How to not attract people to cycling

I have just witnessed a classic way of making cycling appear unattractive to – well to anyone really.

The trick is to arrive at a busy Costa in a nice town on a cool but otherwise pleasant Saturday afternoon wearing lycra padded shorts, a muddy waterproof jacket and of course your cycling helmet on. To complete the image make sure that you are alone and that your legs are as unattractive as possible.

All those people wearing comfortable clothes and enjoying each others company will look at you and wish they had come shopping by bike – not!

Of course the problem for normal people who came into town to do their shopping by bike is that nobody will realise how virtuous they are, after all they won’t be sweaty and will be wearing the same sorts of clothes as everyone else (unless they cycled in intending to pose for a cycle chic blog in which case they will be wearing higher heels and shorter skirts than anyone else).

It is as if sometimes we don’t see the point of cycling unless everyone else gets their nose rubbed in our virtuousness.

 

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
Related Posts
Leave a comment ?

55 Comments.

  1. Katja Leyendecker

    Yeah. Hm. We just blend in. So normal. We are just folks who chose to go to places by bicycle. No astronaut suit required for a cycling expedition to the moon Ref: http://bit.ly/fUFYL1

    Unbelievable. But you are right – no-one would notice. Hidden.

    Task: weave travel nonchalantly into conversation.
    That’s what I usually do.

  2. Sorry, but this is becoming distinctly partisan! Cycling is, I would hope you of all people would agree, is ‘a broad church’. Within its walls are leisure cyclists, touring cyclists, racing cyclists, BMXers, mountain bikers and workers going to their day’s toil who would have a fit if they were described as ‘cyclists’. And of course, some of use worship more than one of these activities.

    Today, I rode the five miles or so into town, did a bit of shopping and pootled back. In street clothes and on my Gazelle Fuente trekking bike,. The perfect tool for the job, with permanently attached panniers and a ‘nurse’s lock’ for quick parking.

    Tomorrow I shall be out on my club’s 100km ‘audax’ ride, when I shall be on my drop barred, lghtweight ‘race’ bike. I will be wearing lycra and other race-derived kit. Both bike and clothing will be the perfect tools for the job. I shall be stopping at a couple of cafes along the way, when I and my 100 or so fellow riders will be made welcome, as we always have been, whatever the weather.

    So, am I only promoting cycling today, and not tomorrow? Would you cross the road to avoid me tomorrow, but welcome me as a kindred spirit today?

    I expect to read snide comments about ‘sweaty, lycra-clad and unattractive cyclists’ from Jeremy Clarkson et al, but not from one who professes to be an active and campaigning pedaller.

    Disappointing.

  3. wee folding bike

    You have a conflict here.

    On the one hand you want to wear normal clothes.

    On the other hand you want special segregated facilities.

    • wee folding bike,
      Look at the Netherlands or Denmark, plenty of segregated infrastructure, and the overwhelming majority wear normal everyday clothes. Most people rode bikes in normal clothes until they were driven off by the huge rise in motor traffic. We need fewer ‘cyclists’ and many more people who use bikes for everyday transport.

      • wee folding bike

        I have looked at it. After WWII cycling levels in NL never dropped as far or as fast as in UK.

        The last revision of the Highway Code was going to include a line about “Must” use cycle lanes when available. They are already mandatory elsewhere in Europe. I ride a bike everyday and I’m not keen to be pushed off the road for the possible benefit of people who do not ride one but might if you make them feel safe.

        I don’t buy the too dangerous line. Were that the case they could go ride on the off road facilities we already have.

        • It’s perfectly clear that the existing cycling infrastructure in the UK isn’t working and proposed investment hasn’t a hope of persuading huge numbers new people to cycle. There is no doubt that the Netherlands example has been proven to work, whether you choose to believe it or not.

          • it might work in NL but if you check the figures you see that the level of cycling in NL never dipped in the same way as UK cycling and no proponent of segregation has been able to explain that to me. I have asked them. Could you explain it?

            Every week day I see a school of 1400 pupils where there are safer signed cycle routes from the area where the majority of the them live. Even in NL this wouldn’t be segregated, you can’t have a segregated path to every house. There is a huge covered and locked bike shed at the side of the building. Bikes are available for the kids to borrow for free under a scheme for schools in the east end of the city. How many pupils do you think cycle to school? It’s fewer than 4 and it’s not a prime number.

            Are you happy to be forced off the road onto mandatory tracks? The roads weren’t built for cars. If you move off them then you give succour to every Clarkson wannabee who ever shouted “You don’t pay road tax”.

            What happens when someone is hit by a car when there was a segregated facility (of whatever quality) which could have been used for the journey? Will you deal with the smart lawyer who tries to limit damages or a conviction?

            Segregation is like a cycle helmet in that it sends a message to people that cycling is dangerous. It’s not.

  4. Hey thanks for the responses. I wrote the post just after a conference in High Wycombe and only just got home, hence late responding.

    Katja, with you 100%, but you knew that :-)

    Eric,

    So, am I only promoting cycling today, and not tomorrow?

    You are not going to like this. But yes, in terms of promoting cycling as a sensible, normal, practical, & fun means of transport for ordinary people today was good promotion and tomorrow is not.

    Would you cross the road to avoid me tomorrow, but welcome me as a kindred spirit today?

    I would welcome you both days. This is not about welcome, this is not me being against cycling as sport or fitness or pleasure but saying that in terms of influencing the 98% of people in the UK who would not consider using a bike for everyday use going to the shops in normal clothes is effective and attractive. Wearing lycra, riding a ‘race’ bike and doing 100km is not effective in attracting ordinary people – they will see you as a weird exercise freak and conclude that cycling is not for them.

    In the same way an audax event, fantastic as it is, does nothing positive to persuade transport authorities to provide the facilities that will get mums, dads kids, grandparents, students , business people etc using bikes every day. On the other hand if counsellors etc get used to seeing ordinary people in ordinary clothes on bikes struggling with the bad or non existent facilities that they provide then it will act as pressure for change.

    wee folding bike,

    I have no conflict. There are successful models appearing all over the world. When you provide safe segregated cycle facilities so that people feel safe then ordinary people will ride bikes everyday.

    There is no successful model anywhere in the world where there is significant growth towards a model share of all journeys by bike even approaching 10% without an investment in separated infrastructure (for main roads and major traffic calming on residential roads), Not one example anywhere!

    Your view of cycling in the Netherlands disagrees with all I have read. My understanding is that in the 1970’s cycling rates were a bit higher than in the UK but both were falling fast. At the time of the oil crisis the Netherlands decided to start building a separated cycle infrastructure and traffic calming as a response to a) the oil crisis and b) the numbers of children being killed on the roads. Since then their cycling rates have turned around and ours have continued down. Their death rates for children on the roads have also fallen by far more than ours.

    If you have tried the cycle facilities in the Netherlands you would be mystified as to why anyone would not want to ride on them, they are much faster for cyclists than the road.

    I don’t buy the too dangerous line. Were that the case they could go ride on the off road facilities we already have.

    We have very few off road routes that go anywhere useful and probably none that work with traffic calming in residential streets and town centres to provide a safe door to door cycle route. Without that many/most people conclude (unsurprisingly) that riding a bike is not safe.

    As for your school example we have a similar situation in Syston with safer routes to Wreake College. Except when you look closely it is a disaster and fools nobody that it is in fact safe. The safer route is a shared path with pedestrians along one side of road only but the path in total is narrower than a 2 way cycle only path in the Netherlands and there is no space separation from a busy road with a 40mph speed limit. There is no priority at crossings of side roads.with. There is no traffic calming on the residential roads. The “safer route” was never cleared of snow or ice or even gritted and so was sheet ice for several weeks. The sign posted route into Queniborough includes a sharp bend and parked cars on both sides before dumping you on a busy B road through the village. Coming to the school from the other side you have to use roads clogged with parents cars for that school and a primary school, cross a main road with no help and get caught up in one way streets with no cycle facilities.

    This is not a safe cycling infrastructure and the parents know it and so few kids use it for school.

    I reject totally (as have the courts in recent cases) your hysteria about segregated facilities.

    You will not find a city where bikes are used for a significant % of journeys (and by significant I start counting at about 30% of all journeys and rising) without the combination of segregated cycle facilities on main routes, radical traffic calming in residential areas and in the city centre all with a transport authority committed to inviting people to use a bike for their everyday journeys and part of that invitation will be the inevitability that these measures will take road space from cars and make their journeys and parking less convenient.

    • The only place I can think of where dedicated cycling infrastructure has been built in such a way that it’s not a joke and somewhat comparable to other options nearby is in Hyde Park between Marble Arch and Queen’s Gate / Palace Gate.

      There’s Broadwalk – Rotten Row, a nice path with no cars; Carriage Drives with widest cycle lanes in London I can recall and a fair bit of cycle tracks; and Park Lane – Knightsbridge – Kensington Road. I find the cycle lanes are exceptionally good but I’d still hazard a guess people feel better about the Broadwalk.

  5. We have a safe segregated route here. I don’t use it, kids with Buckie seem to find it useful. I’ve never seen a bike on it outwith the odd cop using a short section.

    You can find the UK and NL graphs here:

    http://hembrow.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-01-14T14%3A37%3A00%2B01%3A00&max-results=7

    Mr Hembrow didn’t seem able to explain the divergence. I know why levels were high after WW II and it wasn’t because of paths.

    I don’t see why you think that treating cycling as normal makes it look dangerous where treating it as a something special makes it look safe. When I do see people using cycle paths they have driven there with bikes on a rack because the path is a place you to to cycle. They don’t see it as a normal activity but as something you drive to get to.

    You have made a mistake when you claim that the nobody is fooled into thinking cycling is safe. Cycling is safe but people have been fooled into thinking it is not.

    You don’t actually know what the conditions round the school in question are, do you? You have assumed that conditions match those in your area.

    The Highway Code does not, as yet, have a “Must” for cycle paths. If they become mandatory this will be different.

    I think you might be wrong on the >30% without segregation.

    Segregation will not get people round here off their butts. This is not a big town, the train station is less than half a mile away, the main street about another 1/4 mike. People could easily walk to the main street but they don’t. They don’t even park in proper bays when it means more than a couple of hundred yards walking. I go through the fattest town in the UK every day. I never see anyone else on a bike and I don’t hear people shouting for cycle paths to make them feel safe doing so.

    Anywho, got to use a car to pick up wean because he couldn’t ride a bike back here could he?

  6. wee folding bike

    We have a safe segregated route here. I don’t use it, kids with Buckie seem to find it useful. I’ve never seen a bike on it outwith the odd cop using a short section.

    Without details this is impossible to comment on.

    You can find the UK and NL graphs here:

    To save scrolling the actual post is cyclists special

    Mr Hembrow didn’t seem able to explain the divergence. I know why levels were high after WW II and it wasn’t because of paths.

    I suspect we agree, it was because there were few cars on the road, fewer people had cars and so cycling was safe on the roads. Cyclist was supported by public transport as the film shows.

    However, cycling plummeted as traffic rose in both countries until the Netherlands protected cyclists from that traffic.

    I don’t see why you think that treating cycling as normal makes it look dangerous where treating it as a something special makes it look safe.

    Huh!?!?! What do you mean?

    David Henbrow writes extensively about subjective safety. If cyclists are seen as people who wear weird clothing (rubber pants as Eric Pickles calls them) and if cycling is perceived as dangerous then people won’t do it. That is why there is no city in the world where vehicular cycling is achieving significant modal shares of journeys and growth. In fact we see the pattern repeated around the world, places that have been praised for the number of bike journeys are seeing those numbers plummet as car traffic rises until they start investing in separated infrastructure.

    When I do see people using cycle paths they have driven there with bikes on a rack because the path is a place you to to cycle. They don’t see it as a normal activity but as something you drive to get to.

    No they see it as unsafe to ride to those cycle paths. Sustrans routes are very popular but most people drive to them because they don’t feel safe on the roads.

    You have made a mistake when you claim that the nobody is fooled into thinking cycling is safe. Cycling is safe but people have been fooled into thinking it is not.

    Then demonstrate how to unfool them. Demonstrate to parents why they should feel confident in letting their 7 year old ride to school because it is safe. Except that when they do the parents are threatened with prosecution because the whole country knows it is not safe on the roads.

    You don’t actually know what the conditions round the school in question are, do you? You have assumed that conditions match those in your area.

    Of course I don’t know because you have not shared the information. So I responded with a concrete example that you and everyone else is able to view and confirm.

    The Highway Code does not, as yet, have a “Must” for cycle paths. If they become mandatory this will be different.

    It does not and I supported the challenge to it doing so and so stop scaremongering.

    I think you might be wrong on the >30% without segregation.

    Then give an example.

    Segregation will not get people round here off their butts. This is not a big town, the train station is less than half a mile away, the main street about another 1/4 mike. People could easily walk to the main street but they don’t. They don’t even park in proper bays when it means more than a couple of hundred yards walking. I go through the fattest town in the UK every day. I never see anyone else on a bike and I don’t hear people shouting for cycle paths to make them feel safe doing so.

    The examples from all over the world are pouring in. When people feel it is safe and convenient to ride a bike then they will do so and do so in huge numbers. Look at New York, Washington, Portland, Montreal, Lyon, Copenhangen etc etc etc.

    • wee folding bike

      It’s Sustrans route 75. You can use it to visit Glasgow, Edinburgh and places in between. It crosses central Scotland. The western end goes along the side of the Clyde and would be of use to people in the west end of the City, Clydebank and beyond.

      I use a cycle path once a year on the Isle of Wight to visit my auntie because it goes from Cowes to where she stays. It’s mostly well surfaced and follows the path of a train line so it does go places where people live but it’s still not what you would call busy. It saves me finding a different route and almost goes to the end of her street.

      It seems you are also unable to tell me why cycling in NL didn’t fall as fast as here. You’ve seen the graph, it’s not the same as UK. Why was that?

      Cycling still is safe.

      Cycling levels in London are higher in London than in Glasgow (and Coatbridge, UK’s fattest town, for that matter). Does this mean the perception of traffic danger is less in London?

      I mean that when you make something segregated you send a message to people that it’s dangerous. Cyclists must be kept away from the cars for their own good.

      When you put on a plastic hat you send the same message. It’s just as wrong.

      I have friends who started cycling because I did. Recently I was in the swimming pool where a complete stranger came up to me and said “You’re the bike guy”. Apparently I had inspired him to get on his bike because he saw me out in all weathers. It seems just riding a bike “unfools” people.

      Perhaps this traffic thing is an English problem. People don’t say it to me. They will comment on the weather, “Did you really ride to work in that?” but never “Did you really ride along that busy road?”.

      The school you don’t know about has lots of quiet streets round it. I have asked some of the pupils why they don’t use the facilities and traffic isn’t one of their reasons. The say it’s too far, it’s too wet or nobody else does it but not traffic.

      Earlier you called me hysterical, now it’s scaremongering. Do you know of European countries where cycle paths are mandatory? You already know there was an attempt to have “Must” put in the Highway Code. Doesn’t look like scaremongering to me.

      Cities with more >30% cycling are easy to find but you might just be thinking about Europe, North America and Australia.

      I notice none of your examples are in UK. OTOH Boris bikes seem to be working quite well without ghettos.

      • wee folding bike:

        It seems you are also unable to tell me why cycling in NL didn’t fall as fast as here. You’ve seen the graph, it’s not the same as UK. Why was that?

        I have not looked into it, so I don’t have an answer. Do you? I can’t say that it feels very significant. It seems to me that the key difference is that the Dutch turned around from decline to growth and we have stayed with decline.

        Cycling still is safe.

        Well clearly at one level I agree with you. I have now cycled 105 days in a row and over 570 miles in 2011.

        However, cycling is not perceived as safe or for ordinary people by most people in this country. I would not expect school pupils to use safety as a key argument (plnty of studies show they don’t appreciate danger or understand risk in the same way as adults, and I am not for changing that. Watch them on a bmx or skateboard and they don’t know fear), but I’ll bet their parents and grandparents do (that is what they tell me around here).

        I mean that when you make something segregated you send a message to people that it’s dangerous. Cyclists must be kept away from the cars for their own good.

        I disagree. Instead you say: We know you don’t feel safe when riding in traffic, yet we all know that cycling is fun, good for your health and pocket, good for our communities health and economy so we want to make it easier to ride your bike and we want you and your kids to feel able to enjoy it without worry. You say this is pleasant and people respond (I understand the Bath to Bristol route starts to show this).

        I have friends who started cycling because I did. Recently I was in the swimming pool where a complete stranger came up to me and said “You’re the bike guy”. Apparently I had inspired him to get on his bike because he saw me out in all weathers. It seems just riding a bike “unfools” people

        I count on this. It is one reason I ride a bike everyday in ordinary clothes. Each extra rider adds to the weight of argument that it is worth investing in a proper infrastructure to get millions more on bikes. But it will not get a mass change itself, there has been no mass change anywhere in the world without radical traffic calming and separated cycle infrastructure.

        “Do you know of European countries where cycle paths are mandatory?”

        Yes, the Netherlands for one. Does not seem to put people off cycling does it. But it has to be proper cycle infrastructure that connects up, is of a proper width, has priority at junctions,is maintained, …

        The highway code change was rejected. It is not on the agenda at the moment. To use that as an excuse not to build a safe infrastructure is scaremongering.

        Cities with more >30% cycling are easy to find but you might just be thinking about Europe, North America and Australia.

        Nope, but even in cities with historic high levels of cycling we see huge decline as traffic increases until they start separating the infrastructure (China is a good example). We also see huge decline when helmets are made mandatory (best thing about Boris Bikes is that they help shove that in the long grass).

        I notice none of your examples are in UK. OTOH Boris bikes seem to be working quite well without ghettos.

        We don’t have any examples in the UK of > 30% and we also don’t have any examples of a Dutch style infrastructure. Cambridge has high use for the UK but the infrastructure is patchy and poor students should be an ideal group anyway.

        The published research shows that Boris Bikes have not achieved their targets in use. They are not attracting large numbers of people out of cars but off their own bikes and off public transport. Central London Cycling has been massively helped by the congestion charge lowering traffic levels.

        Don’t get me wrong, I love Boris bikes but when you look at what is being achieved in Paris through investment in infrastructure to support the hire bikes then the Boris bikes scheme is a million miles behind.

      • Cycling levels in London are higher in London than in Glasgow (and Coatbridge, UK’s fattest town, for that matter). Does this mean the perception of traffic danger is less in London?”

        Short answer – yes. Glasgow is a far more unpleasant place to cycle than London, both in terms of subjective and objective safety.

  7. wee folding bike

    You don’t feel the difference between NL and UK cycling levels pre segregation is significant?

    Here’s a better link:

    http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irresistible.pdf

    and you want Fig 6. In the UK cycle fell to ≅ 20% of the 1950 level whereas in NL it only fell to 40%. That’s 100% higher. We have established that you can’t explain this. I know Dave Hembrow can’t but, to your credit you don’t delete messages whereas he did.

    Even after segregation the cycling levels in NL only went from 40% to around 50% of the 1950s level. If that was replicated here we’d see it rocket from around 2% to perhaps as high as… 4% of all journeys? Good luck selling that to the austerity ConDems.

    In your next section you tell me that school pupils don’t understand safety but parents do. In this case the school pupils seem to understand it just fine, they are right. On a per hour basis tennis is 4 times more likely to kill you, football is nearly 5 times as lethal.

    http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1026.html

    And if you now think those are high risk sports you better stay away from fishing.

    Put that message on the TV instead of the usual Wear a Helmet or You Will Die nonsense and see what happens. It’s cheap, easy and doesn’t involve 50 years of road works.

    Ahhh, roadworks. People who promote segregation often claim that the current provision has not been widely used because it’s not good enough. The same councillors are going to be dealing with it in future. Edinburgh can’t even get a tramline put in and they had one of those in the 1960s.

    Have you looked into the Redways in MK? I have and they don’t appear to be doing what you expect.

    You admit that cycle paths are mandatory in NL, I’m fairly sure they are in Germany too, we know there was an attempt to have it put into the Highway code and yet I’m still scaremongering?

    Safe infrastructure is an assumption you make. Have you actually looked into this? We’ve know for years that the Redways are bad but how about Copenhagen? Have a read at this:

    http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20safety%20and%20percieved%20risk%20of%20cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20Copenhagen.pdf

    Boris bikes have not shoved helmets into the long grass, you don’t know what happened in Northern Ireland last week don’t you?

    You mention Cambridge. Even there the councils don’t put in the tracks you want so it’s not likely to happen here. Perhaps a different focus would be more productive.

    The congestion charge did get people out of their cars. It’s a stick and it works. No amount of carrot is going to persuade the locals round here out of their wagons. On the recent snow day in December I cycled home as usual. It took me a little longer because the traffic got in the way and I couldn’t dodge round them easily on the Longstaff Eventually I found a use for the empty cycle route 75. A colleague took 5 hours to get from Baillieston to Coatbridge in her car. It’s about 5 miles. She never once thought of getting out to walk and the snow was fresh on the pavements so it wouldn’t have been difficult. If she didn’t want to leave her car at work one of her other workmates stays a few hundred yards away and she could have left the car there but she didn’t. That’s the kind of attitude we have here and carrots are not going to get them out of their cars. Hell, in Coatbridge they don’t even eat carrots unless they have been boiled in beef dripping for 4 hours.

    • Wee folding bike,

      You don’t feel the difference between NL and UK cycling levels pre segregation is significant?

      I don’t think it is significant because we see a huge growth in cycle use where ever we see a safe infrastructure introduced. Consider the study you link to Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany The Abstract reads:

      This article shows how the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany have made bicycling a safe, convenient and practical way to get around their cities. The analysis relies on national aggregate data as well as case studies of large and small cities in each country. The key to achieving high levels of cycling appears to be the provision of separate cycling facilities along heavily travelled roads and at intersections, combined with traffic calming of most residential neighbourhoods. Extensive cycling rights of way in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany are complemented by ample bike parking, full integration with public transport, comprehensive traffic education and training of both cyclists and motor-ists, and a wide range of promotional events intended to generate enthusiasm and wide public support for cycling. In addition to their many pro-bike policies and programmes, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany make driving expensive as well as inconvenient in central cities through a host of taxes and restrictions on car ownership, use and parking. Moreover, strict land-use policies foster compact, mixed-use developments that generate shorter and thus more bikeable trips. It is the coordinated implementation of this multi- faceted, mutually reinforcing set of policies that best explains the success of these three countries in promoting cycling. For comparison, the article portrays the marginal status of cycling in the UK and the USA, where only about 1% of trips are by bike.

      It makes my points beautifully with fully worked out examples.

      As for safety and kids. Nearly 50% of all external causes of death of children in the UK (ie nearly half of all non medical causes of death) are roads (as pedestrians, passengers and cyclists). Nearly 50%!!!!!! Football and tennis barely show up! See my post Do it for the children.

      Talking about cycling helmets is a distraction, I am totally against any form of legislation or scare advertising into getting people to wear helmets when riding a bike for transport. Just go and read what I have written.

      Yep, been to Milton Keynes a lot. It is the most totally car centric place you can imagine. The redways are no example of a safe infrastructure, they are useless at intersections, don’t give cyclists any benefits in convenience, it is just about getting bikes out of the way of cars.

      You admit that cycle paths are mandatory in NL, I’m fairly sure they are in Germany too, we know there was an attempt to have it put into the Highway code and yet I’m still scaremongering?

      When the cycling infrastructure is good it is no problem to use it, nobody would not want to. The hard core racing cyclists use them too and happily. Look at the cycle superhighways they are building between towns in the Netherlands, it is like a dedicated race track just where you want to go. Fantastic.

      but how about Copenhagen? Have a read at this:

      Yep, and the Dutch point out that the Danish standards were far to low and the Danes have learnt from this study, implemented changes and the accident rates have dropped. Note the difference from the UK and your attitude. They did a study, read it, implemented changes and things got better.

      Boris bikes have not shoved helmets into the long grass, you don’t know what happened in Northern Ireland last week don’t you?

      Sorry I had not realised that London was in Northern Ireland. Lucky you can correct my geography.

      You mention Cambridge. Even there the councils don’t put in the tracks you want so it’s not likely to happen here. Perhaps a different focus would be more productive.

      Actually rubbish again. Progress is being made, newer work is to a higher standard. Recently a road past a school successfully has had car parking sto pped and a mandatory cycle lane introduced.

      I see nothing helpful or positive from you. All you do is decry what is working elsewhere and slag off people in this country as slobs. Is your real name Eric Pickles?

      • So you still can’t tell me why levels of cycling in NL and UK were so different before segregation. You claim it’s not significant and assume that what worked there will work here. It was 100% higher relative to the 1950s base line but to you this is insignificant. Even with the activities in NL it has increased by about a 1/3 and they were more disposed towards cycling in the first place.

        Do you have your kids accident figures broken down by ped, passenger?

        As I suspected, the provision in MK isn’t good enough. That’s the same answer you gave for the local school I pass every day. I ride a bike, I like cycling and still find this a poor response to the question of why the Redways have not worked and are dangerous. What answer do you think a non cycling politician will give you? It’s a segregated facility, that’s what you want.

        You’re right that they want bikes out of the way of cars and the simple way to do that is build more nasty segregation then make them compulsory. You appear to want to help this happen.

        Did you read all of that Copenhagen paper? They found that accident rates were up but they decided that this was balanced by the population improvement in cardiovascular health. Nonetheless you can’t automatically claim that segregated facilities are safe. Even in DK it’s not supported by evidence.

        Did I claim that London was in NI? They are both part of the UK and only last week a piece of MHL legislation made progress in NI. Helmets are far from being in the long grass.

        I know about the street in Cambridge. I also know how long it took for one street. Would you care to mention how long it took them? Where did all the displaced cars go? Are they perhaps sitting in someone else’s street?

        I ride a bike every day, I pick up my kids in a trailer, I take my bike into the pictures with me. I show what can be done now. If people ask my why I do this I tell them. When they see me do this it makes them consider having a go themselves. Perhaps you don’t find this positive but people who talk to me about it do.

        • Wee folding bike,

          So you still can’t tell me why levels of cycling in NL and UK were so different before segregation. You claim it’s not significant and assume that what worked there will work here.

          a) you have not shown why they were different and why that it is significant.

          b) I don’t believe it is significant because if we look at Spain, Sweden, France, Denmark, Netherlands, USA, Canada, Colombia we get the same picture. When good cycling facilities are installed the number of people riding a back grows dramatically.

          c) You have not been able to point to a single place where cycling is growing dramatically with a separated infrastructure and traffic calming.

          d) A recent tweet from Copenhagenize: “@carltonreid In CPH segregated stretches see 20% more cyclists, 10% fewer cars soon after implementation”

          Do you have your kids accident figures broken down by ped, passenger?

          Yes see Roads, Casualties and Public Health: the Open Sewers of the 21st Century

          By the way note that the UK has seen a 50% improvement in road traffic deaths in the last 35 years, yet the Dutch have achieved a 78% improvement in the same period.

          Did you read all of that Copenhagen paper?

          You have ignored my response. This is an old paper, the Danes have changed things and the accident rate has fallen.

          I am not claiming that all segregation is safe. Our experience of much UK segregation is the opposite which is why (at least in part) that proposed change to the Highway Code was thrown out. I am claiming two things

          a) that good segregation on main roads coupled with traffic calming on minor roads and city centre traffic removal causes a huge increase in the number of people cycling.

          b) that good separation is clearly shown in a reduced number of “accidents”

          So we know it is good by it’s fruits. If bike use increases significantly and the users include Mums and Children AND if accident statistics go down then it is good infrastructure. Otherwise it is bad. Simple isn’t it.

          I know about the street in Cambridge. I also know how long it took for one street. Would you care to mention how long it took them?

          It took many years and your point is what? There is more evidence now, there are some examples now even in the UK. We have to move faster.

          Perhaps you don’t find this positive but people who talk to me about it do.

          You have a very odd way of responding. Read the original post again. I am 100% in favour of personal example. However, it will not be enough. We need the personal examples to get what is really needed for big change and that is a safe, quality infrastructure.

          • wee folding bike

            Dutch levels were 100% higher and you don’t find this significant? You really don’t? Are you sure about that?

            No really, 100%?

            How big would the difference have to be before you found it significant?

            Even if you don’t think it’s significant you still haven’t explained this insignificant 100% difference.

            You also might notice that even in NL they didn’t get back to ’50’s levels. Would you care to suggest why that would be?

            And in the UK we see attempts to put in segregation and it doesn’t work. The same guys will be in charge, why would you expect them to do a better job? Even if it worked a wee bit it would be nice but it doesn’t. We have routes here, they could be useful for parts of journeys but they don’t get used. I get the same excuse all the time, those facilities are not good enough.

            Glasgow Council spent £40K on a mountain bike track behind one school. I’ve never seen it used and I see that school most week days. I tracked down the cost of the Glasgow Schools Bike Loan Scheme. It cost £93282. This was for 4 schools. I know of one kid who used the loan bike sometimes but not frequently. That was 4 years ago. I haven’t seen any since and I haven’t been able to find where the bikes are. There is no data available on usage.

            You want the council to spend more on this sort of thing? I’d rather they just mended the roads.

            Carlton Reid is not a big fan of segregation.

            50% drop in road traffic deaths doesn’t tell the whole story. Was this drop mostly people inside or outside the cars?

            That’s a less than user friendly way to present data, I had the sound turned on! Anyway, most of the child deaths were as passengers in cars, not on bikes.

            As I may have mentioned, cycling on roads is safe compared to many other activities. Why would you want to make it look less so?

            Do you have a source for your claim of improved safety in DK?

            Do you expect increased segregation in UK to lead to compulsion? It has elsewhere, why would it be different here?

            Where did the cars in the Cambridge street go? Did anyone ask?

            Earlier you suggest that I called the locals slobs, your choice of words. Why do you think cycling fell out of favour in the ’50s? It couldn’t have been because they were scared of the traffic because there was little motorised traffic around and lots of cycling. What on Earth could have caused all those people to hang up their bikes?

            I’m just back from the local industrial museum. It has a small car park at the gate and a larger car park on the other side of the road. The large one was half empty, the small one was double parked. At least they weren’t using the disabled spaces, they were empty. We stopped at a shop on the way back and I got to sit in the car with kids. While there I was able to watch half a dozen cars come and go from the disabled spaces. It was a funny thing how few of them were obviously disabled and yet there were plenty of normal spaces which would have required them to walk 50 ft. You expect these guys to start cycling when they will not walk across the car park if they can avoid it?

    • Even after segregation the cycling levels in NL only went from 40% to around 50% of the 1950s level. If that was replicated here we’d see it rocket from around 2% to perhaps as high as… 4% of all journeys?

      I’m sorry, but I think is a bit innumerate. What are you comparing here?

      The percentage figures you quote here for the Netherlands are for cycling km per capita, per annum.

      I’d like to know how you translated an increase in distance travelled from around 300 km/yr per capita to 400 km/yr per capita (these figures are a rough guesstimate for the Dutch increase post-segregation) to a UK modal share increase.

  8. WFB,
    Your logic escapes me. It seems to me that you believe that high levels of cycling occurred in the Netherlands not because of the infrastructure, but in spite of it.
    Similarly, you seem to believe that the abysmally low levels of cycling in the UK are completely unrelated to the execrable state of cycling-related infrastructure in the UK, but are essentially related to laziness. There seems to be an element of wishful thinking here – as if you don’t want to believe the evidence before your own eyes.

    IIRC, cycling dipped in NL and DK, due to the rise in car use, but they did something about it. In the UK, we did nothing like enough, instead we encouraged more cars.

    I can quite easily imagine that you would be quite comfortable to cycle on motorways, I don’t like cycling along fast roads – Why? because it’s noisy, nasty and it would only take one bad driver. I suspect that you are a hardy soul and I also suspect that you are highly unrepresentative of all those frustrated people out there who want to cycle, but are simply too afraid. I believe that cycling should be a pleasant experience, however, there are some days when what should be a pleasant experience is spoiled somewhat by an angry and aggressive idiot in a car. I believe that if we were to build the high quality infrastructure in the UK, then people would get on their bikes in droves and use it.

    What we have clearly isn’t high quality cycling infrastructure:
    The only trouble is that it isn’t safe; integrated into a network; and is rarely useful. There’s rarely any connection except with a main road. So using it, is worse than using the road, because one now has to wait to rejoin the road after only a few tens of metres, and sometimes that’s quite dangerous because of poor design. Add to that the often parlous state of much of the infrastructure – crumbling asphalt lifted by tree-roots isn’t too unusual, and the roads are far nicer and more convenient to use.

    I think you are entirely wrong about why more people don’t cycle in the UK, and I rather suspect that David Hembrow is right that it’s the same reasons why so many people cycle in NL.
    It’s safe, it feels safe, it’s fast, healthy, convenient, enjoyable and cheap. Surely, the figures speak for themselves.

    And my understanding is that in NL:
    Residential areas are permeable to cars, but cut-throughs and rat-runs are blocked-off, except to cyclists and pedestrians (and sometimes buses).
    The cycle facilities are so good, that no-one would want to cycle on the main roads. Plus there’s an extensive network of back roads that are quiet and almost car free.

    • Higher levels of cycling were present in NL before segregation, the graph bears this out. Perhaps you can explain this.

      You think it’s wishful thinking that Coatbridge is the UK’s fattest town?

      Not motorways, that’s illegal, but I nearly did it once on the M6 when I left Carlisle by the wrong road. I was meant to be heading for the A74.

      Per mile motorways are safer than other roads. Everybody is going in the same direction. Around 75% of collisions occur at junctions.

      Cycling is a pleasant experience. If it wasn’t I’d get the train.

      Segregation doesn’t get rid of the aggressive car driver and you still need to share roads with them because they will never have segregation from your house to every other destination.

      We do have (reasonably) high quality cycling infrastructure. It’s called a road. If you have us segregated then you play into the hands of those who say roads are for cars.

      It must be different where live. I don’t get people using traffic as an excuse to not cycle. I get a bunch of other excuses but not traffic.

      Cycling is safe, fast, healthy, convenient, enjoyable and cheap. Get the real story on safety out there and don’t dilute it with helmets and segregation.

      Do you really, really expect cycle facilities in UK to be as good as the road? I’ve never seen it happen. Even the Cowes – Sandown track fails on signage and the surface from Newport south but I use it because it goes where I’m headed.

  9. I never raised helmets. Helmets have little relevance to cyclist safety.

    Cycling isn’t as safe as it could be and actual safety isn’t the point, people act on their perception of safety. If they’re scared they won’t do it and that’s at least one reason why so few people cycle.

    Cycling facilities need to be really good and designed by people who cycle if we are to get a substantial percentage of the population cycling.

    I’ve had enough of this. You can prattle-on all you like about why the Netherlands solution isn’t right for us. The truth is the UK solution certainly has been emphatically shown year on year not to work and the NL solution has been shown to work wonderfully and looks like it’s far more likely to work here, were it to be introduced.
    So good by and please don’t pester me any more.

  10. I agree on the helmets, they make cycling look dangerous when it’s not. Segregation does the same thing.

    Is there more than one way to change perceptions?

    I’m not sure there was any call for “prattle”.

    NL was different before segregation. Even there cycling didn’t return to more than 40% of the levels found in the 1950s. I’m still waiting for someone to explain why NL levels were so much higher than here in the first place. I’ve been told it’s insignificant but not been told why it was the case.

    I’m not exactly sure how I’m pestering you. Perhaps if you make sure the “Notify me of follow-up comments via email” button is not ticked it would work better.

  11. @weefolding bike: I suspect that your day job must be as public relations agent for the Flat Earth Society. Starting with your extraordinary confusion of wearing oridnary clothes with using cycle paths, your arguments and assertions become ever more incoherent so I won’t even try to argue against them. I can easily imagine you demanding to know “what have the romans ever done for us?”

    The whole thing is that humans are not always rational beings. Actually it is perfectly rational to like the ease and simplicity of driving cf cycling (no effort, sitting comfortably, don’t get wet) especially in an era when the health effects of lack of exercise were much less well understood. It is neither rational nor irrational to aspire, to want to show off your affluence by having someting which (then) not many could afford, ie a car. The fear of road danger may well be irrational (I would say it was) but as Hembrow says over and over again, and you haven’t apparently taken on board, what matters is “subjective safety”. People make subjective and irrational judgements all the time, and they aren’t going to stop, so if we want to address their fears, we have to respond to them, not arrogantly tell them that they are wrong.

  12. Wee folding bike,

    Ok you have work me out. It seems you never actually read anything or taken anything anyone else has said seriously.

    You offer nothing positive and claim that the experiences of so many other countries can’t be achieved here because people in the UK are lazier than anyone else in the world. Your experience of Glasgow as an example of al the best in cycling infrastructure ignored by people who pretend to be disabled is a harrowing tale of blaming the victim and scapgoating local councils.

    Your descriptions of Glasgow are quite different to some others: Crap cycling and walking in car sick Glasgow

    When you are ready to actually engage with reasoned argument I will happily respond.

    • wee folding bike

      Well, you see the thing is I do know Glasgow much better than the people who wrote that web page. We found that report quite funny.

      The things they thought were derelict bits of demolished bridge were actually bits which had never been finished.

      I’m not sure what you mean about me not offering anything positive. I cycle in Glasgow every day and enjoy doing it. I’m not worrying about imagined dangers. I ride my bike.

      Anytime you figure out why cycling fell so quickly in the ’50s in spite of little traffic and when you decide that 100% variation is fairly significant you know what to do.

  13. Wee folding bike,

    I know I am a glutton for punishment. But

    Well, you see the thing is I do know Glasgow much better than the people who wrote that web page. We found that report quite funny.

    We are still waiting for photos, google streetmap url’s etc to show this fantastic infrastructure that is not being used and which proves the rest of the world wrong.

    Anytime you figure out why cycling fell so quickly in the ’50s in spite of little traffic and when you decide that 100% variation is fairly significant you know what to do.

    Don’t hold your breath. I don’t think it is important as the Netherlands are not the only place where good cycling infrastructure has turned a long decline into growth. Actually the report that we linked to earlier Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany explains the drop as cars start to become more common. My paraphrase is:

    Along with early growth in cars there was a huge growth in deaths and injuries they caused, due to state of the roads, the cars themselves and the ability of emergency services to get to crashes and get people to care.

    It seems to me that some countries became more car focused in their planning more quickly. Possibly due to the “special relationship” with the USA that we surrendered to the car more quickly than Europe and built New Towns based on the car that made alternatives difficult.

    By the way the same report puts your attempts to smear cycle lanes as dangerous into perspective. From the report:

    Perhaps the most important reason for the higher levels of cycling in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany—especially among women, children and the elderly—is that cycling is much safer there than in the USA and the UK. Both fatality and injury rates are much higher for cyclists in the USA and the UK than in Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. Averaged over the years 2002 to 2005, the number of bicyclist fatalities per 100 million km cycled was 5.8 in the USA and 3.6 in the UK, compared to 1.7 in Germany, 1.5 in Denmark, and 1.1 in the Netherlands (see Figure 10). Thus, cycling is over five times as safe in the Netherlands as in the USA and more than three times as safe as in the UK.

    Three times a safe!!!! Does not really support your idea that cyclepaths are more dangerous does it. Also note that this is despite the Netherlands having far more young and elderly people cycling who you might expect to have more crashes.

    Remember so far you still can’t point to a single place where there has been significant growth in cycling without a safe infrastructure of cycle routes and traffic calming. Not one case!!!

    • Did I claim it was fantastic, I don’t think so, but it is there.

      I really don’t expect you’re going to get anything fantastic built but you might succeed in having us pushed off the road onto something more dangerous and less convenient. Fantastic, no, I really don’t think you’re going to get that anytime.

      You haven’t told me why compulsion as found in NL and Germany and tried here would not happen if you get your way.

      You still deal with the 100% greater level of cycling by saying it doesn’t matter. It’s not a wee bit, it was twice as high relative to the baseline they used. Does dismissing such a variance seem even slightly sensible?

      You haven’t said why people abandoned bikes in a time of little motorised traffic 60 years ago.

      What is the speed limit in residential areas in NL? Might it have a bearing on their accident record? Their residential limit is 68% of ours. This means the kinetic energy of identical vehicles is 2.56 times greater here than in NL (assuming they are not above the limit and my experience of NL is that they stick to it better than here). Or put another way vehicles in NL hit you with 39% of the energy which they do here. Walking around NL I found motor vehicles were much more accommodating than here.

      It’s not my idea that cycle paths are less safe, that’s what they found in DK. Have you found the paper to show that was wrong as you claimed it was? How about Franklin and the Redways? What did he get wrong?

      On your not listening comment, perhaps you’d be less annoyed if I didn’t, but I do and I notice when you can’t explain things.

      • Did I claim it was fantastic, I don’t think so, but it is there.

        You complained it was not being used and that it demonstrated that cycling infrastructure does not work. You have not shown how it can be compared to the Dutch model. You have not shown that it provides door to door “subjective safety” and without these things I would not expect it to be successful.

        You haven’t told me why compulsion as found in NL and Germany and tried here would not happen if you get your way.

        If we have a Dutch quality and style of infrastructure it doe snot bother me at all if it is a legal requirement to use a cycle facility.

        You still deal with the 100% greater level of cycling by saying it doesn’t matter. It’s not a wee bit, it was twice as high relative to the baseline they used. Does dismissing such a variance seem even slightly sensible?

        I have responded to you several times on that. You have ignored every response.

        You haven’t said why people abandoned bikes in a time of little motorised traffic 60 years ago.

        Yes I did respond to that and you ignored it.

        What is the speed limit in residential areas in NL? Might it have a bearing on their accident record? Their residential limit is 68% of ours. This means the kinetic energy of identical vehicles is 2.56 times greater here than in NL (assuming they are not above the limit and my experience of NL is that they stick to it better than here). Or put another way vehicles in NL hit you with 39% of the energy which they do here. Walking around NL I found motor vehicles were much more accommodating than here.

        I have pointed out that what I am arguing for is a holistic approach as we see in the Netherlands with traffic calming in residential areas as well as traffic exclusion in city centres and cycle paths on major roads.

        It’s not my idea that cycle paths are less safe, that’s what they found in DK. Have you found the paper to show that was wrong as you claimed it was? How about Franklin and the Redways? What did he get wrong?

        You have ignored my responses:

        a) I pointed you to copenhagenize where it has been pointed out that the Danes have implemented design changes in response to that report

        b) I quoted from the paper you pointed to which demonstrates that even at the time that report was written the cyclist fatalities per 100,000km in Denmark was 1.5 and in the UK 3.6 so despite the report it was still more than twice as safe to ride a bike in Denmark than the UK.

        On your not listening comment, perhaps you’d be less annoyed if I didn’t, but I do and I notice when you can’t explain things.

        Nope, the problem is that I waste my time responding to you because you ignore what I have written .

        • You replied about the difference in UK and NL figures by saying it wasn’t significant. You didn’t explain why it was different. You could have approached that in terms of topography, civic layout or some other way but you didn’t, you dismissed it as not significant. This makes it difficult to take your comments seriously but I keep trying. In most areas where I have been involved a difference of the size between the two would be significant.

          Watch this, I can do it too. “The difference in current cycling levels in NL and UK is not significant”. See, that was easy. Dealt with, move on. That saved a few bob on blue paint didn’t it?

          You didn’t comment on the different speed limits in NL residential areas.

          Eventually we have at last established that you don’t really mind compulsory segregation even though you claimed to have been against it. In the age old phrase we now know what you are, all we have to do is set a price. What if it’s a little better than we have just now? Would you still be in favour of compulsion? Who decides when I get pushed off the road onto your dream? When will the facilities be good enough for you?

          If you let us be pushed off the roads you relinquish a centuries old right for a temporary feeling of security. We are on the road by right, not under licence. Do you understand the magnitude of what you propose?

          “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security”*. And of course it’s even worse because you admit that it’s not real security, it’s a subjective security, an illusion of security.

          You said people surrendered to the car because of a special relationship. That doesn’t really say anything. Let’s try it with something else. “I use toothpaste because of a special relationship”. Well it’s true that I do use toothpaste but that reply doesn’t tell us much, does it?

          Would a simpler explanation not be that people just found it easier to get in their car rather than have to exert some effort?

          See, I do read it but it makes little sense.

          Could you think of a cheaper and simpler approach which doesn’t involve massive construction, which would be better for pedestrians, which would decrease CO2 output, which would not put me on to your dangerous and inconvenient paths and have me banned from the roads where I have right to be?

          *Attributed to Benjamin Franklin but there are a few different versions around.

          • wee willie winkie,

            You obviously enjoy playing with words and trying to manipulate people’s arguments. You appear to have unlimited energy for doing so. However, you still have not come up with anything positive yourself and you have consistently ignored the statistics and conclusions from scientific papers you first mentioned.

            Unlike you I am not eager to pretend I have answers to every historical situation. Hence, I do not know claim to be able to explain fully why cycling declined faster in the UK in the years before I was born than it did in the Netherlands.

            I do believe that the large difference between current cycling levels is pretty irrelevant to a discussion on what encourages more people to cycle. I believe that because we can see what caused a change in the trend in the Netherlands and has caused changes in many other countries as well (some of which have cycling levels as low as the UK, but you have chosen to ignore that point – I wonder why).

            I did comment on speed limits in the Netherlands and you ignored it.

            Have you ever ridden a bike in the Netherlands, have you actually experienced the cycle infrastructure that is being suggested?

            Could you think of a cheaper and simpler approach which doesn’t involve massive construction, which would be better for pedestrians, which would decrease CO2 output, which would not put me on to your dangerous and inconvenient paths and have me banned from the roads where I have right to be?

            This paragraph is garbage. There are great examples in New York of very low cost implementations of safer cycling infrastructure. Cycling infrastructure is far cheaper to build and maintain than extending motorways that generate more traffic and more congestion and more pollution and more parking problems and more danger for children,
            Nobody here is suggesting anything such as “dangerous and inconvenient paths”, as would be obvious if you actually read the papers you have linked to on best practice. Have you tried asking someone from the Netherlands if they would swap their cycle network for the right to ride on a road and ignore the cyclepath? Note that despite your hysterical wording you are not banned from all roads in the Netherlands, only those where there is a parallel cyclepath.

  14. Dave

    I fear I may have made my point too subtly. Let me rephrase – your post caused great offence. I expect to get ‘clowns in lycra’ cracks from Clarkson and his ilk, but not from fellow cyclists.

    A little about myself – I ride >5,000 miles a year, and last year got my car usage down to around a third of that. I am an active memebr of CTC and a volunteer ranger for Sustrans, helping to maintain one of the local routes. I started a Bicycle User Group at work, which now has 250 members. I belong to a local cycling club, which is committed to promoting cycling of all descriptions. In short, I am a passionate devotee of cycling in all its forms.

    Yet you have managed to alienate me – quite an achievement I think. I find your attitude to me and others like me to be patronising and off-putting.

    One last thing – if you want to ‘be the change you want to see’ then isn’t it time you got rid of the Bullitt? Riding what ‘a normal memebr of the public’ would barely recognise as a bicycle is hardly going to convince them that it is a normal, mainstream activity. Time to get a Bike Shaped Object from the supermarket if you really want to act as a role model.

    • Eric,

      I am sorry that I misunderstood your previous comment and that you are offended and alienated.

      As I made clear in my earlier response to your first comment I have nothing against riding in lycra. I do it myself when riding further and harder than normal. I am quite happy to help people who ride bikes that there are times when you benefit from special cycling clothing.

      However, in terms of riding into a major town centre to visit a coffee shop I stand by my original point.

      I would be interested to know which local cycling club you are a member of. I have been looking at the websites of Leicester clubs and have not found one that “is committed to promoting cycling of all descriptions”. There is no point in my joining a club that is focused on racing, or Sunday rides as I neither race nor am I free on Sundays (or many Saturdays for that matter). I am interested in campaigning but for example Leicester Spokes specifically says it is no longer a cycling campaign group.

      One last thing – if you want to ‘be the change you want to see’ then isn’t it time you got rid of the Bullitt? Riding what ‘a normal memebr of the public’ would barely recognise as a bicycle is hardly going to convince them that it is a normal, mainstream activity. Time to get a Bike Shaped Object from the supermarket if you really want to act as a role model.

      Here we disagree somewhat, which is fine. I am in favour of very practical bikes, as the best way of demonstrating cycling is a normal activity for ordinary people. I don’t believe a BSO will demonstrate anything positive about riding a bike. While you can argue that riding a Dutch style upright bike would be more effective than the Bullitt I am not about to change. In large part that is because I chose the Bullitt for good reasons for work and they still apply but also because I think it is helpful for people to see a range of practical bikes and some of the demographics that we are missing most on bikes in the UK are parents and children. So many of them have never seen a bike that can carry children that the Bullitt acts as a helpful pointer to what is possible.

  15. wee folding bike

    Have I called you any names or been rude to you? Do you feel that name calling is a particularly Christian thing to do or should you rather be forgiving people (at least 70 times 7 as I recall)? Is the veneer of Christ’s followers so shallow?

    How have I manipulated your arguments?

    Could some of the cause for higher cycling levels in NL be down to flatter topography? More compact towns? A different attitude from motorised traffic? Are you aware of any of these things being the case?

    Could it possibly be that people are a wee bit lazy and decided that it was easier to get in the car than use a bike?

    If people could be a wee bit lazy back then when motoring was much more expensive in real terms what do you think the case might be now?

    Are any of the above possibilities beyond your ken? Is it possible that you just don’t want to consider that people can be lazy and that NL is not UK?

    If we ever meet in the real world I’d love to borrow a tenner from you because you would not mind me giving you back a fiver, it’s only half as much but that’s not significant, is it?

    Again you accuse me of hysteria and you threw in scaremongering for good measure in the past. It now seems that, under a littler more consideration, compulsory segregation is actually something you would prefer over the current position. Are you ready to retract the scaremongering charge and admit that you actually want that situation?

    The last paragraph is far from garbage, indeed I pointed you towards the answer and even fed you a little of the science behind it.

    • Sir Wee Folding Bike,

      Oh No. Now I have insulted you by not calling you by the correct anonymous handle.

      And now we enter my home turf. Let’s get into theology, fantastic, I love theology :-)

      So you are suggesting that name calling (let us for a moment skip over the fact that you have not disclosed your real name which makes the idea of name calling a bit bizarre) is not Christian and that name calling is the opposite of forgiveness. H’mm, interesting. Maybe we should look at the example of Jesus in the gospels. He challenged the authorities (religious and secular) so much (with acts that included some pretty impressive name calling) that they decided to accuse him of crimes he did not commit, frame him and then kill him as a thief. Maybe we should spend some time considering the nature of forgiveness. What does it mean to forgive someone or to accept forgiveness.

      By all means let us continue to debate this theologically. I could even start to consider this work then and get paid for it :-)

      As for your reasons for the Netherlands having a higher rate of cycling you have timed them well as David Henbrow has just written All those myths and excuses in one post which addresses most of them directly.

      It seems to me the only argument left is the one that you keep repeating that British people are by nature lazier than any others and so will never ride bikes in large numbers even with the best infrastructure in the world.

      I don’t accept this view of people – and I can argue that from a theological standpoint if you like :-) I There are so few examples of a really safe infrastructure here in the UK that it is no surprise that we don’t see women, children and the elderly cycling as we do in the Netherlands, Denmark & Germany. Again I repeat that by a really safe infrastructure I mean quality separated cyclepaths to a Dutch standard (2.5 metres fully separated from the road if single direction, 3metres otherwise, priorities at junctions, …) as well as a combination of traffic calming and traffic exclusion at each end of the journey.

      if you ever come over to Leicester to meet I’ll happily use that £10 to buy you a coffee and yes you can keep the change.

      re compulsory segregation. I admit what I have clearly said before. When a country has a high quality standard of separated cycle path I have no problem if the law requires cyclists to use the facilities where they exist. I suggest that if you tried riding in the Netherlands you would agree that you would be crazy to ride on the road instead of one of the cyclepaths.

      As for your last paragraph you will have to explain your answer, it seems like you are trying to suggest vehicular cycling again, but you have not yet found a single example to point me to of it working. In my opinion vehicular cycling is a total failure at achieving significant growth in cycling with cycling having a significant modal shares of all transport for all people.

      • wee folding bike

        Only you can know what your intent was when you changed the moniker. Perhaps you meant it in a friendly way. There might be reasons why I don’t use a real name.

        You definitely seem a little snippy.

        I’m not likely to go to Leicester. I was there once and I did have a friend from Countesthorpe and another who left to live in Aus.

        I shouldn’t be surprised that you like theology since it’s all made up.

        I stopped reading Mr Hembrow when he started deleting messages. That told me all I needed to know about the quality of his argument.

        You haven’t accepted that you were naughty with the hysterical scaremongering claim when compulsory segregation is actually something you would like.
        Let go, forgive, accept… ohhh, that’s not your guy, that would be Buddha.

        I would see theology as a futile cycle but I’m often entertained by the behaviour of Christians and how it compares to what they preach. I can, however, support laziness from the point of view of selfish genetics. It is a good strategy in most circumstances but, in the long term, is not well suited to western levels of mechanisation and food supply. You might know that at a cognitive level but millions of years of evolution tells cognitive to go hang.

        How would you feel about a 20 mph speed limit in all residential and most built up areas?

        It would be easy to implement, change the signs, enforce it, done.

        Campaign against speeding in the same way that was done with drink driving from the ’70s onwards to make excessive speed unacceptable. We had a smoking ban before you did in England and we would have had minimum pricing on alcohol had the Labour party with their Tory and LibDem chums not blocked it. If we can get the public to accept these things it should be possible to make speeding a minority activity. Highlight the death toll, show things like last week’s Horizon.

        No need for a massive building programme which wouldn’t be anywhere near finished until you’ve gone to meet your itinerant rabbi (or the Roman Mithras and other myths upon which he was based around 180 – 200 AD) and I’m supporting the next cycle in the circle of life. You also know this is the UK so any of your segregated schemes would be half arsed and just rubbish to use. The sainted Dave didn’t stay here to work on it, he buggered off to NL. They have a proper public transport, dykes, relaxed laws about many things. They are not UK. You know that what happened there is not going to happen here for reasons of culture and UK and local government. You will end up with poor facilities and banished from the road which is our birthright, or in your terms we would end up with a mess of pottage, and it would be a mess.

        A 20 mph limit would benefit pedestrians too, I showed you some of the physics behind that yesterday. Energy varies with the square of speed. Collisions are not all down to the energy of the heavier vehicle but if it hits you more slowly your chances are much improved. it would make car use less desirable but not by pricing out those who are of meagre means, merely by slowing every car down.

        It would decrease the CO2 output. We have a more ambitious target on this than you guys. We also make a lot of electricity for you.

        It would benefit cyclists as we would be going at more or less the same speed but we would maintain our right to be on the road which you seem to be so happy to give up. It would let me move as fast as the motor traffic and on a good surface. If more people cycled it would increase the safety in numbers which your approach destroys.

        So, 20 mph limit in most built up areas, leave the divided carriage ways and motorways alone. I get to keep my right to the road and fast, safe, progress. Your huddled masses lose one of their excuses and part of the benefit of their chosen transport.

        Neat-O.

        Got to get on my Pashley and ride over to a shop to get a DVD for the memsahib.

        • Wee folding bike,

          I shouldn’t be surprised that you like theology since it’s all made up.

          Actually for once you are almost making sense :-) In a philosophical sense there is an element of truth in that. One definition of theology is “The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.” via the free dictionary You have missed out the rational though.

          You haven’t accepted that you were naughty with the hysterical scaremongering claim when compulsory segregation is actually something you would like.

          I really don’t think I was naughty at all. You keep making what I consider hysterical claims about how the law will be changed if we start building a safer infrastructure. You seem to me to be using these as scaremongering tactics (if you ask for better infrastructure you will get rubbish and you will be banned from the road). That is not the experience of other countries and so far those suggestions have been defeated in this country.

          I would see theology as a futile cycle but I’m often entertained by the behaviour of Christians and how it compares to what they preach.

          Ahh, now start to approach the need for forgiveness. In one sense it does not bother me at all when Christians fail to live up to what we believe. We know we will fail, we know we have failed but we also know that God has done something about it. You could say it means we can aim high without fear of failure. Very freeing, very hopeful, very holy :-)

          How would you feel about a 20 mph speed limit in all residential and most built up areas?

          I suggest you read some of my other posts to find out what I think (it should be obvious given that I have kept pointing out that the Dutch system combines cyclepaths on major roads with traffic calming and traffic exclusion).

          So I am all in favour of 20mph speed limits. But that does not solve all the problems by any means (which is why in the Netherlands they combine lower speed limits and cyclepaths).

          I have also written about my views of speeding and of the punishments for driving offences. Just look at the older posts, far too long to include here.

          It would let me move as fast as the motor traffic and on a good surface.

          Back to the key problem for vehicular cycling. It is for fit fast riders (which is why Franklin’s roundabout advice which includes “accelerate to 20mph” is no use for a 5 year old or a 95 year old or parents with 3 kids in a cargobike or someone with a handcycle …)

          If more people cycled it would increase the safety in numbers which your approach destroys.

          Again, give me an example. Where has vehicular cycling (even with the benefits of a slower speed limit) actually got people of all ages and of both genders cycling in large numbers (say 30% of all journeys, which the Netherlands are approaching as a whole country, but even 10% would be impressive) .

          So, 20 mph limit in most built up areas, leave the divided carriage ways and motorways alone.

          So how does this help me get to Leicester General Hospital where I went today? The only direct route (due to railway lines etc) is on the ring road with a divided carriageway with a crap cycle lane that comes and goes randonly.

  16. It wasn’t me that missed out the rational thought, remember the house built on sand. Anyway I can tell the difference between 20% and 40%.

    You mention the 30% level a lot. NL was on 30% of the norm reference before their segregation. Looks like they didn’t need it. Why was that? In the far east they had well over 30% until they started getting cars, did they have a special relationship with the US or was it just easier to use a car?

    Compulsion has been attempted here in the draft Highway Code, it exists elsewhere, you eventually admit you would like it but I’m hysterical? Naughty, naughty. Ego te absolvo.

    Do you know why cheap generators are designed to produce their rated output at 12 mph? I use hub generators which are better.

    Your hospital problems in Leicester are unfortunate. That’s UK design for you. Contact your local representative and see what they say.

    I went to Tesco this evening to get some supplies. I went on a 5 speed Pashley Roadster which is not a speedy machine.

    I used part of Sustrans 75 because it was a shortcut, that’s lazy of me but that’s humans for you. It goes right to Tesco from a nearby housing estate. I’ve never seen anyone else cycle on it and I’ve been going past that bridge every day for 10 years. For that matter the only people I see walking on it are school kids who can’t drive.

    On the way back I couldn’t do that because it would have put me back on the wrong side of the divided carriage way so I had to round the long way past the grannies driving home from Bingo. That’s the kind of design you’re going to get in UK. I can see difficulties getting Scottish Bingo grannies to cycle in February. They were parked all over the place outside the Bingo hall, there were plenty of real spaces a little further away but they would have had to walk.

    As I rolled cheerfully home I controlled a bus which couldn’t pass me at a pinch point beside the football pitch. It wasn’t difficult and the bus behaved properly.

    You haven’t addressed the chance of your goal being achieved. it approaches zero. Would you accept that? The price of fuel is more likely to have an effect than your plan.

    You still insist that an NL solution will work here. Anywhere in the UK it has been tried it hasn’t worked but you claim that’s because it wasn’t done properly. It’s always because the design was wrong, never because people just don’t want to use a bike. You don’t say how UK design will get better.

    You haven’t addressed how you are going to stop the design being rubbish but you have conceded that your local hospital shows an example of this poor design. Perhaps this is why you are so hung up on this segregation thing. I can’t think of any Scottish hospital which would be difficult to get to by bike. Our local one was going to be closed by Labour but they were stopped in ’07 when the new government came in. It’s just off the main road and between two housing estates. Glasgow hospitals are in town, you could easily walk to them if you wanted. NAGe in Ayrshire isn’t handy by bike but that’s because it’s in the middle of lots of small towns and villages and a segregated route isn’t going to get it closer to them. Indeed almost every segregated route I’ve seen in UK makes journeys longer. Ayr Hospital is on top of a hill but again, a segregated route isn’t going to make the hill smaller. Alexandra in Paisley is in a residential area. The main hospital in Edinburgh is in the middle of town near Arthur’s Seat. I parked there when I went to pick up my first Brompton.

    All three central belt airports are easy to get to by bike.

    Train stations are mostly Victorian, Glasgow Central I think is Edwardian, built after Bridge St, but they are in the middle of town and easy to reach.

    Even the out of town shopping areas like Braehead and Silverburn aren’t so far out as to be a problem. The latter one is in Pollok.

    Perhaps you should just leave England and find somewhere nicer.

    • Wee folding bike,

      If you are going to try to make allusions to the Bible it might help if you actually knew it :-) You have got the wrong end of the stick in terms of building on sand. I suggest you look in either Matthew chapter 7:24-28 or Luke chapter 6:46-49

      re the 20%, 40% thing you have consistently ignored my point that the level is not relevant as every country that has implemented a combination of traffic calming (which includes lower speed limits but is not limited to that, it also includes one way streets [does not apply to bikes], blocking of through routes for cars, home zones, parking restrictions etc) and separated cyclepaths on major routes providing safe, fast, prioritized cycle routes over longer distances.

      You are focusing only on the Netherlands. But many other places have implemented these features and seen cycling grow hugely even from a very low base. US Cities such as New York and Portand are good examples. In those cases the base level of cycling would have been far lower than the UK, yet the Dutch model is rapidly building the numbers cycling.

      Compulsion has been attempted here in the draft Highway Code, it exists elsewhere, you eventually admit you would like it but I’m hysterical? Naughty, naughty. Ego te absolvo.

      You again misquote me (can it really be accidental?) I have not said I like compulsion. I have said with a proper infrastructure it is not a problem and with a Dutch style infrastructure you really would not want to ride on the road instead of on the cyclepath. Yes it has been attempted once here but a) it was defeated and b) my understanding was that the drafters had not really intended to mean compulsion and the implications of their draft had been fully worked out. Less conspiracy than you imply. Given that it was rejected it does seem hysterical to keep harping on about it. Do you have real evidence that there is another highway code revision in progress with compulsion in it?

      Your hospital problems in Leicester are unfortunate. That’s UK design for you. Contact your local representative and see what they say.

      And how would your solution not make things worse? There would be no support for cyclists on divided carriageways, I would be told to stick to 20mph areas which would not provide a joined up route for me.

      See Freewheeler of Walthamstow for more on 20mph speed limits not being the solution.

      As I rolled cheerfully home I controlled a bus which couldn’t pass me at a pinch point beside the football pitch. It wasn’t difficult and the bus behaved properly.

      And how would that work for one of those grannies you just complained about.? Or for a child at primary school. Do you expect them to be able to control a bus or a 4×4 driver or a Jeremy Clarkson at a pinch point?

      You haven’t addressed the chance of your goal being achieved. it approaches zero. Would you accept that? The price of fuel is more likely to have an effect than your plan.

      They said that in Copenhagen, in New York, in Portland, it Washington, … yet it has worked.

      But still you can’t name a single place where your solution has worked – I wonder why.

      You haven’t addressed how you are going to stop the design being rubbish but you have conceded that your local hospital shows an example of this poor design

      Happy to address that. How do you find zebra crossings? Do your traffic lights follow the same colour sequence as everywhere else? Do you use the same signs for a T junction, for men at work. Are your motorway signs pink?

      We don’t yet have the same level of design standards and implementation requirements for cycle infrastructure as we do for other elements of road transport. The Dutch and Danes do.

      One thing the Danes use is a simple table. Speed limit on one axis, Number of vehicles passing on the other. It then requires that one the speed is above X there must be a separated cyclepath (and you go to the appropriate document for the specifications of that path (width, separation distance/material, priorities etc). Next speed down a cycle lane is permitted and you look up the specification for that. If you think you don’t have space for a separated cyclepath when the speed/volume requires it then you have the choice of lowering the volume and/or speed until you have space for what is needed. Copenhagenize points out that Councils now feel under pressure from their citizens to build higher specifications than the book requires because the infrastructure is getting so many more people cycling.

  17. wee folding bike

    I suspect you didn’t see what I meant with the sand and house but then you didn’t spot the Ayrshire hospital thing either.

    “If we have a Dutch quality and style of infrastructure it doe snot bother me at all if it is a legal requirement to use a cycle facility.”

    Looks like you are happy with compulsion and we know there was an attempt to have it put in the UK Highway code already. Perhaps you can see into the souls of the drafters I see Clarkson Wannabees trying to get us off the road and you as their fellow traveller.

    You then go on to suggest ” I would be told to stick to 20mph areas which would not provide a joined up route for me.”. So you do expect us to be banned from roads which we currently have a right to be on.

    Freewheeler is entertaining but not compelling. I lived in London for years and found it easy to get around by bike. In rush hour traffic only one thing moved faster than a bike. HMQ used three sets of Police motorcycle outriders to stop cross town traffic and let her past. Going by Charlie boy’s recent jaunt they don’t seem to be doing that now.

    I don’t think you’re going to get Bingo Grannies onto a bike? Do you?

    I rarely find Zebra Crossings. When I first moved to London, in ’88, I’d forgotten how to work the things and it took a few days before I got used to them. This isn’t England, things are different. I can’t think of any zebras outwith private car parks. Of course things are also different in NL but you seem to not know that.

    I think most road signs are standardised throughout Europe.

    Back to Ayrshire hospitals. Did you notice anything about their locations? North Ayrshire General, known as NAGe, is about 5 miles from Kilmarnock and serves that town along with a number of smaller ones. The radius is about 20 miles, it also serves Saltcoats/Ardrossan. This isn’t really going to work for most people on a bike. If you had a more densely populated area it would be different.. like NL for example. Your plan to get us off the roads isn’t going to make it any closer to the towns it serves.

    The new Ayr Hospital serves Ayr… not surprisingly, and areas to the south of the town. As well as the radius of the area served you have to deal with the topography. It’s on a fairly stiff hill. It’s a 60 mph zone but I still didn’t used to be able to drive up in top gear. I used to cycle up it for views of the bay but not many people do. NHS Scotland owned the land because there was a mental hospital there in the past and they were able to sell a plot in the centre of town. One of your paths isn’t going to make the hill any smaller. Now, if it was somewhere with flatter topography that would be different, but it’s not.

    You have had several chances to discuss topography and other features of geography but didn’t bother. In topography and other ways NL is different.

    Your views are dangerous from my perspective because you would willingly give up our freedom for an illusion of security. You’re not very dangerous because it’s not going to happen but dangerous nonetheless.

    • Ok that’s it. I have tried so many times to answer you in straightforward ways only to have you twist my words. You have not once answered my questions to you.

      No more unless you give a straightforward answer to this:

      You have claimed a Dutch style cycle infrastructure will not significantly increase the levels of cycling in the UK despite the multiple examples from around the world where it has done just that.

      You have claimed that the solution to a significant increase in cycling in the UK is 20mph speed limits and vehicular cycling.

      Name one place in the world (which has some parallels with the UK) where your solution has brought about a significant rise in the number of people using bikes AND has done so with a good safety record.

      If you have respond in a straightforward way to this question (that you have avoided multiple times already) then I will continue, otherwise I am out of this farce of a discussion,.

  18. No, I say you haven’t demonstrated that it will work. You assume that it will but that’s not demonstration. You fail to take into account the differences in topography, culture and ciivic design between here and NL. You take it upon yourself to give up the rights of people to do ride a bike in favour of an assumption that people who don’t will start to use one.

    Ecclesiastes 9:4 Not the nicest of images I grant you. It didn’t even bring forth sweetness in this instance.

    When variants have been tried here and failed you blame the design not the philosophy. It doesn’t even work a wee bit but that’s because it wasn’t good enough not because it was the wrong idea. I’m not much into beseeching but in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

    I didn’t say “the” but you didn’t go half way and understand why it might be a better way than your grand design. You told me why Leicester was a bad place to visit the hospital.

    You have not been straight forward. You have called me names, suggested I scaremonger and am hysterical. Then we find that you would support compulsion if it suited you.

    If you want to take your ball and go home that is of course your privilege. It’s just after 1000 hrs and I’ve already stripped, cleaned and mended a Sturmey Archer X-RD5(W) which hadn’t been freewheeling properly so my day is looking good. I will continue to assert my right to be on the road in the face of all you and your fellow travellers do to undermine it.

  19. I was wondering, rather than always focusing on the extremes, UK/US bad – Netherlands/Denmark good, has anyone looked more closely to the countries where cycling is statistically significantly more common than in UK but not totally out of proportion, and see what the differences are?

    I come from Finland which apparently has cycling rate of 0.7 km/person/day, compared to 0.1 in US, 0.2 in UK, 1.6 in Denmark, and 2.5 in Netherlands. I haven’t actually studied the conditions in Finland, but as far as I can recall living there virtually all cycle paths are off road. More to the point, as general rule pedestrians, cyclists, and mopeds are treated the same way. I can’t recall many 50 km/h (31 mph) roads without off road cycle path. (OTOH there are 80 km/h (50 mph) roads with no separate cycle paths but they generally have wide shoulders and/or infrequent traffic.)

    Number of injuries per billion kilometers cycled are as far as I’ve gathered: 3400 in UK, 650 in Finland, 140 in Netherlands – that’s about 1/5th each step.

    One thing I’d like to note is that that is “vehicular cycling” *with* training compared to segregated cycling without any special training besides bike handling.

    To me it just feels you can’t get much better cycling rates without segregated infrastructure; people will continue to cycle despite the infrastructure, not because of it.

    • Tommi,

      Thanks for that helpful comment. Much appreciated :-)

      As you point put there seem to be no examples of better cycling rates without good quality separated infrastructure and traffic calming/exclusion.

      Given the loudness of the anti cycling infrastructure advocates I am sure we would all here a lot about a successful example of that approach. However, the silence is deafening! Meanwhile more and more examples continue to appear of significant growth when a good infrastructure is provided.

    • To answer my own question, looking at Cycling Rates by Country and googling about a bit it would seem out of the 9 countries with cycling rates higher than in UK three, Belgium, Italy and Ireland, do not appear to obviously advertise segregated cycle paths in their capitals. (I figured capitals would be reasonably representative and it’s easier to google than whole country.)

      Of the “bad” ones none appear to advertise segregated cycle paths.

      Not conclusive in any way, I know.

  20. Hello.

    I would be interested to know which local cycling club you are a member of. I have been looking at the websites of Leicester clubs and have not found one that “is committed to promoting cycling of all descriptions”. There is no point in my joining a club that is focused on racing, or Sunday rides as I neither race nor am I free on Sundays (or many Saturdays for that matter). I am interested in campaigning but for example Leicester Spokes specifically says it is no longer a cycling campaign group.

    I ride with Leicester Forest Cycling Club whose ‘tag-line’ (for want of a better phrase) is ‘Leicestershire’s Friendly Club’. I’m sure you will have come across our website in your research. It says on our homepage: The aim of our club is to promote cycling as a social, recreational and competitive activity.

    Our constitution goes slightly further: To further by all lawful means the interest of cycling and cyclists, and to resist any encroachment upon the rights and privileges enjoyed by cyclists in general.

    We work tirelessly to encourage all kinds of people into cycling and do whatever we can to enable them to get the most from it. This work takes the form of the usual club activities for sporting cyclists, but we are also committed to many other forms of bicycle promotion. The Leicester Bike Film Festival for example and our members organise Leicester’s Critical Mass (although I appreciate that you’re ‘not optimistic for the chances of it changing much in Leicester’. We have members involved in cycle coaching for children and adults, especially those from under-privileged backgrounds.

    I personally spend almost every evening and weekend involved in some form of bicycle advocacy, campaigning or promotion activity. I realise that our website doesn’t relate too much of this details (our forum does a better job), but we ARE out there and we are working very hard.

    • Ian,

      Yes I found the forums following referrer links to this page. Very friendly :-) I tried to register for the forum but am still waiting for approved, maybe I am now too unpopular!

      I had looked at the website and decided that the activities and interests visible there were not for me. I can find no mention anywhere of either campaigning or cycling for transport so I am pleased to hear other things happen as that was not visible to me. For example as someone uninterested in racing the home page is an immediate turn off.

      This whole post was sparked by my concern (which I fully accept may well have been badly expressed and some intended humour that clearly missed being funny and that some found offensive – which was not my intention) that we need to be promoting using a bike for transport to non cyclists.

      It seems that I have run into a huge wall between two factions. I had never realised that this wall was so high or that because I want to promote bikes as transport for all people that cyclists would get so angry with me. I must be incredibly naive in thinking that cyclists in this country would want to work for an infrastructure where their children could safely ride bikes to primary school – something that is normal in the Netherlands and Denmark but which can get you prosecuted in this country..

      we ARE out there and we are working very hard.

      I would like to know more about this and what you are working for. Currently I am new to this area and so don’t know much history or what is being done. I have had some disappointments such as being told that calling Leicester a “Cycle City” is merely aspirational rather than anything concrete and the response from the City Council about the known to be an accident hotspot junction of the Melton Road and Troon Way

      I would like to support local campaigns but it should be obvious that I have become convinced of the need for a high quality separated infrastructure and major traffic calming and so would be focused on that. It is not clear to me how your club views that (although the responses so far are not encouraging are they). For example you can read my thoughts on what is needed in Syston.

  21. BAh – I never did get the hang of HTML codes!

    [Ed’s note: fixed]

  22. How I insulted and scared cyclists all over the country « 42 Bikes - pingback on February 16, 2011 at 7:17 am
  23. “How to not attract people to cycling”

    Exactly… -1

  24. British Cyclists: The horrifying missing concern | 42 Bikes - pingback on December 29, 2013 at 12:25 am
Add Comment Register



Leave a Comment


NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: