As Andy Warhol said (not really), "everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes". I guess this definitely is eating up some minutes out of our 15...
In case you missed this astonishing piece of infrastructure from Cork, that is a three-yard bike lane which propels you head-first into a planter — something even astonishing by our often ludicrous standards, Ryan featured it on the live blog earlier this week, even awarding it the prestigious 'Rubbish cycling infrastructure of the day' award. (The jury's still out on today's recipient)
And now, local news website Cork Beo has decided to feature us for featuring the city's infrastructure, in their piece: "Fame for Cork's crazy '3 yard bike lane that sends you head-first into a planter'", with the strapline reading: "International cycling forum shares Leeside's shortest stretch of active travel route"
Wait, do they mean us? Surely they can't mean us!
Well, our curiosities piqued and our team's experienced, highly-skilled-in-journalism eyes eager to find out the deal, lo and behold, it was your beloved cycling website which had made it into Cork Beo...
In their words: "Now Leeside's craziest bit of active travel infrastructure is gaining 'fans' abroad after being highlighted by the popular What If Cork? Twitter account, which often highlights some of the more... unusual... choices made by Cork City Council, as well as offering ideas and solutions.
"Their tweet on the Pine Street bike lane was picked up by the very popular online international cycling news site road.cc, which shared the pic and story of the Pine Stret infrastructure with their huge online following.
"The site said they could 'just imagine the conversation that went on in Cork City Council when the city’s MacCurtain Street Public Realm scheme – which aims to provide “significantly improved options for walking, cycling, and public transport” – was being planned.
"‘So, we’ll stick a cycle lane in, but we’ll make it the smallest cycle lane imaginable, and then all of a sudden, boom, you’re back on the footway. Oh, and we should stick a giant planter right at the end of the tiny cycle lane, just for laughs.’
"The online cycling news forum did note that cyclists in Cork had been generally positive about changes ushered in by the huge MacCurtain Street public realm project and that the council has been making a big effort across the city to try and make Leeside more cycle-friendly."
Well, glad you liked that Cork Beo! We'll ask Ryan to hire some security when he goes to watch a gig in Cork next year, after all, he's a celeb now!
Add new comment
31 comments
Of course cyclists should have insurance: when pedestrians are forced to have it as well, speaking as someone who has been knocked off their bike three times by pedestrians.
Three yards? No way is it Europe's shortest. I'm sure there are plenty that beat it. Let's have your contenders - off you go comment section!
Will Self's short story Scale dealt with a related question (among many): How long does a motorway have to be before it qualifies as a motorway? As far as I remember, the answer was: at least as long as it is wide.
For some context of why Dame Sarah Storey is simply magnificent, the second placed rider on this race was born three years AFTER Dame Sarah won her first paralympic gold.
She's amazing, but can someone correct "peddling" to "pedaling" in the Dame Sarah Story piece?
Or even "pedalling", which is the correct UK spelling
Found this letter on Facebook, followed by the predictable 5000 comments 95% of which criticising a cyclist for not paying road tax and heavily featuring the word "lycra".
Leaving that aside, quite extraordinary that Nottinghamshire police not only made no attempt to find out who actually committed the offence but give no warning or even indication that such behaviour is illegal, simply saying that it's okay for cyclists two abreast. The culprit must be quaking in their boots.
Fucking hell. "Don't get caught doing this again for the next 6 weeks"
Seems to be the point that they care about in the letter. Bolded and underlined.
(grumble, grumble ... standards of literacy in the police...)
I notice stuff like that in newspaper articles a lot, and I wondered whether it is people dictating to their word processor instead of using a keyboard (and then not proofreading).
Of course, it could be general ignorance…
If the spell checker doesn't pick it up it must be correct!
There is no spell checker in the road.cc comment box.
Ah, but not relevant to your comment.
I do think the ULEZ topic is possibly not accurate. I would imagine that those living in the inner-city with ULEZ, were already way more likely to walk to school. There is so much agenda-driven manipulation out there, its healthy to question it. If it has in fact changed significantly, only since ULEZ was introduced then that is evidence of a positive change, which I would welcome. Messaging on all this could be improved.
The study is about how many *switched* to walking/cycling *after* the ULEZ was introduced.
Here's a link to the study itself in case you want to check if it's being misrepresented: https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12966-024-01621-7
Manipulation you say? But there *is* so much information, so many people reading a headline only (been guilty myself)
Much as I don't wish to support certain posters who appear only to be here to cast doubt on anything positive about cycling whilst at the same time complaining about speed limits for motor vehicles, I did find the research somewhat dubious simply because obviously children are more likely to walk/cycle/use public transport to get to school rather than be driven as they get older, so surveying the same children up to two years apart one would expect a significant number to have started travelling more independently of their parents. It would've been much more helpful to the cause of ULEZ (which I thoroughly support) to show the percentages of children using active travel to get to school pre-introduction and post-introduction, rather than looking at the same cohort two years apart where significant other factors may be influential.
I'm sure it's not a perfect study, but surely that is the point of comparing the intervetion (London - with introduction of ULEZ) to the control (Luton - no ULEZ)? If it was a simple case of getting older = more likely to travel actively, then that would be reflected in both locations equally.
Agreed, I don't think anyone is misrepresenting anything here, but the basis for comparison used by the study seems flawed.
The characteristics and patterns of active and non-active travel patterns as a function of age will likely vary significantly from inner London to most other parts of the UK for all sorts of reasons (off the top of my head: car ownership, public transport, local traffic patterns, typical parental commute patterns).
The association of the difference between school kids' travel patterns a year apart in London and Luton with ULEZ introduction seems like a huge stretch, and more likely to be explainable by other factors. They're not making the claim that ULEZ caused this change, but it's tempting to want to do so given the write up of the data.
They'd have been better off doing the same study, but looking at changes one year apart both pre- and post- ULEZ implementation (maybe that's what they had planned before COVID stuck a huge oar into everything at the end of the reported data collection period).
The baseline data was taken prior to the ULEZ introduction, so I'm not quite sure what your issue with the study is.
(I'm not claiming that it's a perfect study, but the methodology seems perfectly reasonable to me)
I think it's the fact that the differences between London and Luton in the change in transport choice for the same school kids a year apart are being linked to the introduction of ULEZ. The study doesn't say 'because of' anywhere, but the two things are continually mentioned one after the other.
It may just be that proportionally more children in London who don't partake in active travel to school when ~6 years old do so a year later than those in Luton, and this is typically the case for any year's worth of children in these locations.
I'm a big proponent of active travel, and my kids always walked/cycled/wheelchaired to and from their London primary school about a km each way. I'm also happy that ULEZ has been implemented, I just don't think this study shows that ULEZ has made any difference to the likelihood of children using active travel methods.
I suppose it's difficult to determine the direct effects of ULEZs as there's so many other variables to take into account, so I guess that finding a correlation between introducing an ULEZ and more people using active travel is the best we can hope for. It does make sense though to try to put a number on whether the ULEZ is achieving its aims and this study looks like a good data point. What I'd like to see is more ULEZs and more studies showing their benefit (or not if that's the case).
Agree - study could have been better done as you say, but they took an age range so I guess they had that in mind? Normally when I see "survey" I reach for the salt but skimming the paper they seem to have done a reasonable bit of diligence, including looking at a range of possible confounding factors.
I'm a little surprised by the size of the effect - has any extra infra been completed during the period?
Age is tricky - in the UK sample young and as you say cycling as transport might be expected to increase but IIRC it then drops off fast in teenage years, especially for women.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands... https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=346805844122836&id=1000638...
Dutch children need to start cycling younger:
https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/08/dutch-children-must-cycle-...
I'm sure kids are still excited by eg. getting cars but they keep cycling.
I think perhaps one thing that should be taken into account is the fact that presumably Covid intervened between the introduction of ULEZ and the final survey, so lots of temporary LTNs, lower traffic levels, a desire to stay off public transport and other factors may well have encouraged more active travel?
Did wonder about that also - didn't see mention of that but again didn't have time to read the whole thing in detail.
Fair enough, but I guess they are using Luton as the control to compare the ULEZ area against.
“So much anger at evidence” seems to sum up a lot of modern society...
Evidence and facts don't seem to count for much these days, especially for a large number of drivers.
As Michael Gove said "We've had enough of experts."
Like most Tories in office, he never actually got round to finishing what he started, instead tailing off into incoherent mumbling about immigration.
What he meant to say was "We've had enough of experts ...telling us we are wrong, and were flawed in the first place"
Can we all now please just go and troll the shit out of @Derek8533829662 and just fill his feed with every pro cycling article we can find? And then continue to do so with every toxic anti-cycling Knobhead who raises their head? Nothing offensive, just bombard them with facts and studies that counter their prejudicial views on a clean and healthy activity. You want to see what really like to have someone's ideals pushed on you? Hold my pint!
Pages