Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[blockend]

It still sounds totally metro-centric high-handedness and screw the rest. But then it's probably supposed to.

 

[mickle]

It still sounds totally metro-centric high-handedness and screw the rest. But then it's probably supposed to.

Screw the rest? wtf.

 

[snibgo]

Or build it like the A10 between Royston and Cambridge. Wide enough to overtake with plenty of room with oncoming traffic, good sightlines so no being surprised by cyclists. Probably a lot easier and cheaper and taking up less land than building a cyclepath alongside.

Possibly. The current arrangement means overtaking traffic either goes very wide (on the opposite side of the road), or slows right down. Widening the road would encourage high-speed (60mph+) overtaking.

Please no [to tarmaced bridleways]. Lots of us mountain bikers use those trails and if we wanted to ride on tarmac we'd be riding on the roads instead.

Ah, yes, mountain bikers. A whole other constituency, of which I am ignorant. If the bridleways were half-tarmaced, would you be happy with the muddy side?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

This thread has been (mostly) sane. People are not always coherent, so it's not always clear where they are coming from.

Extreme views (especially city-segregationism) get squashed pretty quickly - too quickly really, so they just go away licking their wounds, not convinced. I think there's another school that doesn't really like cycle lanes, and tends to advocate a wide-or-nothing approach, which winds me up because (1) there's diddly-squat evidence for such a position and (2) it overstates the likelihood of the status quo plus a bit of encouragement/training getting us anywhere. But as blockend said - don't get me started.

City-segregation gets greated, generally by 'potentially great idea, now show us the drawing and the funding plan'
I don't really like cycle-lanes espcially those narrower than my mtb's handlebars yet I give up hours of my time to work as a local campaigner and secretary of our local cycling forum spending much of my time getting cycle lanes put in/upgraded/rerouted etc., etc., so that I can have the satisfaction of inverting my mtb and ridiculing my own efforts.
I don't like off-road cycle provision but I'm taking the pm off work on Friday (because the other interested parties are either retired or work for the council) from a meagre leave allowance to go and attend a meeting where I will be fervent, evangelistic even, in my support for an off-road cycle route, because the current on-road route is a tokenist miserable excuse.
and if we are going to play the "I've suffered pain, I've suffered loss." card in support of our arguments. Well. Don't get me started.


My point? This is the interwebs. It's merely a forum on the interwebs at that. It isn't real life. Real life is waaaaaay more complex.

 

[blockend]

Screw the rest? wtf.

WTF indeed. I think we've just been written out of the masterplan.

 

[jonesy]

No reason at all, unless you're claiming to promote cycling, as opposed to say, making nicer cities. The two aren't always compatible. Apparently.

So far as cycling outside towns being irrelevant, it's pure bollocks. Until a very few years ago almost all of UK cycling was a sporting activity of one kind or another and had been since about 1960.....

That simply isn't the case. I suggest you look at the National Travel Survey data (those dratted statistics again, sorry, but then you've made a claim that is statistical by its very nature...).

"The main reasons for making a cycling trip are leisure or social purposes (38% of cycling trips) and commuting (30% of cycling trips). "
http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingenglan.../10/cycling-personal-travel-factsheet-dft.pdf

Detail from here:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/nts/
See tables 409 and 410


NB- the 'leisure' category includes both sport and social trips, so covers both journeys made where the cycle trip is of itself the lesure activity, and those such as visiting friends, going to the swimming pool etc, where the bicycle is being used a a mode of transport. This isn't helpful, but we are stuck with it becuase changing the NTS methodology is difficult and makes it harder to look at trends.

I know the NTS figures are recent wheras you are referring to trends since the 1960s, but similar figures will appear if you look at historic data. Iif you look at the trend in total cycling over the years it has declined throughout most of the last few decades, and levelled off more recently. If your claim is correct then there would have to have been a very large increase in non sporting cycling in the last few years, combined with a drop off in sports cycling. And there is no evidence to support that.

 

[Red Light]

Ah, yes, mountain bikers. A whole other constituency, of which I am ignorant. If the bridleways were half-tarmaced, would you be happy with the muddy side?

No.

 

[blockend]

If your claim is correct then there would have to have been a very large increase in non sporting cycling in the last few years, combined with a drop off in sports cycling. And there is no evidence to support that.

Eh?

 

[Mad at urage]

It still sounds totally metro-centric high-handedness and screw the rest. But then it's probably supposed to.

On the contrary, it's "Let's start where we can do the most good, most easily, then work out from there".

Fact is I no longer live in a city, I'll pretty soon live outside a town - my choice, I'll be one of the small percent of our population who will not benefit by starting with provision for the cities and towns. Of course I'd like the money to be spent on resources for me, but with limited money I'd rather see it spent on resources for the majority. That is the opposite of "high-handedness and screw the rest".

 

[jonesy]

Eh?

It is really very simple: you claimed that "Until a very few years ago almost all of UK cycling was a sporting activity of one kind or another and had been since about 1960....."

For this to be true then sports cycling must have recently declined and utility cycling significantly increased. That is the implication of your statement...

I'm not going to bother challenging you to provide any evidence to support your claim because I know you can't: it is simply untrue.

 

[blockend]

It is really very simple: you claimed that "Until a very few years ago almost all of UK cycling was a sporting activity of one kind or another and had been since about 1960....."

For this to be true then sports cycling must have recently declined and utility cycling significantly increased. That is the implication of your statement...

I'm not going to bother challenging you to provide any evidence to support your claim because I know you can't: it is simply untrue.

What?

 

[jonesy]

Well I'm pleased you've taken the earlier advice to cut the waffle, now you need to work on the coherence...

 

[blockend]

Well I'm pleased you've taken the earlier advice to cut the waffle, now you need to work on the coherence...

You're really not very nice, are you?

 

[Mad at urage]

It is really very simple: you claimed that "Until a very few years ago almost all of UK cycling was a sporting activity of one kind or another and had been since about 1960....."

For this to be true then sports cycling must have recently declined and utility cycling significantly increased. That is the implication of your statement...

I'm not going to bother challenging you to provide any evidence to support your claim because I know you can't: it is simply untrue.

Well, his statement would also be true if utility cycling had increased more than sports cycling, e.g.:

Sports cycling used to comprise 95% UK cycling ("almost all"), leisure and utility cycling used to comprise 5%.

Sports cycling has not decreased but now comprises 80% UK cycling (a significant majority but arguably not "almost all"), leisure and utility cycling have massively increased and now comprise 20%.

Note all figures plucked out of thin air to illustrate a point. This map is not to scale. This graph has no labels on the axis etc.

 

[jonesy]

You're really not very nice, are you?

I'm responding in kind to the rudeness you've demonstrated earlier in this thread...