Last night I was discussing plans for the centre of Enfield, as part of that borough’s ‘mini-Holland’ bid, during a London Cycling Campaign seminar on designing well for walking and cycling.
The plans themselves – if they are not watered down – actually look pretty good, and we were mainly discussing the best way of facilitating cycling and walking movement without causing conflict in a high street environment.
The visualisations of the scheme, however, struck me (and others) as problematic.
A burly man going mountain biking, apparently
Not just the garish, intrusive colour scheme, but also the type of people cycling. Very much ‘cyclists’ – a man in full sporting gear, hunched over, stomping on the pedals of his mountain bike.
If these plans are trying to be sold to the public – and indeed to convince shopkeepers that the removal of the road outside their shops is a good idea – then this is frankly a disastrous kind of person to be showing. Someone who looks like they are going somewhere else, and who won’t be stopping. And who also looks like a bit of a menace.
It would surely have made much more sense to use a different kind of person on a bike.
Take your pick
Or just something that has a bit of joy in it.
Isn’t riding a bike supposed to be fun?
Enfield aren’t the only people to have got this wrong. Notable examples included TfL’s ‘bus stop bypass’ visualisations, showing someone who resembles Monkey Dust’s ‘The Cyclists’ –
The Superhighway 2 visualisations, showing lycra clad, fast-looking men
And Peterborough Council’s laughable, laughable decision to use what looks like Fabian Cancellara in their visualisation of a walking and cycling route in their town centre.
A vision for the type of cycling Peterborough want in their town centre
I’m sure there are many other examples like this.
We were told that there was ‘limited time’ to prepare the bid, and the visualisations, but really, how much more time does it take to choose a suitable image of someone cycling? If you are thinking about doing a visualisation – please, please contact me and I will be happy to supply a photograph!
Surely far more worrying than the clothing the cyclists are wearing in that first photo is the fact that in any sort of busy period with cyclists moving in both directions, it would be near enough impossible to overtake slower-moving cyclists?
Paths like this are all well and good for a quick pootle to the shops when you’ve got no time pressure on you, but what exactly are they supposed to give to people commuting a few miles to work who haven’t got the time to pootle along, other than forcing them out onto the presumably now narrower roads to try and move at a decent pace?
Please don’t object to separated paths with your spurious logic. Yes, the paths could be wider, but separate cycle paths speed up average speed on cycle journeys – it’s faster to cycle in the Netherlands with the near-continuous paths and safer junctions than it is to weave around traffic on the roads in the UK. People seem to find it perfectly possible to commute at reasonable speeds even amongst the school children and old ladies.
Anyway, in commuting periods most of the traffic will be single direction and earlier (in the morning) or later (in the evening) than the “pootling” traffic, so there is less of a problem.
One final point is that if a reasonably network of paths starts to appear in the UK then they can be widened if they do get too busy (and take unnecessary traffic from the roads).
The average Dutch bike ride is 3kms though. The average London commute is not.
As far as I’m concerned, CS7 is great. I understand that it’s not the dream scenario for everyone, but there are already so many cyclists on it that at times I’ll find myself overtaking one or two cyclists inside me with another one or two outside me. How on earth are you going to fit those volumes into paths such as the one illustrated?
The path illustrated is to (hopefully) be built in Enfield (Church Street). I’ve not cycled there, but I have in nearby areas in outer North/North East London and I doubt there’s currently anywhere near as many people cycling as CS7. I realise that the “better than nothing” attitude has lead to some terrible box-ticking attempts at infrastructure, but the Enfield picture is a significant improvement on the current situation in outer London. If that sort of infrastructure gets built people *will* use it, and if it gets overcrowded then councils and TfL will have a good reason to look at either widening it or building another route nearby.
Anyway, why would you be speeding along a busy shopping street? You should be looking out for pedestrians who may be crossing (e.g. to get the bus). Isn’t that what we criticize speeding drivers for not doing?
I should stress that the plans are for a 4m-wide track, which (if the kerbs are suitable) is a very good width, and should not present any problems for overtaking. And as you say this probably isn’t an environment where you should be speeding through; it’s a high street. If a 4m wide track is full of people cycling, then you should be moderating your speed appropriately!
4m does sound fine. If that’s the case, you should add “not being shown in scale” to your list of what’s wrong with the cyclists in the first illustration, as it certainly doesn’t look like there’s that much room!
I’m glad you pointed out that the track is meant to be 4m wide, as Chris’ original comment was correct – the artist’s impression shows a cycle track which is far too narrow, with kerbs that are far too high. It’s the sort of crap we don’t want!
The kerbs are very important too, to get the most out of that 4m width.
Perhaps their visualisation should have looked more like the bottom photo here: http://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=1404
According to the CEoGB website 49% of the population in England and Wales travel less than 5 km to work.
And if it turns out the cycleways are popular then there will be more pressure to widen them, and fewer people driving so less space required on the main carriageway.
Plus, not only is the “I’m alright Jack” attitude morally hard to defend (which may not bother you) but it’s not just about getting to work today. Thousands of people die annually due to pollution-related causes and you’re getting a dose as well. Your tax-dollars are going on the other externalities – helping people with diabetes because they never got any exercise, paying for more expensive road infrastructure to take the weight of thousands of motor vehicles – you know VED doesn’t cover that? Looking at the big picture, more cycling helps everyone, even if it’s now a cyclist instead of a car you have to go round.
Pants. Markup fail.
tee hee!!!
Oy.. I have T2 diabetes and have always exercised…
anyway, I nearly became a statistic yesterday… I was overtaken while trying to turn right at a junction that was also by a pedestrian crossing by a learner driver under instruction. The instructor shouted out at me that I was “too late” when he was alongside me in the middle of the pedestrian crossing zone. He’d allowed his pupil to break THREE rules in the highway code at the same time when they overtook me. As a result, I’ve decided to create an e-petition to try and get double white lines painted one hundred meters either side of both junctions and pedestrian crossings… this should reinforce the message that overtaking is not allowed there and also remove the fuzziness of what constitutes near a junction…
Here is the link to my petition, please sign and spread it about. These additional lines should give cyclists more protection when trying to turn right.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/63645
Commuting on the Northwestern Cycleway in Auckland, it’s the reduction in junctions that saves you time & effort. I spend less time waiting around for cars to get out of my way and therefore more time pedalling.
Other riders are really not a problem!
Go on tour with David Hembrow f.f.s. You’ll see how it works with real infrastructure for ALL road users.
So I give up my holiday, leave my wife and kids to do their own thing and pay to go to the Netherlands and I’ll be magically shown how cyclists can overtake each other without delays during rush hour on a two-way path which is only wide enough for a single cyclist in each direction? If they really can show me how to overtake people when there isn’t any space to overtake, then I’ll jump at it, but I’m not convinced.
From what I can see, the average cycle ride is 3kms. At that distance, getting held up behind a slower cyclist isn’t much of a problem, but how many people working in Central London, Canary Wharf and the like can actually afford to live 3kms from work???
I know I can’t – and frankly I wouldn’t want to even if I could – which is why my cycle to work isn’t 3kms each way. It’s 24kms each way. Do you really think that distance would be viable on a route such as that illustrated where I wouldn’t be able to overtake?
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=5895
Now THAT would indeed be a dream scenario! It’s not what we’re seeing in the above visualisation though!
well lodge complaints when you see rubbish proposals… don’t let them get away with fobbing us off with this rubbish and especially claiming that it’s to continental style…
1000 words in ONE ! (1) ! single image. Point Well Made!
I was on a study tour with David Hembrow. I saw the details for myself –and then some.
That is a true picture.
Take the Study Tour, Chris, and see for yourself.
I commute 12km into central London. Sometimes I ride fast on a road bike, other times not so fast on a utility bike. The difference in time between ‘as fast as I can’ and ‘nice and easy’ is 5 minutes. Not being able to overtake safely is likely to cost you about 10 seconds – if your journey is THAT time-critical put your lights and siren on. Otherwise, chill out.
Chris, the average bike trip in Holland is a bit more than 3 Kms, and I guess your commute is exeptional. I regularly cycle from Rotterdam to The Hague, which is about 25 Kms and I share the road and use cycle-paths in under all kinds of circumstances. Yes, sometimes I can’t overtake, but when driving a car it happens too. So I just take it easy and wait for the space I need.
Chris – you have to accept that 24km is not a normal cycle commute, even by London standards – it is herculean. The fact that our pitifully low cycle mode share by journey length doesn’t tail off the way it does in the Netherlands (where beyond about 10km almost no-one cycles) tells a story in itself. The UK cycling environment is one for “none but the brave” – 25-45 year old, fit, males who are cycling as much for exercise or the adrenalin rush as for the simple utility of it.
The people who just want to be able to make short trips more efficiently and cheaply by bike, and get the bus/use their cars for longer trips, as they don the Netherlands, are so far being offered almost nothing and the complaints of the road-warriors if anything perpetuate that problem – just look at the position taken by CTC.
I was happy enough with the status quo once, but now I have fallen off the back of that current UK cycling demographic, I feel the inadequacies of our current cycle provision more keenly every day.
“I don’t want the majority of people benefiting from a thing, as it may slightly alter the way I do that thing. I want to prevent changes which will help nearly everyone, so that only myself and those few who are like me can benefit!”
Why, on such a long cycle commute, would you insist on travelling through such an obvious bottleneck in the first place?
Perhaps we should do a series of visualisations in similar contexts but not just from the point of view of a person who never walks or cycles, maybe even never leaves his office during the day.
I’ve heard stories about Highways engineers, and town planners, they don’t like sunlight. They can’t understand how public space is meant to work because they have never seen it in real life.
How about from the view point of a six year old? Or someone who likes 19th Century art or thinks all women men should wear cravats and all women should wear hats and gloves. How about an 80’s colour scheme for the paint on the road? I personally would like to see it done in 60’s orange and brown.
Very good point about the images of “a cyclist”.
The kerbs are a very big problem, clip those and you’ll be off, not to mention the fact that it is difficult to get in and out of the path from the pavement for those on mobility scooters
Yes, this was something raised last night. We were quite clear that kerbs need to be shallow and forgiving, to allow easy movement on and off the track (this goes for the bus lane too).
Limited time or not, presumably this reveals what the visualisers think of as “cyclists”. And I presume the council, and whoever edits this kind of stuff, are “blind” , in a gorilla-among-basketball-players way, to this kind of representation simply because that’s not a significant concern for them. paulc’s comment about kerbs is spot on in this respect. Basically, they talk the talk but don’t think the thought. But you have to ask why, with all the campaigning that is supposed to be bringing about a cycling revolution, they have not been educated out of their peculiar “visions”. Personally I’d have put in a few kids in hoodies on BMXes on the footway giving the finger to pensioners; and people walking their dogs and pushing their buggies on the cycle path while a crowd of people on bikes queues up behind shaking their fists just to keep it real.
An aside on “facilitating cycling and walking movement without causing conflict in a high street environment’. How about facilitating walking in different directions without causing conflict in a high street environment? Seems a bit of a silly concern with the elephant of motor vehicles in the room. I’ve cycled and walked in and around Kingston-upon-Thames for years with its veritable kaleidoscope of transport infrastructure of all types from pedestrian only to urban motorway style gyratory with even (gasp) some segregated cycle paths of the kind shown and you know what – a tiny antisocial element aside, active travellers get on just fine. But if you’re worried, you could argue that the paths should be narrow enough to keep the “road warriors” away.
It is weird that planning departments spend so much on getting these plans together, and then pay to get these promotional mockups done, and pay so little attention to important details. Even if the “artist” bodges it, surely other people have to approve it?
That Cancellara one is hilarious. 🙂
Good post.
The Peterborough one is just beyond ridiculous. Is it a conscious satire? Or a sign of just how little transport-planning departments actually know or care about cycling?
Pingback: Mrs. the Poet was sent home from work, and the Feed | Witch on a Bicycle
Forgive me, but it seems that everyone is missing the point here. I don’t know Enfield at all so I may be missing something obvious myself, but surely if this is the main shopping street there should be no through traffic.
Cars, buses and through cyclists (if there are any) should be diverted. (as the cars presumably have been in this illustration). The main shopping street should be a haven for pedestrians and people who chose to cycle into town in order to shop, or have a coffee or a meal or just hang out with friends, or whatever, (perhaps I should just say a haven for people!).
This illustration seems to be an example of a massive conflict between, buses and cyclists, who are prioritised, and pedestrians who are marginalised at the edges. This is surely the exact opposite of Living Streets. Lets have a zone where there is no motorised traffic (except for deliveries within certain time boundaries) and no incentive to blast through on a bicycle (because there is a quicker alternative route close by). The more I look at this picture the more wrong it seems to be.
they have a hard time selling pedestrianised streets to the shop owners who cannot get hold of the concept of their customers walking into their shops from the car parks, bus stops or after securing their bikes.
They seem to think that all of their customers arrive by car after having parked up in that street after seeing their shop while driving by (referred to as “Passing Trade”).
Diverting cyclists away from high streets is counter-productive as it removes the incentive of convenience. There’s also no way of actually differentiating between ‘through bike traffic’ and ‘local bike traffic’ by any kind of physical means without making cycling harder for the local journey (the exact opposite of what we should be doing!).
The central “Gate” streets of Gloucester are fully pedestrianised with cyclists and motor vehicles allowed in only before 7am and after 5pm… pedestrians only after 7am and up til 5pm… as a result, cyclists have to get off and walk if they want to get to the other side of the center or else go the long way round which is not cycle friendly at all 😦
It strikes me as misunderstanding a crucial part of the design brief: your target users. There are not any children or elderly people cycling in the image and so it’s unlikely that the infrastructure is being designed with them in mind.
It almost certainly comes from using pictures of people who cycle NOW in the current environment, not the people who would cycle in the very much safer and more pleasant environment proposed. A weird mix of ‘how it is’ and ‘how it will be’ without factoring in how people will adapt to the new environment.
it doesn’t help that the stock libraries feature lycra clad cyclist rather a lot:
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=cyclists&search_group=&lang=en&language=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1
Getty Images is a lot better, but they’re not royalty free, a fee is required to be paid to use them:
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/creative/cycling-stock-photos
These would have been a good ones to use:
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/bicycle-commuting-high-res-stock-photography/459812063
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/young-woman-cycling-in-the-city-high-res-stock-photography/461982107
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/young-student-commuting-high-res-stock-photography/461982193
and here’s one guy who obviously has been shopping:
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/urban-biking-royalty-free-image/465924681
The point about types of cyclists/people on bikes is very valid and surely can’t be stressed enough, but these visualisations also de-normalize cycling (and fail to give any kind of decent impression of the user experience of cyclists on the infrastructure shown) by depicting very small overall numbers of cyclists – sometimes no more than one in otherwise crowded street scenes. We need to see what happens when a besuited office worker travelling to work on an electric bike at a steady 15 mph catches up with somebody doing a shorter and more sedate commute on a Boris bike at 10 mph, or with an adult cyclist accompanying a small child on a balance bike to nursery school at 5 mph. If designs facilitate safe overtaking, this should be very clear from the visualization. If designs don’t facilitate safe overtaking, this is a problem not merely because it will test the patience of faster cyclists like Chris to breaking point, but because it will make junctions more complicated for all cyclists. If overtaking is only possible at junctions, those overtakes will inevitably add to the complexity of negotiating those junctions.
Pingback: Selling cycling | As Easy As Riding A Bike