Month: February 2014

Through the eyes of a Google Street car

The resident Vehicular Cyclist Sect member of the UK Bike subreddit often disparages infrastructure, regardless of quality. More recently he has been persuaded to take a look at Amsterdam using Google Street view, and he did not approve.

AndyFatBoyMorris comments "Go on google maps, look at a few streets in Amsterdam, like this one, spot the gutter lane, notice the cyclists deciding weather to wait for their light phase or run the risk of a hook., Looks so much better than the crap we get. This street was the second one I looked at, the first was a shared use ( bikes and cars) back street."

Is this what Vehicular Cyclists actually believe?

A junction in Amsterdam

A much hyped Dutch junction. What’s so great about it?

So it’s not a gutter cycle lane, we can’t tell light timings from a photo, and the guy is clearly looking behind at the weird Google car covered in cameras. But it is a fair point, other than the dedicated space for cycling and cycle specific lights it doesn’t blow you away, though I can see two large improvements over typical UK infrastructure.

  • People walking and cycling can cross all lanes at once, there’s no pig-pen in the middle.
  • The light phases don’t allow for right turning cars to cross and conflict with people walking and cycling straight ahead.

So why doesn’t the junction look like the solution to the UK’s disastrous approach to transport?

The problem is that Google Street View is very good for looking at what’s been built, but not at all good for showing why, nor that statistics showing that roads in the Netherlands are the safest in the world. Something must be working. Indeed just a bit up the road you can see the hordes of bikes parked outside shops as well as spaces for motor vehicles.

bike parking

Parking for everyone; bikes, cars, motorbikes, and lorries.

So why is the quality of the junction, while superior to anything in the UK, not so important?

Dutch cities are managed at much larger scales than single junctions, which imbues the city with an entirely different philosophy, so even if some infrastructure is a bit bollocks (the cycling city of the world ain’t Amsterdam) this isn’t as important as the overall design.

So on the Google Street View of the junction you’ll notice there’s not many cars. It’s probably always like that, as it’s not a useful through road for cars. You’ll notice the other way there’s quite a lot of people cycling, but still not many cars. Is it always like that? I don’t know, and Google Street View can’t tell us. We need more information.

junction angle 2

The same junction from a different angle. More people on bikes than on cars, it must be bliss!

Google Maps still isn’t completely useless. By having a play around with the directions we can see that that junction would probably only be used used if you are travelling from the west into the Jordaan district. Again, Google Maps can tell us that this is an area riddled with narrow, confusing, one way (to motor traffic only!) streets. This is not a good place to be if you are in a car, there’s far better routes that will take you to your destination faster.

Jordaan amsterdam area bridge

The junction would only be useful if you’re travelling from A to somewhere near B. Try it yourself.

There’s a wealth of information out there, so you can learn about how the Dutch make transport work for everyone. I highly recommend David Hembrow’s blog, which is an excellent source that expertly puts junctions like this into the larger context. Mark Treasure praised David Hembrow for exactly that reason, and describes a road in Utrecht that looks awful.

In a UK context, the layout is, in principle, pretty appalling, with the narrow cycle lanes, the pinch points, and the door zone issues, but in practice these issues don’t really matter, essentially because this street has very low motor traffic volume – roughly equivalent to a lightly-trafficked suburban street. Four vehicles over the course of a two-minute video, taken at about 4pm on a Friday, equates roughly to around 100-200 vehicles per hour, gives some idea of the (motor) traffic volume.

So being Dutch cannot just be about street based infrastructure. Though it’s very important to get the details right (or we could build the best junctions in the world everywhere, at incredible cost!) individual junctions cannot fix the root causes of our transport problems. More strategy is needed, and copying or judging what we see from the point of view of a Google car is not going to be enough.


The ASA is harmful to public health

Dear The Advertising Standards Authority,

This is not a letter about the inconsistencies in your original hypocritical ruling regarding the Cycle Scotland advert. This is about how you are harming public health.

Last Wednesday you ruled that this advert could not be shown, full stop, simply because at the end a driver was shown, rather calmly and safely I must say, overtaking a lady who was cycling away from the kerb without a helmet1.

That the ASA exists shows that adverts have a power to not only lie but also mislead and lead astray. Everyone in the UK should be grateful that you counter this for the good of us all. Very little is more important than truth, and as you have the power to regulate it is quite right that you should concern yourself with public health and beneficial behaviours.

With this in mind it is supremely disturbing that the ASA claims to care about public health at the same time that it mandates actions that harm the nation. I am referring to your various rulings that showing cycling without helmets is prejudicial to health and safety.

Let’s be clear: there is no credible evidence showing helmets aid the protection of heads when cycling for transport. Indeed in countries where they have been made mandatory the proportion of head injuries has increased!2 An apparent contradiction, but one that you should be aware as you have waded into the difficult debate that is cycle helmets.

But we should not be discussing the effectiveness of helmets, for this completely derails the key point that you made in your original ruling: public health.

The fact is that having to wear helmets means people don’t cycle3, which is evidenced most severely in the very same countries that mandate helmets, as their cycle rates have been absolutely slashed. This could be for a variety of reasons. Inconvenience, they’re ‘dorky’, hair styles, or fear of police action. It doesn’t matter, the rates of cycling are devastatingly low.

Even promoting helmets reduces the number of people who cycle. Instead they’ll drive, resulting in a less active society, more pollution in our cities, and more cars on the road. Poor health from inactivity and pollution kill. The leading cause of death in children is motor traffic4. I’ll say that again because it’s so shocking.

The leading cause of death in children is motor traffic.

So when your ruling takes part in the promotion of cycle helmets you yourselves have become harmful to public health in a large part, as your existence and influence show. Please look at evidence and discover that you have a part to play in encouraging cycling, for the benefit of all.