Interesting read from OECD
Opening line is very nice
Bicycles are an essential part of the urban mobility mix. They use no fossil energy, deliver
important health benefits, and improve the liveability of cities.
Some interesting analysis of the benefits of cycling
and the troubleshooting table for on-road accidents in Denmark at the end is good
Problem - Bicyclists on bicycle track are hit by cars coming from the entrance
Action - close entrance
Meh nothing new there, and some of the recommendations are not really implementable in Australia’s political and organisational context. Unfortunately most of our cycle infrastructure (and policy development) is done at State and/or local government level and you only need to look at budget and policy comparissons between ‘active’ transport infrastructure (cycling, walking) and infrastructure related to private car usage (i.e. roads) too see how much of a difference there is at the bottom line.
The arguement about percieved safety is an interesting one though, and I would argue that it would be more successful to promote cycling safety and awareness (and perhaps impose stricter penalties for drivers whom are at fault in bike/car related accidents) rather than rolling out hard infrastructure (bike lanes, dual use paths etc) as providing this infrastructure only sends a message to motor vehicles that cyclists are not legitimate users of roads despite having a 100% legal right to use them.
John Forester talks about the de-legitimising of cycling as a mode of transport through over provision of hard infrastructure if you are interested please have a read:
I dont dig on bike lanes.