Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[snibgo]

They're exactly the same thing. Fear stops people doing things. 50 mph on a main road is x5 differential for a newbie cyclist. Why do city dwellers require 20mph and everyone else has to make do with a lethal impact speed?

I don't agree that real safety and perceived safety are the same thing. See http://hembrow.blogs...-of-safety.html . I may not be Mr Hembrow's biggest fan, but I'm sure he is right to make this distinction.

I'd be happy with a 20 mph limit everywhere. But I fear this is in the realm of fantasy. I'd be delighted to see 50 mph limits.

 

[blockend]

I'd be delighted to see 50 mph limits.

You may be but any bicycle-motor vehicle contact at those speeds and the rider is dead.

 

[MacB]

Why not? Health, cost, cost to the health service, fewer cars, less pollution, more sociability. What's to hate? The 'who said everyone should ride a bike?' defence is the most recent strategy in maintaining the status quo. I find it absolutely remarkable that people question the idea that society wouldn't be better if many, many more people rode bicycles, wherever they live.

I don't know why, I find it totally unremarkable, why would it be any better than people walking and living closer to work etc? I'm with MrHappyCyclist when he said that it's about space sharing and moving priority away from motorised vehicles. Working against cars, rather than for cycling, would seem to make more sense.

Another area that seems to get lower billing is bicycle security, I make a lot of my trip decisions based on whether I think I'll still have my bike by the end of them.

 

[blockend]

I don't know why, I find it totally unremarkable, why would it be any better than people walking and living closer to work etc?

It's a cycling board, which suggests a certain advocacy of the transport mode in question. If it were an agreeable cities board, or a Transport 2000 thread or Petrolheads or some other lobby one might expect differing opinions on the viability of the bicycle as transport, but it isn't. Bicycles work for all kinds of chores from taking the kids to school to doing the shopping. Why should city dwellers be singled out to pursue those choices in safety?

 

[snibgo]

You may be but any bicycle-motor vehicle contact at those speeds and the rider is dead.

And probably not at 20 mph, which is one reason I'd prefer 20 mph.

 

[dellzeqq]

Your fourth attempt on the basis it looks the same as the picture I posted which should have been a clue.

sorry - I was having fun. Getting out of Cambridge on that route would be a pretty tiresome exercise.

 

[WilliamNB]

Another area that seems to get lower billing is bicycle security, I make a lot of my trip decisions based on whether I think I'll still have my bike by the end of them.

Of course this isn't directly related to the topic of this thread, but you've certainly touched on a very valid point.

 

[dellzeqq]

Another area that seems to get lower billing is bicycle security, I make a lot of my trip decisions based on whether I think I'll still have my bike by the end of them.

that is so true. The enormous number of Bromptons in Central London suggests that people worry about leaving their pride and joy outside.

I still think, though, that the greatest incentive to cycle is convenience or competitive advantage. If you can get from door to door (or door to desk in the case of the Brompton) in decent time, without getting sweaty then that's an attractive proposition

 

[Red Light]

Far too many cyclists actually believe that to be true! They could be right of course but I wouldn't rely on powered traffic volumes shrinking to get cyclists out of a hole anytime soon. Except in those special 20mph places we call cities of course.

The 1970's oil shortages created a dramatic rise in cycling here and in the Netherlands. Its about the most successful stimulus for cycling there has been in the past 60 years and oil prices seem to be a factor in recent increases in cycling.

 

[blockend]

The 1970's oil shortages created a dramatic rise in cycling here and in the Netherlands. Its about the most successful stimulus for cycling there has been in the past 60 years and oil prices seem to be a factor in recent increases in cycling.

But if the desire to run motor vehicles out-paces the negative effects of fuel pricing, which has been the UK case in the 35 years since I first heard the oil shortage argument, the number of cars on the road will still inhibit widespread cycle use.
Of all the factors that will promote cycling, oil shortages are the most long term. Even if/when the black stuff runs out, a mass of hydrogen breathing cars (or wotever) moving at 60mph is just as off-putting to a would-be cyclist as a 7-litre Dodge Charger running 4-star at 12 miles to the gallon.


It's possible cars will diminish their general thrall but it will be as part of a widespread societal breakdown in which having a traffic free pootle on the bike will be the least of our worries. The 'dramatic rise' in cycling coincided with the import of cheap dropped bar 'racers' and ended just as dramatically, save for a few hippies and nutters like myself.

 

[MacB]

It's a cycling board, which suggests a certain advocacy of the transport mode in question. If it were an agreeable cities board, or a Transport 2000 thread or Petrolheads or some other lobby one might expect differing opinions on the viability of the bicycle as transport, but it isn't. Bicycles work for all kinds of chores from taking the kids to school to doing the shopping. Why should city dwellers be singled out to pursue those choices in safety?

Now what would make you think that? yes it's a cycling board, it's also a discussion board, yes most of us cycle but it doesn't follow that we think everyone should cycle and that it would be some sort of utopian future. Also, who said anything about singling out city dwellers, I'm not a city dweller. You make too many assumptions and come across in an evangelical manner, this is pointless with existing cyclists and will be off putting for a lot of non-cyclists.

Tackling the car as the default, or highly desirable, first option is far more in keeping with my way of thinking. Cycling infrastructure is spitting in the ocean against that. Think of all the other things that can make inroads and already exist or are being campaigned for:-

home working and localised office solutions
internet shopping and home delivery
public transport
peak oil
local businesses
regulation to make corporations shoulder a far fairer %age of externalised costs
school buses, walking buses, cycle to school schemes
parking restrictions and tax on parking spaces
planning priority away from cars and sensible housing programmes
costs of running a car, toll roads to put some of the cost burden back on the main users


I could go on but I'm sure the gist is there, please don't jump on a board, make a mass assumption about the existing users viewpoints and then start preaching.

 

[blockend]

I could go on

Undoubtedly

but I'm sure the gist is there, please don't jump on a board, make a mass assumption about the existing users viewpoints and then start preaching.

The assumptions are all yours. My observations are based on what I read on cycling boards and by listening to other cyclists. I don't believe there's any consensus on the way forward for cycling, with the result that issues have become atomised into hobby horses, vested interests and pet projects, many of which masquerade as Big Ideas.

None of those most vocal in their antipathy to segregation have any solutions for what happens to cyclists outside cities - except that it mustn't involve dedicated cycle provision - an opinion only matched by the vehemence that traffic must be calmed to completely safe speeds within it. I came in by saying there is no plan for the advancement of cycling and have read nothing that minds me to think otherwise. Basically, it's the same factionalised nonsense I've heard since the 1970s in which time the road lobby has gone from strength to strength while activists operate on the Apocalypse Soon principle to elevate the just to their desserts. It's a religion with different funny clothes and just as evangelical about its abstractions.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Because cycle lanes aren't just expensive - they're uncivilised. Think on this, Tommi. You may be a gentle soul, a lover of literature, a person who can appreciate art and nature, but in this respect you are the barbarian. You are the person that wants to slice up public space, to privatise it.

Bus lanes are the absolute bees knees. And, whilst we'd all like to see cyclists pouring down our streets in their millions, the cold hard truth is that, in spatial terms, buses can transport people more efficiently than bicycles.

So you're not in favour of slicing up public space, except that... err... you are when it comes to putting in bus lanes? How does that work?

 

[dellzeqq]

Undoubtedly

The assumptions are all yours. My observations are based on what I read on cycling boards and by listening to other cyclists. I don't believe there's any consensus on the way forward for cycling, with the result that issues have become atomised into hobby horses, vested interests and pet projects, many of which masquerade as Big Ideas.

None of those most vocal in their antipathy to segregation have any solutions for what happens to cyclists outside cities - except that it mustn't involve dedicated cycle provision - an opinion only matched by the vehemence that traffic must be calmed to completely safe speeds within it. I came in by saying there is no plan for the advancement of cycling and have read nothing that minds me to think otherwise. Basically, it's the same factionalised nonsense I've heard since the 1970s in which time the road lobby has gone from strength to strength while activists operate on the Apocalypse Soon principle to elevate the just to their desserts. It's a religion with different funny clothes and just as evangelical about its abstractions.

this is a misrepresentation, and, once again, a product of your bitterness. You know nothing about the people you accuse of wearing funny clothes.

Here's the thing. I ride outside of cities a lot. I'm not overwhelmed by the standards of driving, but I do believe that lowered speed limits will make life more congenial for cyclists, and, more to the point, for people living in the countryside. I take Snigbo's point about the probable effect of a reduction to 50mph. That seems to me to politically achievable. For the most part, though, the roads that I ride on are pleasant enough.

Why should I badger my MP for inter-urban cycle paths? I don't see the need. My time is far better spent getting on TfL's case about Blackfriars Bridge or Vauxhall Cross - something I know something about. and something that will make a difference to the thousands of cyclists who use those roads every day.

If you want this stuff then go for it - that's your democratic right. Just don't expect me to care either way.

 

[dellzeqq]

So you're not in favour of slicing up public space, except that... err... you are when it comes to putting in bus lanes? How does that work?

bus lanes are public space. The bus is the great democratic vehicle. They are, for want of a better word, about sharing. They offer each and every one of us an efficient way of getting around town, regardless of who we are. Buses are the apotheosis of civilisation. To ride on a bus is to take part in the life of your town or city.