AnotherEye
Well-Known Member
- Location
- North London
Cities Fit for Cycling - The Times
- Thread starter gaz
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
growingvegetables
Guru
- Location
- Leeds
And then we get Julian Sturdy, Conservative, MP for York Outer. Attended the debate.
He has an "interesting" take on it. He is a "great supporter of dedicated cycle lanes if we’re going to get more people out cycling, especially young people.”
There is a wrinkle - he appears to see it, purely and simply, as ....
an opportunity to secure discounts on business rates for companies.
No more. No less. Stuff the cyclists. Stuff adequate infrastructure. Stuff safe junctions. Stuff safety. Just help my friends in business.
It's here. Ah well - the band-wagon vultures are already circling.
He has an "interesting" take on it. He is a "great supporter of dedicated cycle lanes if we’re going to get more people out cycling, especially young people.”
There is a wrinkle - he appears to see it, purely and simply, as ....
an opportunity to secure discounts on business rates for companies.
No more. No less. Stuff the cyclists. Stuff adequate infrastructure. Stuff safe junctions. Stuff safety. Just help my friends in business.
It's here. Ah well - the band-wagon vultures are already circling.
Titan yer tummy
No meatings b4 dinner!
- Location
- Beckenham, SE London
Dear Stowie, AE AND Mr HC,
Are you then suggesting that RLJ, no lights etc. does not have a negative impact on the image of cyclists.
I'm not sure I understand where your coming from
TyT.
Are you then suggesting that RLJ, no lights etc. does not have a negative impact on the image of cyclists.
I'm not sure I understand where your coming from
TyT.
AnotherEye
Well-Known Member
- Location
- North London
I think it DOES have a negative impact & should be discouraged. However, it's not the main issue. The car is part of everyday life and is in-disposable, regardless of the cost to human life. The bicycle isn't, it's a threat to all of us who believe that our lifestyle is advanced, it's only place is off the road for recreation, it's clearly inferior as it lacks automation!
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Yep, just what we need, more new roads.
GrasB
Veteran
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
In this case yes. The history of the A14 was is was never meant to be a local route, there was supposed to be a companion road for local traffic that was never built. This dual road system was planned in the 70s iirc. So essentially since then the A14 has been running above capacity & it's starting to get critical. The A14 can just about cope with the through traffic mainly generated by transporting goods to/from felixstowe, add in local traffic needs & it's a right nightmare of a road.Yep, just what we need, more new roads.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Nearly every road improvement scheme in the UK has a similar rationale. Will building the new road tend to increase or decrease traffic levels? Why does Felixstowe not have adequate rail links to take the freight off the roads? Where is all the local traffic going to and coming from?
Richard Mann
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Oxford
The congestion is concentrated around Cambridge and Huntingdon. It's local traffic that's the problem.
Well strictly, it's the stupidity of the local councils that have kept allowing building of unsustainable developments on the outskirts of Cambridge.
GrasB
Veteran
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
Yes & no. The A14 is a much more substantial road along most of it's length compared to the Huntington/Cambridge section & for the most part there are alternative local links along the road. On this section not only have you got a bottle neck on the route you've got no alternative routes for local traffic.
Recent ones based on the promise of an upgraded A14...
stowie
Legendary Member
People like your MP have a negative view on cycling full stop. If they had a positive view, they might consider that RLJ / no light cyclists are an issue, but not one that dismisses the policy and concept of encouraging cycling. They are using the antisocial activities of some people to justify a stance, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Would you MP also think that funding an area for regeneration, for example, is pointless unless they reduce crime (for example vandalism, graffiti) to zero? Or that debating and implementing road policy for motoring isn't worth while whilst some drivers flout laws such as speed limits, insurance and tax requirements and so on?
Fundamentally, if we need to wait for every cyclist to obey every single law flawlessly before considering improving the lot of cycling in the UK, then we may as well give up now.It is as impossible as waiting for every driver to follow the highway code to the letter or for every citizen to obey the law before enacting policies to benefit them.
The debate isn't about law breaking cyclists. If your MP wants an EDM on this, then I am sure he is welcome to raise it. It is about improving conditions on our roads for the majority of cyclists.
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
There is a tendency, as you suggest, for people to stereotype cyclists according to some memories they have of hooligans who happen to be on bicycles. That is wrong of them, but nevertheless true. However, we only reinforce that stereotype further if we associate ourselves with said hooligans by referring to them as "some of our number". Furthermore, we will not change the behaviour of these hooligans by attempting to appeal to their sense of belonging to a community, because they don't have such a sense. The only way to deal with that stereotyping is to stress that those hooligans are not part of any community of cyclists, even if such a thing exists. To acknowledge that they are somehow associated with us, even while tutting and shaking our heads, is counter-productive. That's where I'm coming from, at least. :-)
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
Oh, and what he ^^^^ said, as well.
GrasB
Veteran
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
I'll correct my self I was thinking A1(M) to M11 v's A14 not other bits of the A14. So... the Huntingdon to the stretch of the A14 North of Cambridge. This stretch has almost no secondary A roads to take local traffic load & thus is providing a back bone link for 4 different groups of traffic
1) It's the main route out of felixstowe for the west bound traffic.
2) It handles the A10 traffic heading towards Ely & beyond for vehicles coming from the south of the A14/Cambridge (the alternative is through the middle of Cambridge it's self!)
3) It links 2 minor trunk road you may have heard of - The M11 & the A1(M)
4) Finally we get to the local traffic - It is the only viable route between Huntingdon, St. Ives & Cambridge so has to take that traffic.
No other stretch of the A14 has so much asked of it. There was back in the 70s(?) a planned companion road to take local traffic from Huntingdon back to Cambridge. This is why which is why the Girton interchange is such a mess & as it's such a mess it's a choke point causing congestion on the A14, M11 & A428.
Titan yer tummy
No meatings b4 dinner!
- Location
- Beckenham, SE London
Para.1 - This anti-social behaviour is being used by our detractors to avoid the debate. It doesn't really matter whether it's right or wrong. This is what is actually happening. It's no good us wringing our hands and saying oh I do wish they'd listen to the proper arguments. It isn't going to happen. You talk about their position not standing up to scrutiny. It doesn't have to. The motoring constituency aren't going to scrutinise any counter arguments closely now are they. It's no good us pointing to the righteousness of our cause as it disappears down the tube is there?
Para 2. - I don't know what my MP thinks. If you listen to his contribution to the debate you will hear him claim to be a former cyclist. He gave up cycling after a couple of accidents, in one of which he sustained a serious injury. I am not sure how anti-cycling he is. I happen to agree with his comment that he wishes cyclists would obey the law. Law breaking cyclists p155 me off intensely, because I am consistently being asked to defend them when I want to talk about cycling safety issues.
Para 3. - ".....then we may as well give up" your words not mine but you do have a point. If we can't take the discussion beyond the RLJ/no lights issue what's the point of talking. We are asking the law makers of this country to introduce or enforce laws to improve our lot. It's our part of the deal to make sure we obey the laws already in place.
Para 4. - That's the whole point of my contribution. If the other side can turn it into a debate about something else they have won. We as a cycling community are responsible for getting our house in order. Easy it isn't. But we have to keep trying. This forum isn't a bad place to start. There are people here who justify RLJing. So I'm not talking about some unknown demographic. These people are in our midst.
With best wishes.
TyT
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Don't defend law breaking cyclists, when they are criticised. Condemn 'em. Nothing shuts someone foaming at the mouth over ninjas and RLJ and pavement riders faster than "I agree. They are misguided in their actions and something needs to be done to educate them. But I'm sure you'll agree whilst their behaviour change is important it is not as important as (insert issue you really care about here).
Well, it works for me....
Well, it works for me....
