A couple of weeks ago, Jack Thurston from
The Bike Show kindly
interviewed me. He did a splendid job of editing my ramblings down into something coherent and published the result today. You can hear the interview by clicking on the play button below, introduced by no less a cycling hero than Eddy Merckx !
10 comments:
NO.. i doubt its a lack of subjective safety. probably a lack of will and ACTUAL SAFETY. and to some extent dutch historical momentum. drop teh subjective safety thing if you can. sheesh.
r s thompson: Point me to a place where people of all ages and abilities willingly cycle so much as we take for granted in the Netherlands even though they're scared witless by the lack of subjective safety.
Great sfuff. Just one question about your point about the Dutch interpreting CROW standards as a minimum - isn't it more a legal obligation than an interpretation? Though I suppose you could argue "where there's a will there's a way" and poor implementation is always possible. But you're absolutely spot on about the traditionally aspirational quality of UK responses. This is/has been hghly damaging IMO. Not only wrt the CROW manual among campaigners, but also things like the UK authorities' use of their own publications - the all-important safety aspects are often (?usually) just "guidelines" that are widely ignored; and the willingness of the old guard of campaigners to take an aspirational view of what they want to achieve & be satisfied with crumbs (my glass is 5% full).
@r s thompson no, it's about threat responses. Fight or flight. The 2% cycling in the UK are the fighters. The 20% that aren't are the flighters.
r s thompson: David is technically correct, because here in the UK cycling is actually, statistically, a very safe thing to do. But you are also correct from the viewpoint of the general population, who don't know or care about the statistics.
Traditional campaigners, myself included, thought we could get people cycling if only we could persuade them to try it, and if only they'd believe the statistics. And why traditional UK campaigning puts so much emphasis on cycle training, so people know how to deal with motor vehicles. We know that cycling is safe, we just want more people doing it.
But, of course, even though it's provably "safe" to ride a bicycle in the UK, that doesn't make it pleasant, and in fact the regular near misses from fast-moving motor vehicles makes it very frightening (even for a long-term cycling enthusiast like me!).
Statistically-speaking cycling is only subjectively dangerous. Practically-speaking it is potentially really dangerous but impacts are extremely rare.
Humans have a very poor grasp of risk levels: people cross the road without thinking, but often fear flying, for example. We place more weight on the effect of worst-case outcomes than probability of those outcomes.
Cycling amongst motor vehicles is "obviously dangerous" for 90% of the population, and no amount of training, or quoting of statistical data will change that. It has to become obviously, subjectively, safe.
I believe that it is possible to keep our message fairly simple. Mass cycling needs two things. First it must be safe, with a high level of subjective safety. This is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Secondly, cycling must be the fastest, easiest and most convenient way of getting from A to B. Otherwise, only the tiny minority of enthusiasts will cycle. The vast bulk of the people will use whatever means of transportation actually is the fastest, easiest and most convenient.
David touches on this at the 12 minute mark in the broadcast, and he is absolutely right. The Dutch methods of eliminating ratrunning and setting up a zone or sector strategy (as in Groningen or the Austrian city of Vienna) are absolutely the right way to go.
A two-step programme. What could be easier?
A great interview. Well done to you both. I couldn't believe this wasn't done "live".
As a companion to your blog it is close tp perfect. Listening to it re-affirmed what I thought I'd learnt from years of reading and re-reading your posts.
I see my role now to be as effective and convincing as you are so that my home adopts the proper approach to achieving NL cycling levels as a requisite for having a resilient all-mode transport system.
Thank you again David. Hopefully I can make at least one of your tours in the near future.
At one point in the interview, you make the point that in the time that you have been living in the Netherlands, there is no reason why the UK could not have developed a basic comprehensive network based on what the Dutch have.
You then said that since you have been living in Assen, I think half of the infrastructure has been renewed or upgraded. Is that right? It sounds astonishing. Can you give some brief examples of what has changed? I think it is an important point. It was referred to in some of the recent posts about Stevenage and Milton Keynes.
And thank you for your comments about campaigning.
Sorry r s Thomspon. But David is dead on with the subjective safety issue. I know how safe cycling is and have been a dedicated communter/touring cyclist for decades. I can't get my wife to ride except in "summer weather" because she is afraid of the cars around her loosing control. She would not commute on a trike because the cars "wouldn't see her".
I showed her how this was not true, by having her drive up on me while I was on the trike, but it didn't matter, she just did not feel safe. She is the person we need to get on the road.
Reducing speed limits within cities, and having useful and connected bike routes with bike lanes can make a huge difference to that feeling when cyclists have to share space with cars.
The "dutch" solution is the best choice, but that takes a lot of infastructure changes. That takes political clout to make it happen. If you can get routes regular people feel save enough to use, to let their kids use, then you begin to have enough people supportive of practical cycling to form the needed political pressure needed to make the infrastructure changes.
I just heard the podcast and was blown away. I'm in California and we too suffer from exceedingly low expectations. There are some bright spots like increases in cycle touring and places like Moab and Fruita have been cashing in from cycling but god help you if you want to ride any distance, even in the San Francisco Bay Area.
In the interview, when asked why the decision to create a really good bicycle infrastructure happened at that time and why in the Netherlands, you, David, told the interviewer that it was mostly luck. I, as a Dutch woman who was around at that time (although I was a mere teenager), would like to throw in my two cents.
Of course, there is always the serendipity factor, but there were more factors at play.
First of all, the economy boomed during the seventies. Everybody's, and I mean EVERY Dutch citizen's, deposable income had, what?, doubled? Tripled? The overal affluence is important because people who are worrying about paying the rent and wether they will still have a job in a few months/years time are not thinking about cycle infrastructure and the betterment of their environment.
Secondly, as has been said, there was the oil-crisis and, although this has not been said, the growing realisation of the importance of environmental problems such as pollution and the depletion of natural resources.
Thirdly, the seventies was the period of the baby-boomers. The people who were born just after WWII. This new generation, growing up in rapid growing affluence, were convinced that the 'old fogeys' had been Doing Everything Wrong and that they Would Do Everything Different (And Therefore Better). The protest 'Stop de Kindermoord' was headed by a 23 year old, and this is no coincidence; the seventies were the years where everything was thought to be debatable, permissable, questioned, and the future seemed bright, because although people worried about the environment, pollution and feeding the growing world population, there was also a huge optimism, the conviction that We Together Can Might Things Right.
And now we come to my fourth, and most important point. Because up to now, you might say, 'So what? These things happened in Britain as well. Maybe slightly different different here and there, but essentially the same thing, right?'
But the one thing that people (including the Dutch themselves) forget is that the Dutch have a history of changing their environment to suit their needs.
Yup, if you ask me, the whole 'pompen of verzuipen' ('pump or drown') legacy played a huge part in the Dutch decision to build cycle infrastructure. The legacy of knowing, deep in your bones, that if there is a problem, we should collectively find a solution for that problem and build it, be it the Afsluitdijk, the Oosterscheldedam or cyclinginfrastructure. The collective bit is important - the Netherlands is an individualistic, capitalistic country, with a history and penchant for collectiveness. In the Netherlands it was never a case of 'all the rich people live on the high ground so if the dikes burst only the poor people drown' either, so they might hate their neighbour, and their neighbour might hate them, but unless they worked together to pump the water out, they both would drown. We don't conciously think about it, but the instinct to find solutions for the common good in ingrained in us from birth.
This is not to say that other countries can't build cyclinginfrastructure, I'm just saying that there IS a reason why the Dutch did what they did when they did it.
Post a Comment