properly / the police just arrested all the bad ones - there would be no need for cycle infra").  And possibly "so it's a waste of money / money we don't have".

In light of much of the rubbish has been built in the UK some of that is understandable.  In the light of how roads and culture are in the US the threat of getting banned from the roads (or just assaulted more) probably looks quite likely to folks over there.  Plus the chances of real change across the nation - zero.

FWIW my take is that "where driving is easy, Brits drive" (borrowing Carlton Reid).  People assess the relative ease and attractiveness of journeys.  If we already have cars, and excellent roads, and convenient parking everywhere - people will drive - unless we can make cycling that trip relatively attractive to driving it.

BUT even if it was much more expensive and miserable to drive (and people are already sat in jams for large parts of their lives) there are some things which would just stop them cycling.  If it doesn't feel safe, they won't.  If they don't have secure places to store or park their bike (which have to be convenient!) they won't have a bike.  Then there are social factors - and in the UK we see cyclists as oddballs (or worse), and we actually discourage or prevent people from travelling socially on bikes (unlike any other transport mode)!

And don't forget all the people who are not in the KSI figures because they were put off cycling in the first place.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

And don't forget all the people who are not in the KSI figures because they were put off cycling in the first place.

That works both ways, because people who could have taken advantage of the health, financial and social benefits of cycling are put off too. Those are journeys that could have helped make the case for the better dedicated cycling infrastructure, and helped drivers to expect to see cyclists on the roads and to drive accordingly etc etc. 

The phrasing isn't what I'd use, but a good faith interpretation is that he was raising the chicken and egg situation above. I assume he comes across a number of people who are in the position of needing that extra bit of confidence that bikeability provides, so it's not surprising it seems more pertinent to him than to experienced cyclists who just want drivers to behave themselves.

The rise in cycle-cams and sharing footage of dangerous driving should be an effective tool to educate/shame drivers and to support the prosecution of some of the worst offenders. Unfortunately that comes hand in hand with reminding a lot of potential cyclists, and their loved ones, of all of the scary things that could happen to them. That might be fine if they saw that action was being taken against the obvious law breakers, but they also see that it isn't.

To buck that trend we need to see offenders facing punishment.

Franklin is part of the problem with his vehicular cycling nonsense

I hadn't read that bit about his book and opinions, until you prompted me. One problem is that the benefits of increased cycling would be manifested at the population level if they ever came about, but the genuine (as opposed to the imaginary 'causes pollution and congestion, etc.') ill-effects are decidedly personal

https://upride.cc/incident/g6noope10zvf_vwaudi_veryclosepass/

Meanwhile, the police dimwits are thinking 'what's the problem?- I could easily cycle up that gap between the vehicle and the pavement'