The guideline authors seem to be coming from: ‘What can we do that is of some help in a political environment where 1. its not allowed to take space away from motorists; and 2. the budget doesn’t run to anything much more than green paint.’

If those are the constraints, so be it; but don’t encourage unrealistic expectations of what it will achieve.

BTW When David said ‘the 1 per cent’, I suspect he just meant ‘the strong and brave who are the demographic of current cyclists [except in the Netherlands].’ Maybe in Christchurch ‘the 1 per cent’ is actually 7 per cent, but that doesn’t change the basic point that if you want cycling to be attractive to a larger demographic, green paint is not enough.

As a native Christchurcher (but now an earthquake refugee in Auckland and closely involved with Cycle Action Auckland (along with the invaluable Max below)) I must say I completley agree with David H on this.

Why do we need more reports and guidelines and design guides? We know what world best practice is, it is the Netherlands (maybe Denmark at a pinch) – just copy it. Chch is flat and sunny. It was at one stage possibly the number two cycle city in the world after Amsterdam. However, times have changed and we now need to supply (the term David uses that I love) subjective safety for cyclist. It doesnt matter how safe we tell people the design is or how many models (usually designed by very experienced, confident cyclists) say it is safe, it has to FEEL safe to ANY age group regardless of gender – and that is what the Dutch have achieved.

When David first criticised some of the stuff I had written on the CAA blog, I said to him to imagine if the Netherlands suddenly decided it wanted to be the best Rugby nation in the world. Imagine what a long way they have to go. First to convince people not to play football (e.g. not to drive a car), then that Rugby is safe (e.g. that cycling is safe), then supply the facilities and fields for playing Rugby (e.g. cycle infrastructure). That would be a monumental task.

However, if NL was to switch to Rugby, who should they copy? Australia, Romania, Argentina, Scotland? Countries that have a tiny Rugby culture and player base? No, they should copy NZ, at the very least South Africa (although Rugby is a minority sport there too, probably the DK to NL in cycling terms).

At the same time, cycling is not a sport (despite what MAMILs may think) it is a useful and practical form of transportation. We have a long way to go but I dont understand why we would look at countries and cities that have barely managed what Chch already has achieved – a 7% commuter modal share. We should copy NL and maybe DK – everything else is second rate and wont get the 8 to 80 cycling demographic we want and need.

David, Christchurch already has 7% cycle mode share with above 15% in some suburbs, and is aiming higher. I think it is a bit unfair – and to be honest, comes across as rather snobbish – to castigate them as “making the conditions better for the 1%”.

Yeh JD, I acknowledged that the CCC pic should have made it clear that you can stop in advance by the island and do free left-turns any time (although the layout doesn’t rule it out either). My key point was though that these little details will be captured by the actual detailed designs of any such facilities here. Unfortunately the Guidelines image is being viewed as an exact blueprint for how they will be constructed here. Clearly have to be careful even when presenting conceptual design drawings!

There’s an interesting blog by Mark just posted that adds to the discussion – see http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/junction-design-in-the-netherlands/. I think an important point that he makes in his video (and I would reiterate) is that every intersection is different in some respects and therefore needs to be designed on its merits. There is no “one size fits all” solution in The Netherlands and neither will there be here.

Amidst the safety concerns and intersection designs, I can’t help but wonder how all these individual good designs fit into our wider urban fabric. How are the look and feel of these cycle spaces going to impact on our already cluttered streetscape? Are the involvements of urban designers and architects too late in the design and implimentation process?

Maybe it’s just one architect’s frustration in an engineering world.

Jack

I think that David Hembrow’s criticism is very harsh and negative, but his points are valid and I believe that they should be considered for what they are worth. Your response comes across as very defensive- it seems like you are trying to save face even though the guidelines are obviously flawed.

I think it’s great that these conversations are going on and that the christchurch cycling design is getting international attention. Let’s try and make it the best we can!

Thanks David, I appreciate your ongoing dialogue on this matter; there are definitely things we can learn from your experience in The Netherlands. I think we may still “agree to disagree” on some aspects, but I’m happy to accept that my opinion may change on some of these as I gather more evidence.

I believe our efforts will tap into the “interested but concerned” who are over and above the 7% of regular commuters we currently achieve. This is supported by research we have done on what type of infrastructure (mid-block and intersections) would make the “next 10%” hop on their bikes more regularly.

One point I’d note: it does not appear that the two-stage turns were specifically responsible for the fatalities in Denmark; it was turning traffic against straight cyclists (we have had similar issues in NZ, esp. heavy vehs). Interestingly I thought that the example shown in your video of the two movements sharing the approach lane actually made it safer than having them side-by-side, where visibility is often compromised. But clearly having separate signal phases would be even better again.

P.S: I hope to catch up and chat in person some time – preferably in The Netherlands!

When you say that you think I “misunderstand the likely applications in a Christchurch context” of ASLs, sharrows and two stage turns I think you misunderstand that they have no context at all in the Netherlands. ASLs are rare (we have none left in the city), two stage turns more rare (the example I used to know about 200 km away has been removed, there’s another slightly closer which still exists) and sharrows have never existed here. None of these things is being built now. Why ? Because none of them are either convenient or safe.

It’s true that the Danes have made heavy use of two-stage turn junctions. However, it’s also true that they have safety problems with them. No fewer than seven cyclists died on two stage turns in just the city of Copenhagen last year. You have chosen to copy Danish designs just as the Danes are now looking to copy Dutch infrastructure in order to improve their safety and cycling modal share.

Now Christchurch is your city not mine, so you have to choose your own path. All I can do is advise. The Netherlands achieved its world beating modal share not by building a few high quality paths separated by lesser infrastructure (that was tried in the 1970s and did not work) but by building exceptionally good infrastructure everywhere.

What the Dutch have now is not a luxury. It’s not gold-plating. This is the minimum standard of infrastructure required to support the cycling modal share of this country. If you want to aim beyond single digits and wish to compete on a world stage for modal share, you can’t afford to skimp on quality.