Cycling in London (again)....

[flecc]

I would guess that the main reason for the higher overall number of road deaths in Holland is the high number of cyclists. However hard the authorities there try to create a safe environment, an RTA on a bike is more likely to kill you than being in one in a car.

Indeed, but this puts our UK drivers in an even better light.

The average Dutch situation of 650 road deaths, higher pro rata than ours and some 200 of them cyclists means 31% of the deaths are cyclists, despite their wonderful facilities.

That doesn't support their drivers being as careful as some seem to think, and doesn't say much for the effectiveness of their strict liability law.
.

 

[neptune]

There is no doubt a limit to what can be done to improve cycling infrastructure. My gripe is that we fall short of that limit. There are numerous foot paths here in Boston that are wide enough for shared use, and the cost would be no more than some signs and a painted white line.

My favourite example is a footpath along the river that leads from a huge housing estate, right into the town center. It is two meters wide, and for most of its length could be widened to three metres. There has been talk of making it a shared path for at least five years, but nothing happens. We have just spent four million pounds replacing the tarmac in the market place with fancy bricks. That would have bought a lot of cycle paths. Cycling is popular here, but with encouragement could be even more so.

Under inflated tyres. I am obsessed with tyre pressure. I reckon a bike with half flat tyres needs twice the effort to pedal it. I have been on a few Skyrides [Google Goskyrides] with the local bike club. There is a lad of about twenty who has a Mountain bike. He always struggled and sweated. I reckon his tyres were about 10 to 15 PSI. I told him about this numerous times. Last week, I took my track pump and inflated his tyres to 45 PSI. He now rides like a bat out of hell, and has thanked me so many times it is getting embarrassing.

 

[flecc]

There is no doubt a limit to what can be done to improve cycling infrastructure. My gripe is that we fall short of that limit. There are numerous foot paths here in Boston that are wide enough for shared use, and the cost would be no more than some signs and a painted white line.
.

Definitely more could be done Neptune, though all too often it leads to more piecemeal additions coming to abrupt halts that anger cyclists even more than nothing at all.

The trouble is that we just don't have anything like enough cyclists, and the authorities know that no matter what they provide, that isn't going to change soon in this country.

For example, whenever we provide good cyclepaths separated from but alongside roads, they lead to frequent junctions where the cyclist has to stop for all traffic, often for extended periods. That leads in turn to many cyclists refusing to use the facilities and sticking to the much faster roads.

The solution elsewhere as in The Netherlands is to give the cyclist priority at each junction, but that is only acceptable with high numbers of cyclists. There a car stops for a number of cyclists, here it would be a number of cars brought to a halt by one cyclist. As it is, there is much moaning from motorists about the extensive network of painted cycle lanes that often have no-one on them, so giving a priority to a tiny minority would not be accepted. Of necessity governments have to act for the majority.
.

 

[axolotl]

One should not be fooled by the photos and videos of the best, it's far from being all like that. I've posted here some photos of excellent UK facilities and others have posted similar videos.

A bit patronising, no?

My experience of the Netherlands is based on actually being there. Many times, over 20+ years. Not from photos or videos. Actual experience of being a pedestrian, a cyclists and a motorists in various towns and cities.

First you've ignored what that video said, the huge increase in wealth of the Dutch at the time of the changes. Our position currently is completely the opposite, trying to keep our heads above water while living on an ever increasing debt which we struggle to even stop growing.

This is really just a bit myopic. Yes, most of us have experienced wage repression, particularly over the last five years. But there has been growth - massive growth - amongst the top few percent who own nearly everything anyway. They're many times richer than they were even just 20 years ago.

Second, you grossly underestimate the cost of what would be necessary to match them, across the country it would completely dwarf that of all the projects you mentioned.

I wasn't aware I had estimated the cost. All I pointed out was that money is available for infrastructure, where and when the powers that be think it's necessary (draw your own conclusions about Crossrail and HS2). I also pointed out that there would be massive, and on-going economic benefits (not to mention all the other benefits), but you appear to have dismissed this.

And you've ignored the political reality that I've mentioned. There are limits to what any government can do in opposition to the population, you won't get hordes out on our streets demonstrating. Our child road deaths are miniscule, pro rata matching the Dutch current figures, and our parents are happy to carry their kids about in cars and consider that safest. The mass of our car owning population are anti-cycling and cyclists, and a majority of our parents won't even let their kids cycle on our roads.

I've not ignored it - I actually agree that the nature of the problem is ultimately cultural. However, cultures can and do change. I suspect the catalyst for that change will be soaring energy costs, and will come at a time when change is even more difficult that it is now, due to further development of out-of-town sites and the ever increasing average commute.

All in all there is no comparison with The Netherlands, past and present.

Except the fact that they're extremely similar countries in very many respects, compared to most other countries in the world.

on the roads they still kill on average double the number of cyclists we do each year
.

Shady use of statistics there.

In the Netherlands, about 70% of journeys are made by bike. In the UK it's 2%. So actually, cyclists are proportionally far less likely to be killed in the Netherlands.

 

[flecc]

The difference is that I post on the basis of today's reality rather than optimistically wanting something else. I would love prospects to be different, but they aren't.

I could answer every point you've made adequately but I know that our different starting viewpoints are too different to be realistically compatible.

I will however comment on the energy costs. Today's costs would have been considered inconceivable not long ago, but that hasn't deterred consumers. All the evidence is that they will give up just about anything to retain their cars and I don't see that changing here, least of all in favour of cycling.

The oil availability position has always been underestimated and that is still true today, and the research currently into using ammonia as a fuel will no doubt produce results. The Belgians kept their diesel buses running on it in WW2 so the concept is proven, and the raw constituent to produce ammonia is plentiful. Ammonia is of course already produced on a massive scale worldwide and its use for vehicle fuel would greatly extend the life of our available fossil fuels and make their costs less important.

You can see that our optimism is in different directions. That doesn't please me since I'd love to see cycling succeed here in the way it has in The Netherlands, but just don't see that can happen to any great degree in the UK for a very long time, if at all.
.

 

[Black Dog]

My Netherlands moment of astonishment: on the first day of our trip there, we were riding on a cycle path by a main road, and came up to a crossroads. The cycle path made a slight dogleg to cross the minor road about 10m away from the main junction. We stopped there, as a car was approaching up the minor road. It was a sports car (red MGB, from memory) and going fast. I waited for him to pass, and was astounded when he screeched to a halt and waved us across. I was totally unprepared for that!

 

[RobF]

I was totally unprepared for that!

As were the dozen cyclists who piled up behind you.

 

[axolotl]

I could answer every point you've made adequately but I know that our different starting viewpoints are too different to be realistically compatible.

That may well be the case, but still, I appreciate the debate.

All the evidence is that they will give up just about anything to retain their cars and I don't see that changing here, least of all in favour of cycling.

The problem with this argument is that it's never really been tested. While motorists whine bitterly about fuel tax, they overlook the massive effective subsidy that road transport receives, through the provision and maintenance of the road network (so-called car tax is a drop in the ocean and goes into the main tax pot anyway).

The oil availability position has always been underestimated and that is still true today, and the research currently into using ammonia as a fuel will no doubt produce results.

I'm afraid not. Ammonia isn't a source of energy like fossil fuels - you have to make it. Most ammonia is made using the Haber process, using natural gas as both an energy source and a source of hydrogen. Also, ammonia is pretty nasty stuff in the even of the inevitable leaks and spills. This is why it's not been developed as a fuel.

That doesn't please me since I'd love to see cycling succeed here in the way it has in The Netherlands, but just don't see that can happen to any great degree in the UK for a very long time, if at all.
.

Whilst I think it'll take a lot to push the UK towards sustainable transport, I don't think it's impossible or even unlikely. It's actually inevitable, I think.

 

[trex]

...
Ammonia isn't a source of energy like fossil fuels - you have to make it. Most ammonia is made using the Haber process, using natural gas as both an energy source and a source of hydrogen. Also, ammonia is pretty nasty stuff in the even of the inevitable leaks and spills. This is why it's not been developed as a fuel.

ammonia as in fuel cells could be pretty effective in producing large quantity of electricity for buses. Clean, low running cost, longevity etc. Not for e-bikes yet though.

 

[axolotl]

But where are you going to get the ammonia from?

Fossil fuels, that's where. Back to square one.

 

[trex]

you still lose a fair amount converting between the original energy (natural gaz or other source) to electricity at the point of use, whichever techology you use. Ammonia (as an intermediary in the life cycle) can potentially be an economical solution for buses compared to for example Lithium batteries, compressed hydrogen or methanol fuel cells. Cheap and easy to scale up.

 

[flecc]

Trex has largely answered the ammonia questions for me.

I'll add though that there is no shortage of atmospheric nitrogen and many methods of fixation. The Dutch used coal to provide the necessary hydrocarbon and the reserves of coal are unimaginably large.

The energy content of ammonia at 40% of diesel and 50% of petrol is far, far superior to that of the battery technologies we intend to use for cars and makes ammonia fuel production perfectly realistic. Your statement that it has not been developed as a fuel is clearly wrong when it has already been used long ago as I've said, and is currently being developed as a future replacement for oil based fuels. The characteristics of ammonia based fuel are similar to propane and butane so it can easily be put onto forecourts.

And on the question of keeping i.c. vehicles running beyond crude oil, it should not be forgotten that during the apartheid sanction years South Africa produced it's liquid fuels from coal. The prices of oil based fuels will inevitably continue to rise, making these alternative technologies ever more viable.

The affordability will be taken care of by limiting personal vehicle use, increasing the size and scope of public transport facilities to allow compulsory every other day car use limitation. This also solves the congestion problem and is an acceptable solution since it allows people to retain their beloved cars. This has proved successful elsewhere.

Given the large advantages of i.c. vehicles and the very real disadvantages of self-contained electric ones, I can see personal i.c. car use continuing almost indefinitely.
.

 

[JohnCade]

You seem to be missing the two elephants in the room of overpopulation and climate change. It's getting harder to feed the expanding population, and that population is growing at an ever faster rate. While climate change is multiplying the effect of chance weather events, and causing massive destruction and famine.

For instance we now have what were statistical hundred year flood events twice a decade in parts of Europe, and heatwaves and drought in sub Saharan Africa, Australia, and North America. As well as this the temperature feedback loops have started with methane being released from warming Arctic tundra and the ocean beds, and the loss of glaciers and floating ice exposing more heat absorbing rock and water. As a result of all this the changes in temperature in parts of the world are likely to be much quicker than we think. Adding to the gloom the oil wars are now well established, and the water wars are just around the corner.

We've been living in what is effectively a world civilization for the past three or four decades and its now starting to fail as all civilizations do. It's seemed obvious to me for a long time that the survivors are much more likely to be tending goats than living in any kind of advanced technological civilization in a century or so.

 

[danielrlee]

This article from the Telegraph was bought to my attention this morning: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11064416/Motorists-have-ruined-England-and-they-need-to-pay-the-price.html

Although it doesn't raise anything new and IMO, includes a couple of errors, the comments are as fascinating as ever.

 

[flecc]

You seem to be missing the two elephants in the room of overpopulation and climate change. It's getting harder to feed the expanding population, and that population is growing at an ever faster rate. While climate change is multiplying the effect of chance weather events, and causing massive destruction and famine.

I did in fact type a longer answer including this aspect, but the internet connection momentarily dropping out meant I lost the latter part of my reply since it wasn't saved. I couldn't face typing it again!

However, I did stress in what is posted above that part of the answer was in restriction of car use to every other day, something successfully done elsewhere more than once. I also advocated better civic planning. These can immediately dramatically reduce both pollution and congestion, in car terms halving the population. This solution is more publicly acceptable than any other since it means people retain their beloved cars and the freedom they give, while being able to enjoy far less congestion on their motoring days. This also answers Daniel's post.

In the other respects you mention, I don't subscribe to the doomsday prophecies, we are far more clever than they give credit for. And in any case, the insistence that the population will continue to permanently increase is now discredited, since there is considerable growing evidence that this process is slowing and will go into reverse.
.

 

[JohnCade]

Actually we are much less clever than we think we are as a species. Our greatest capacity is for self deception, and we are stupid enough to think we can control our world when we don't even know how it works. The interactions and totally interlocking parts of ecosystems are much too complex for us to fully grasp, let alone the climate. I confidently expect that in a little while there will be attempts to ameliorate the problem of global warming by climate engineering with predictable unintended consequences. Rather like what happened with the introduction of rabbits into Australia to fix a problem there a hundred or so years ago.

Population growth rates have declined a little in the last forty years, but the world population continues to grow of course, and we are still on target for ten billion by the turn of the century. If things go on as the are, which they won't, because you are right it will go into reverse. Very precipitously I would guess.

 

[flecc]

I remain far more optimistic that that John, we don't need to control the world and shouldn't try. We just need to be smart enough to cope with each eventuality as it arises, something we've done very successfully for around a million years and continue to do with each new problem that hits us.

Every generation likes the world they are born into and don't want it to change, It does of course, but the next generation likes the changed version. Previous generations to our current ones have never had the effrontery to presume what others want far into the future, they've just done their own thing. I think those in the present who increasingly want to try to shape tomorrow's world by disadvantageously changing ours should try a little humility instead.

Our job is to deal with our problems, the problems of the future will be the responsibility of those present then. On the basis that the human race has continuously gained in mental ability and capability through time, they will have solutions we as yet cannot conceive of.

As the religious might say, sufficient unto the day.
.

 

[JohnCade]

I'm not so optimistic as you are clearly.

Actually it's my opinion that our increased consciousness and intelligence over the other animals was probably an evolutionary mistake. It's hard to see how an animal like us can fail to destroy its habitat. In our case our world. That's the history of human civilizations from the time that farming made them possible; and now as I said we live in a world civilization.

I wonder how many technological civilizations have started, and grown too big for their boots, and then disappeared, in all the vast universe, in all the billions of years of deep time. I suspect that there is an iron law that says that when a species becomes so technologically advanced that it can remake its world in its own image its time is ticking down to its extinction.

But to look on the bright side, the planet and life will survive us, and be much better off without us.

 

[flecc]

I'm not so optimistic as you are clearly.

Actually it's my opinion that our increased consciousness and intelligence over the other animals was probably an evolutionary mistake.

But to look on the bright side, the planet and life will survive us, and be much better off without us.

We do have a meeting of minds after all. I couldn't agree more fully with both these statements, and add that the planet would have been far better off without us in the first place.

Our difference appears to be that I think we will cope with the future much better than you do. Clearly that isn't true of the other creatures, which is a matter of considerable regret to me, as you'll understand from my wildlife website. The damage is done though and isn't reversible.
.

 

[Black Dog]

As were the dozen cyclists who piled up behind you.

Ah no, the Dutch are far too good for that.

The other Moment of Astonishment was when we were on a path through a park (I think the Hooge Veluwe) and met some schoolkids coming the other way. The path was about 8 ft wide, there were two of us, and about ten of them. They were riding fast in a close pack, and I seriously didn't know how we were going to pass each other. I was going too fast to stop or swerve (yes, I know, I know) as was my wife, and they weren't about to give way either. I shut my eyes for the impact, and ten seconds later opened them to see the schoolkids behind us, well in the distance. Apparently, a gap had opened in the space-time continuum or we had been beamed up by Scotty or in the Tardis or something, because we passed without touching, and I swear that the laws of physics were contravened for a second or two.

We didn't go a lot further that day, mainly because we were laughing so much.

Serious point: if you want a foreign holiday on your bike, go to the Netherlands. Lovely country, lovely people, Brits made very welcome, and bike heaven.