Make Cyclelanes Work Petition

[Angelfishsolo]

No.

Well that's how it reads. Take down the barrier that was defined and another will be set up. Either the first barrier was a lie or some people just don't want to cycle. Some may find it amazing but it is true.

 

[Red Light]

Well that's how it reads. Take down the barrier that was defined and another will be set up. Either the first barrier was a lie or some people just don't want to cycle. Some may find it amazing but it is true.

Why is it a lie? If they say they don't cycle because of the weather, hills, risks....... they are all valid reasons and there are a million reasons you can come up with if you don't want to do something. It doesn't mean its the main reason they don't cycle.

Yes there will be some people who don't want to cycle period but they are relatively few or the Dutch would not have the level of cycling they do, nor Cambridge. There is a large early and late majority who would be perfectly amenable to cycling in the right circumstances as the Boris Bikes have shown. David Horton's Fear of Cycling is an interesting look at the problem from the sociological point of view

 

[dellzeqq]

No I said they were strange views. I notice you have decided not to comment on whether they were strange in your experience. Are we to assume Stuart G's views on here are sacrosanct and cannot be questioned?

no, and you are still in a froth. If you're going to disagree with Stuart, a bit of respect would be appreciated

I think it will need a lot more than you and Snorri to get a politician to run with your manifesto. Do you really really think it has a snowball in hell's chance of happening? And if not I ask again what proposals do you have with some chance of them getting accepted.

I'm not too bothered. I don't lie awake at night plotting some cycling nirvana.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Why is it a lie? If they say they don't cycle because of the weather, hills, risks....... they are all valid reasons and there are a million reasons you can come up with if you don't want to do something. It doesn't mean its the main reason they don't cycle.

Yes there will be some people who don't want to cycle period but they are relatively few or the Dutch would not have the level of cycling they do, nor Cambridge. There is a large early and late majority who would be perfectly amenable to cycling in the right circumstances as the Boris Bikes have shown. David Horton's Fear of Cycling is an interesting look at the problem from the sociological point of view

If multiple reasons are given up front then I think they are valid. If just one reason is give, that barrier is lifted then another reason is given that smacks of lies to me. Either that or a flawed data gathering system

As for the number of people who do not want to cycle - You honestly believe that you could get the majority of people on bikes given the right intensives? I admire your optimism but fear that is all it is.

I have no time at al for Sociologists I am afraid - They are one of the reasons this country is in such a mess right now.

 

[Red Light]

no, and you are still in a froth. If you're going to disagree with Stuart, a bit of respect would be appreciated

I fail to see what is disrespectful about saying someone has some strange views and listing them. If that is your definition then everyone here is being disrespectful to everyone else.

I see you have once again ducked the opportunity to say whether you agree with those views or think them strange too. StuartG is just another anonymous label on CycleChat just like Red Light. The fact he is a friend of yours does not confer special status on him here, not that I have been disrespectful

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I fail to see what is disrespectful about saying someone has some strange views and listing them. If that is your definition then everyone here is being disrespectful to everyone else.

I see you have once again ducked the opportunity to say whether you agree with those views or think them strange too. StuartG is just another anonymous label on CycleChat just like Red Light. The fact he is a friend of yours does not confer special status on him here, not that I have been disrespectful

I to the first word in the sentence to be his answer.

 

[Red Light]

If multiple reasons are given up front then I think they are valid. If just one reason is give, that barrier is lifted then another reason is given that smacks of lies to me. Either that or a flawed data gathering system

It tends to smack of an underlying issue that is not being addressed rather than a serial liar. If your partner wants you to go out shoe shopping with them I am sure we all find all sorts of excuses to avoid saying we don't want to go - tired, other things to do, important match on the telly, friend might call round....... If they suggest you can pop into the bike shop while they are shoe shopping suddenly the situation changes and not because all your previous excuses suddenly have been dealt with.

As for the number of people who do not want to cycle - You honestly believe that you could get the majority of people on bikes given the right intensives? I admire your optimism but fear that is all it is.

Plenty of places manage in the 30%+ cycling and some up to 50%. I was in China in 1981 when it was close to 100% although that is no cycling Nirvana - more like walking down Oxford St on the Saturday before Christmas. The thing is in those places with high cycling percentages cycling is seen as a normal thing to do. Walk round Cambridge or Amsterdam and you will see virtually no-one dressed up in lycra and all the gear. They just cycle round on ordinary bikes in ordinary clothes.

Boris Bikes and Velib and Bicing and Dublincycles have been so successful at getting people cycling because again they are seen as something normal people can do whereas if you get out on the Blueways there is a class apart all togged up, heads down that seems a totally alien activity to most people. And the most amazing thing - the Boris Bikers are far safer. Not a single serious injury in six million journeys when the London and national statistics would have predicted 13 serious injuries by now. And that's not unique to London

I have no time at al for Sociologists I am afraid - They are one of the reasons this country is in such a mess right now.

Yes, you've already told us elsewhere that you have no time for science or evidence, just your personal beliefs.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

1/It tends to smack of an underlying issue that is not being addressed rather than a serial liar. If your partner wants you to go out shoe shopping with them I am sure we all find all sorts of excuses to avoid saying we don't want to go - tired, other things to do, important match on the telly, friend might call round....... If they suggest you can pop into the bike shop while they are shoe shopping suddenly the situation changes and not because all your previous excuses suddenly have been dealt with.



2/Plenty of places manage in the 30%+ cycling and some up to 50%. I was in China in 1981 when it was close to 100% although that is no cycling Nirvana - more like walking down Oxford St on the Saturday before Christmas. The thing is in those places with high cycling percentages cycling is seen as a normal thing to do. Walk round Cambridge or Amsterdam and you will see virtually no-one dressed up in lycra and all the gear. They just cycle round on ordinary bikes in ordinary clothes.

3/Boris Bikes and Velib and Bicing and Dublincycles have been so successful at getting people cycling because again they are seen as something normal people can do whereas if you get out on the Blueways there is a class apart all togged up, heads down that seems a totally alien activity to most people. And the most amazing thing - the Boris Bikers are far safer. Not a single serious injury in six million journeys when the London and national statistics would have predicted 13 serious injuries by now. And that's not unique to London



4/Yes, you've already told us elsewhere that you have no time for science or evidence, just your personal beliefs.

1/ If my OH wanted me to go shoe shopping with her and I didn't want to I would say so. No need to lie about it. Simplz

2/ I am not disputing that. I am simply asking if you think that you can get the MAJORITY of people on bikes given the right intensives. Remember the average age of the population is increasing.

3/I have already said I know nothing about Boris Bikes

4/I have not said I have no time for science - My degree was in Computer Science FFS. I simply disagree with your application of it through statistics.

 

[Red Light]

If you're going to disagree with Stuart, a bit of respect would be appreciated

Just for the record, before my post #59 in which you claim I was disrespectful of StuartG I had had a couple of diatribes and the following comments from StuartG for holding a different view to his:

You seem very confused. #23
Get a grip. #28
Now I know you are not serious. #43
My dear RL. #57

If you want StuartG to be respected perhaps he should earn it by not being dismissive and condescending to others.

 

[jonesy]

Well that's how it reads. Take down the barrier that was defined and another will be set up. Either the first barrier was a lie or some people just don't want to cycle. Some may find it amazing but it is true.

Red Light is quite correct, and pointing out that the responses people give to surveys on why they don't cycle aren't necessarily good predictors of what might them change mode isn't the same as saying they are lying. Part of the problem is that people's travel choices tend to be habitual and they don't go through a rational decison making process about which mode to use for each journey they make.

So when confronted with a survey that says something like "Why don't you cycle more?" and prompts them with lots of leading response like "Cycling is too dangerous", "I've got too much stuff to carry", "It is too hilly", "weather is too wet" , "There isn't a segregated cycle path on my route" etc (which I'm afraid is the sort of thing you often see on travel surveys) they dutifully tick the ones they agree with, thereby supporting their default travel choices, but it doesn't necessarily follow that these are the fundamental reasons why they don't cycle. Which may be that they live in Bracknell for example, and therefore have lots of parking and fast, wide roads, so cycling is never going to be time competitive with drivign for the typical journeys they make. Whereas someone in Oxford may also think that cycling is dangerous and the weather is wet, but they'll still cycle because it is advantageous over driving for most travel around the town.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Red Light is quite correct, and pointing out that the responses people give to surveys on why they don't cycle aren't necessarily good predictors of what might them change mode isn't the same as saying they are lying. Part of the problem is that people's travel choices tend to be habitual and they don't go through a rational decison making process about which mode to use for each journey they make.

So when confronted with a survey that says something like "Why don't you cycle more?" and prompts them with lots of leading response like "Cycling is too dangerous", "I've got too much stuff to carry", "It is too hilly", "weather is too wet" , "There isn't a segregated cycle path on my route" etc (which I'm afraid is the sort of thing you often see on travel surveys) they dutifully tick the ones they agree with, thereby supporting their default travel choices, but it doesn't necessarily follow that these are the fundamental reasons why they don't cycle. Which may be that they live in Bracknell for example, and therefore have lots of parking and fast, wide roads, so cycling is never going to be time competitive with drivign for the typical journeys they make. Whereas someone in Oxford may also think that cycling is dangerous and the weather is wet, but they'll still cycle because it is advantageous over driving for most travel around the town.

As I went on to say in a later post "or the data gathering procedure is flawed". If people are just given tick boxes then they will feel they need to fit into one or more of those boxes. One optiom not usually offered is "I don't want to".

 

[dellzeqq]

I fail to see what is disrespectful about saying someone has some strange views and listing them. If that is your definition then everyone here is being disrespectful to everyone else.

I see you have once again ducked the opportunity to say whether you agree with those views or think them strange too. StuartG is just another anonymous label on CycleChat just like Red Light. The fact he is a friend of yours does not confer special status on him here, not that I have been disrespectful

that's your problem.

I neither agree nor disagree with Stuart. You consistently attempted to put words in to his mouth, which is something that I don't care for.

 

[Red Light]

that's your problem.

I neither agree nor disagree with Stuart. You consistently attempted to put words in to his mouth, which is something that I don't care for.

Whatever. If you are concerned go and give your friend a big hug and kiss and tell him how valiantly youve defended his honour.