Welsh Labour government to prioritise walking projects over cycle lanes, as cycling campaigners fear "missed opportunity"

E6toSE3 wrote:

I know Welsh 20mph limit has some mad aspects

Presumably "slowing down people in cars?  What for?  They can go way faster - some well over 100mph, you know!  Are you quite mad?"

E6toSE3 wrote:

but, in principle, starting with most vulnerable is the best method... towards a deeply comprehensive travel framework.

Somewhat - although if you push that far enough you'll be scrapping all motor vehicles as many can't use them and they're a danger to everyone - and the most concern to those least able to use them!

I think making places "accessible" is usually a benefit to everyone, not just those e.g. with disabilities. (Example: gentle ramps are AFAIK a great deal safer that stairs for all).  There are a few things where that might be less convenient for the fit, but the main drawbacks are space (although we've handed vast amounts to the dominant travel mode...) and cost (ditto).

E6toSE3 wrote:

But even Dutch acquaintances are saying how their structures are failing in part due to reckless ebikes

Are they?  Firstly: have they identified how these ebikes might be controlled?  Are they autonomous or perhaps they are part of a hive mind?

Do they mean ebikes are causing bridges to collapse, ripping up the klinkers and cycle paths etc.?  I can't see that in the videos from there but I haven't been for over 10 years.  But I'm pretty sure if the bromfietsen didn't do that already even lots of ebikes ain't going to shift that.  (They are making some heavy / fast ones nowadays mind).

Or do they mean the very fabric of society is coming undone because ebikes?  (Again ... whatabout the bromfietsers?  I know they're controversial though.)

I am not dismissing this completely; people are constantly trying to sell us things which can cause serious problems and societal changes when everyone gets one.  Like motor vehicles!

Well, yes ... but in daily life (not recreation) people aren't going to walk long distances or carry much.  So in fact ... they will want to drive to the walk.  Problem being driving and parking is very space-inefficient.  Plus people don't like being around lots of motor traffic (nor fast traffic).  So unless the cars are going very slowly we run into capacity issues which limits pedestrianisation.

It's somewhat similar public transport - people aren't going to walk so far to the bus / train / tram.

Where cycling *could* help here is in "bridging the gap".  Which is in fact where it does, where there is "mass cycling" e.g. significant "whole population" cycle use.

That's firstly because it's a space-efficient mode (even more so for parking).  Then "mass cycling"-type cycling essentially gives the whole population "superpowered walking".  Now they can easily reach public transport hubs, and when they store their vehicle it takes up about 1/6 to 1/10 of the space required for a car.  If you fix it right, they can expand the "reachable area" at either end of public transport (better than cars, because you don't have to walk miles through a giant car park).

They can now reach local amenities - and when they do carry a useful amount to/from them.  They can carry children, and sometimes even other adults.

Of course - not all of those things work everywhere.  It seems in mass cycling places most people cycle for about as long as they'd walk e.g. probably closer to 15 minutes than 30.  And there are fewer benefits to be had in low-density areas or where small population centres are far from each other.

Plus some need genuine transformation - both of e.g. public transport AND our built environment: you can't reach local shops if there aren't any because they've we've moved those to out-of-town places or built giant housing estates without any...

chrisonabike wrote:

Well, yes ... but in daily life (not recreation) people aren't going to walk long distances or carry much. 

That sounds a lot what anti-cycling people say about cycling.

Steve K wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

Well, yes ... but in daily life (not recreation) people aren't going to walk long distances or carry much. 

That sounds a lot what anti-cycling people say about cycling.

It is (e.g. "you can't do the shopping by bike" etc.) But we're talking averages - some people walk miles every day, or cycle tens of miles ... but most don't, or would do so very rarely.

I guess the questions are what are the numbers?  What changes in car use patterns have occurred where e.g. places have seen extensive pedestrian improvements?

(All this is leaving aside making it *less* convenient to drive - without that I don't foresee any significant reduction in motoring).

I'm speculating as AFAIK we've not tried this (in the UK...) - but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume most people don't walk very far most of the time (especially not carrying stuff).  If that is reasonable I think that if we mostly provide for walking we will probably get more walking, but not see much change in terms of driving *to* centres.

Why I think it would be different in the case of cycling?  Again we just need to look at the numbers.  We'll need to take those from places where there is mass cycling e.g. average / spread of distances cycled - in the UK those who cycle are more likely to be "exceptions" anyway since most people simply don't.

I believe the average cycle trip distance in NL is not massive.  (Again - some people clearly cycle a LOT - but there are a lot of people cycling and most do not.)  For meaningful comparison the numbers perhaps need summed over the trips done in a day by either mode before comparing.  So perhaps people would only walk half a mile somewhere and back once, but are happy to do 6+ trips of about that distance by bike?

But cycling - they're more likely to reach some point they want to access within say 15-20 minutes than by walking.  (They may well then get off their bike and walk of course!)

So again I speculate if instead we provide for cycling as much or more than walking - we may get more walking but lots more cycling, but also significantly less driving for short trips anyway.  (For longer distances an integrated public transport system is needed to dent numbers driving even slightly - see NL).

Skates wants to spend active travel money on dropped kerbs, seating and better bus shelters.

In other words, let's tinker around the edges, make no meaningful changes to prioritise walking and cycling, and simply keep the car-dominated status quo. It is pathetic.

This is broadly my view as well. I have no issue sharing roads with considerate drivers and the cost/feasibility of putting in good cycling infrastructure in the UK is prohibative. Christ, we can't even fund the most basic services currently. 

The quickest/cheapest way to make it safer for everyone is to reduce the danger from cars. Thats literally the end goal of all other plans. One way or another its to mitigate the risk from other vehicles.

I would say that 95% or more of the dangerous things cars do around me is from bad decision making. Its not bad luck. Its not bad road design. Its drivers consciously deciding to do something they shouldn't do. Its driver behaviour. I don't honestly expect cars to check their wing mirror every time they turn left. I don't expect cars to look for cyclists at every moment. I ride to compensate for cars all the time and honestly, thats never going to change as long as I ride on the roads. You can't trust drivers to have always seen you, especially when its busy. 

What we can get a handle on is the constant dangerous driving that is accepted as totally normal. Overtaking when its not safe. Overtaking too close. Overtaking before cutting across us. Cutting corners when making turns. Overtaking on blind corners and hills. 

Unfortunately everything is still done with a massive eye on drivers or as politicians see them. Voters. Actually cracking down on poor driving is the single largest thing they could do and its the absolute last thing they will do. I reckon I could sit outside almost anywhere in the country with even moderate levels of traffic and fine 50 people before lunch for speeding, using their phone, illegal parking, driving on the wrong side of the road, close passing cyclists etc. 

mctrials23 wrote:

The quickest/cheapest way to make it safer for everyone is to reduce the danger from cars. Thats literally the end goal of all other plans. One way or another its to mitigate the risk from other vehicles.

The key is "how"?  And don't forget - the UK has done this very well already!  That was by:

a) (many places not just UK) Making it safer for people in cars - including improvements in trauma medicine and response.
b) Fundamentally - persuading more people not to walk or cycle around cars (or at all).  This is done by allocating more space / fewer restrictions on driving, and:
c) Where people persist in walking, give them a choice - safety, or convenience.  Install pedestrian crossings - with long waits, nasty underpasses, energy-sapping overpasses, and barriers to prevent casual road crossing.  They can lose time OR they can take their chances...
d) Similarly to pedestrians above - treat cyclists either as motorists (take their chances with motorists) or lump them together with pedestrians (go nowhere fast).  Some box-ticking can be done like narrow cycle lanes or shared use paths (which will further reduce the convenience for both cyclists and pedestrians).

I'm not very keen on this kind of "safety".  It certainly isn't leading to more people cycling.

mctrials23 wrote:

I would say that 95% or more of the dangerous things cars do around me is from bad decision making. Its not bad luck. Its not bad road design. Its drivers consciously deciding to do something they shouldn't do.

And how are you going to make "better drivers", given "humans" (mass motoring)?  You'll need some powerful forces to change things - because drivers are killing and injuring themselves every day and I'm sure they're fairly motivated not to do that!

The argument is seductive - because it's possible.  There's probably always a route to "slightly better driving".  But overall: given that drivers already have what should be strong motivations not to crash what are the concrete steps to improve which kind of behaviours from where we are though?  Plus these will need to bring political support / some payoff?

Only effective solutions around "fix drivers" I can think of are:
a) making it substantially more dangerous for drivers e.g. make it so that they only get away with every other overtake round a "blind bend" (e.g. driving too fast to deal safely with possibly oncoming traffic) - install some kind of autocannon.  (Hard to see this flying politically...)
b) physically stop some dangerous behaviours, or provide more "non-injuring feedback" to allow correction (e.g. on types of road where it might be dangerous, ban and ideally physically stop overtaking!)
c) Seriously increase barriers to being able to drive.  So the driving test would be like e.g. HGV certification (and need regular retests) and HGV drivers would be vetted like pilots.  This would have the bonus of reducing the numbers driving!  Of course we'd need solutions to stop people just doing so anyway...
d) "Tech it better" - take some or all of this task away from humans.  Vehicles with more "tech guidance" or full-on autonomous robotaxis.  This is of course happening (powered by gigantic stacks of money), but I think there are some serious concerns for this kind of change (though most outside the scope of "safety" -see e.g. here for dystopian visions).
e) Skin in the game.  It's a bit chicken and egg but if people e.g. cycle themselves regularly and also know their friends and family are likely to be out there cycling that might promote a bit more "thoughtful driving" perhaps?  It's not a panacea though (because humans again).

chrisonabike wrote:

And how are you going to make "better drivers"?

A program of 'vaccinations' to implant control chips in them.

mdavidford wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

And how are you going to make "better drivers"?

A program of 'vaccinations' to implant control chips in them.

*Adjusts tinfoil hat* They say it already happened, but it was Elon and the goal is to make drivers worse - and thus drive more sales of autonomous vehicles.  Or am I getting confused and was it actually Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Elon again but the chips weren't implanted, they were just sat in people's laps?

It's a real problem. Tech driving will be safer than human controlled vehicles but insurance nd blame becomes complicated. And it assumes the human is a competent driver who can overrule the computer. Satnav experience shows how previously excellent map readers with great sense of direction very rapidly follow satnav with no intelligence, let alone those who were always clueless about directions. Self-drive cars likely to have unintended consequence of much less capable drivers

More seriously, speed awareness courses are very effective for almost everyone who does them. Require every driver to get reassessed on such a training course once every two years (they have to pay so it becomes a normal cost of motoring). That would also create jobs for trainers. Then smash bad driving behaviour very hard

Then smash bad driving behaviour very hard
You were doing OK until the last sentence - there is no possibility of this happening with the present ultra-idle pro-driver police

chrisonabike wrote:

And how are you going to make "better drivers", given "humans" (mass motoring)?

One way would be to prioritise traffic policing and remove the worst drivers from the road. Have the police authorised to hand out on-the-spot bans (maybe 3 months?) for phone use, RLJing, blocking yellow box junctions, speeding etc.

By removing the worst, statistically, we'll be making the drivers on the roads "better".

hawkinspeter wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

And how are you going to make "better drivers", given "humans" (mass motoring)?

One way would be to prioritise traffic policing and remove the worst drivers from the road. Have the police authorised to hand out on-the-spot bans (maybe 3 months?) for phone use, RLJing, blocking yellow box junctions, speeding etc.

By removing the worst, statistically, we'll be making the drivers on the roads "better".

How about requiring all driving to be monitored using technology that has been available for at least 10 years? 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/dec/16/motoring-myths-black-boxes...

slc wrote:

How about requiring all driving to be monitored using technology that has been available for at least 10 years? 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/dec/16/motoring-myths-black-boxes...

I think black boxes are great for early detection of cognitive decline and/or sight problems. Someone's driving is going to become much less smooth if they have difficulty seeing and predicting other traffic.

Liked. But... bad driving in London is not constant. I was part of a local speed check team with local police. It really did work to get almost everyone sticking to speed limits (especially when turning off 50mph onto 30mph or 20mph).
It didn't stop the small number of utterly reckless drivers. There's data from around the world about many spheres of activity that confirm this pattern. A problem is identifying the hard racists, reckless cyclists, crazy drivers, etc, and hitting them very hard with penalties and suitable retraining. It's much more expensive to track them down, penalise, and train them (reprogram their attutudes). Sort them out, and it becomes worth it in actuarial costs and reduces their influence on others who see them getting away with it so begin to do likewise

Cugel wrote:

The "more cycling infrastructure" lobby is fixated on their supposed "solution" to the dangers of bad driving, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence that the "cycling infrastructure" that is built is generally either not fit for purpose or (as with the murder strip of gutter white lines) actually far more dangerous than cycling on ordinary roads.

The answer to "crap infra tho" is "stop building crap infra".

As for "supposed 'solution' - why not do some 'before and after'?  Which looks better?  Which has more people cycling?" e.g. Utrecht 1993 / 2025 or 1977 / 2023.

How we get less crap infra in the UK is a good question.  However - what's the alternative?  Lots of people have bikes.  The streets and roads are exist. But in most of the UK about a percent of people are rushing out to cycle or take buses instead of driving and that hasn't increased in time.

A few folks keep pointing out that cycling "is safe and convenient" (the latter is more debateable) but clearly most people don't think so.  The government itself has mandated "training" and "share the road" campaigns and standing on a soapbox exhorting people to cycle.  Zip.

"Address the 'fear' through better driving" a few say - but people are not persuaded to cycle by the knowledge that someone might be prosecuted after they're dead.  Or even by promises that all those fast-moving motor vehicles are being driven really really carefully.

And though number of police (per head of population) has oscillated since e.g. the 1970s the percentage of people cycling has only gone one direction - down.

As always - it's not necessarily "sufficient" especially in a place like the UK with generations of car-dependency / motornormativity now, but would appear to be "necessary".

As Chris Boardman said: re-engineering our streets for active travel - it's the least shit option.

Cugel wrote:

They also ignore the vast cost of building cycling infrastructure; and the several other factors that stop people from cycling, not least of which is car kulture with its attractions and support by the mass media.

Not here they don't.  Again - "apparently necessary but not sufficient".  Given the history and the power of the motoring biz it needs lots of measures - including "cultural" and physically reducing the appeal of motoring (less direct routes, lower speeds, less free parking).  But without e.g. separation by speed and mass on the main roads most people haven't "taken them back for cyclists"!

Cugel wrote:

The issue isn't a lack of safe cycling infrastructure.  The roads themselves are very good for cycling and go everywhere. The issue is dangerous, inconsiderate and incompetant driving.

Here is why "apparently necessary".  I'm not a shrinking violet (but a bit more cautious than I was in my teens and 20s).  But I'm not riding on motorways - not even if they go directly where I need.  Nor their urban equivalents (A roads).  Not if every driver promised to be really careful and I had a policeman with me.

I'm also not taking shortcuts through the bus station or a truck loading depot.  Where possible I also avoid routes that require me to wait at traffic lights, even if it means going slightly further, or have to cut across several lanes of motor traffic.

I really enjoy cycling a bit further from motor traffic where the road noise is less.  I don't think I'm alone...

If you have some practical magic to shrink the roads down to single-lane, seriously thin out the motor vehicles, reduce speeds in most places where people cycling will mix with motor traffic to 20mph (or below) ... speak up!  Meanwhile - here's a suggestion which has in fact been implemented - successfully - in reality [1] [2].

I also used to shout at people "look - I can do it, you can / should too" but I've realised that's done very little to change the world.  Of course - it helps if you live in a thinly-populated part of the world with few people driving...

But... despite my frequent negative comments about drivers and cyclists in SE London, London is, mostly, remarkably good (or not bad) for cycling, walking, buses, trains, especially when compared with rest of UK. Dense population can result in better travel than less dense.

Cugel wrote:

The roads themselves are very good for cycling ...

Nice one - very appropriate for today

Fill ruts and potholes, remove cars and vans... leaves roads very good for cycling

E6toSE3 wrote:

Fill ruts and potholes, remove cars and vans... leaves roads very good for cycling

Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

E6toSE3 wrote:

Fill ruts and potholes, remove cars and vans... leaves roads very good for cycling

Great, let's just do it!  Ruts and potholes fixed (costing quite a lot of billions of pounds * but let's say it's done)!

Wait - "remove cars and vans" also - ah, a brilliant idea.

But ... how?  (I agree ... but this is really where anyone wanting to change things has to be very clear about the steps needed to achieve that!)

Usually the answer seems to be "I can cycle so they can" or "people are just lazy".  Well - they're still not cycling.  Or "If they're afraid, just arrest the bad drivers and everyone will be happy cycling".  I don't believe that - because it's already statistically very safe but almost nobody is cycling.  And they're not all being scared off by e.g. close passes because most simply never try!

Why not?  I think this has more to do with those buses over there (incidentally trashing the road), or that truck there (ditto), or those 60 cars zooming past at 30mph (+ just a smidge) (doing much less damage, but not nothing).  **

Oh - and now the road's a mess again!  Better find the cash to fix those unsightly potholes again or people might start losing wheel trims and sue us!

It's the chicken and egg problem again.  In this case the poor surfaces of our streets don't help  motivate people to cycle.  They drive / take the bus, the streets are trashed, repeat.  They're driving so there's not support for separate cycle paths where there's most traffic (which also means that part of a cycle route doesn't get trashed so fast).  And in the UK I'd say how we manage our road infra is also important but problematic here - especially regulating "works" and utilities.

* FWIW I'd guess more than all the cycle infra in Europe (we still need places to drive and local streets to cycle on though) ...

** There are multiple factors keeping us stuck at "fill (potholes), baby, fill" and "drive, baby, drive" in the UK of course.  And the road infra as is actually isn't great for cycling - unless we ignored all the traffic lights (only required because motor vehicles) etc.

Liked except... you and I (I'm age 70) are confident cyclists who can look backwards (I had a few years with a neck problem that discouraged me riding and physio only helped a bit but regular pressups fixed it), control bike with one hand, and signal with fully outstretched arm for many seconds. Very few bike riders can do this: very few have their bike set up ideally or have brakes adjusted perfectly, many have awkward loads, coats, misted up glasses. Most people on bikes are in various states of unconfidence even on an open flat space with no cars. And they don't have £150+ locks and they struggle to manoeuvre a bike in and around racks with other bikes.
Deep travel infrastructure would start with vulnerable pedestrians and these unconfident cyclists and add community confidence building so they want to ride further for fun. Such infrastructure would frustrate you and me (until my grandchildren are ready to ride with me).
We had pretty much this dream in Royal Docks in London from 1990. It was great: I could ride with my children from Beckton to Isle of Dogs, Greenwich Foot Tunnel, Thames Path to Woolwich, Woolwich Foot Tunnel or Ferry, back home, almost entirely on cycle paths. I have to remind myself that, despite its faults, London walking, cycling, bus, train, even driving, is far better than most of the rest of the country. And I could race flat out on 14 miles of roads in Docklands and Isle of Dogs with few traffic lights and few cars - those days gone now that tens of thousands of flats have been built