Ministers want 60% of children walking or cycling to school by 2035

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Drago

Legendary Member
I posted an account of my exchange here. She looked and sounded like I would have been beaten to a pulp.

Last time someone offered to "put me on my arse" was when I was in the police. I replied that if he managed it there was a tenner in it for him, but if he failed id expect a tenner in return when he regained consciousness. He declined the bet.

Im sorry to hear to were onnthe receiving end of that Mr Boom. In my experience arsewipes that trot out that sort of phrase usually pucker up right quick when their bluff is called.
 

Drago

Legendary Member
My general,approach is to stand straight and to my full height and spread my lats.
 

Andy in Germany

Legendary Member
My general,approach is to stand straight and to my full height and spread my lats.

I'm not built like that, I also deal with emotionally unstable people all the time at work, so I am pretty good at "tuning" my response depending on whether I want to wind people up more or let them calm down.
 

Drago

Legendary Member
I can do that too, but messing with their brains as regards their place on the food chain is more fun.
 

katiewlx

Senior Member
I think part of the problem is that in the UK local governments are terrified of upsetting motorists. (Un)fortunately the evidence is that it is a zero-sum game: you can't make life better for cyclists and pedestrians (ie: everyone not in a car) without taking some space or convenience away from motorists, and if you make roads faster or wider, it makes life intolerable for everyone else.

The UK is so car-centric that it's going to be very hard for timid politicians to actually stand up and do anything effective, because that will be met with howls from motorists who claim that having a 20 mph speed limit in an urban area is an attack on the liberties of the natural born Englishman, and probably the the Magna Carta.

I still think the UK can be saved, we havent reached USA levels of you have to use a car to get anywhere because there is no public transport or provision for active travel, even though we green light new housing estates with no provision for active travel or bus routes/stops.

but then I see things like this and do wonder https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ced4lxn645wo motorist complains it took two hours to get some milk from a supermarket due to traffic congestion caused by roadworks.

now its like why drive to a supermarket just to buy milk ? and then complain about the traffic as if they arent part of the congestion because they chose to drive to a supermarket just to buy milk. I can almost guarantee they live within a mile of the place too.

so how do you make those people cyclists ? because theyll be the ones driving their kids to school as well, and teaching their kids motonormativity by doing it.
 

katiewlx

Senior Member
Likewise in my (and nearby) village. Something of a "status" thing to park close to school entrance, sort of "parental pecking order". So cars arrive ½ hr before kids come out of school and in winter sit parked window open to let vape could out of car and engines running to keep them warm!

But riding along that road at School Run time is a nightmare, doors opened without looking, cars pulling out without looking or indicating. Driving past difficult as in one village cars park forcing 2 lane road into a single track road on a bling sharp bend forcing you into oncoming lane without being able to see anything!

Ive shifted my commute time to avoid the school run, as it was just horrendous to deal with, and its not just parents, some of the teachers are pretty sketch too. they just become target & time fixated, and if you are in the way tough.
 

katiewlx

Senior Member
I had always understood (uncertain from where) that NL cycle infrastructure was initially driven by the petrol fuel crisis of the time.

But either way I feel the UK Government's focus on specific aspects disappointing, bit like papering over the cracks in a building suffering subsidence. I feel something more fundamental needed. As I understand it cost benefit analysis of much proposed cycle infrastructure has a pay-back period way better than the Treasury threshold but it still just doesn't happen.

I'm no expert in road planning, etc. but an absolute "cannot ever be overridden by anybody" any new road must include dedicated cycle lanes (not shared pedestrian pavements); any new commercial building must include secure cycle parting for min eg 50% of employees, etc., etc.

well such rules already exist, you might well judge how workable they are turning out to be at improving things...

though the biggest one is new build roads are actually quite rare these days, and Highways England arent obligated to improve existing roads active travel infra, even if theyre potentially spending 100s of millions of pounds on tarmac or even like the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvements, 1.5billion it cost, next to nothing spent on any cycle infrastructure.
 

katiewlx

Senior Member
The attitude is all wrong

"They" try to promote cycling
but the people implementing it try to save money

so we end up with just a line on a road
or a magnificent wide shared path
which means you have to stop every 100m for a road joining
and no clear signs showing where the things ends and how you get to it

the problem I feel is that the people that design the stuff, dont have much of a feel for cycling generally, unlike their Dutch counterparts, and so they treat everything they implement as like a pedestrian but with wheels problem. pedestrians cross roads, so pedestrians with wheels end up doing so to, and so on.

certainly what Im seeing more of lately are schemes that tend to just rebadge already cycle ready routes, or quietways, as "cycling infra" often at great cost, maybe with some road priority changes or kerbing, even though they really dont improve things for cyclists that much, or provide much of a desire line style route.

I mean surely if the idea is to replace car journeys, you model your cycleways to mirror the kinds of journeys people take in their cars, you dont join up two random places on a map because it might look nicer, because people probably arent driving between those two places as else theyd be demanding you built a direct road instead.

consequently the infra doesnt move the modal needle at all, and all the motorists then complain what a waste of money it was and why didnt they spend the money on a bypass instead.
 

All uphill

Still rolling along
I've no doubt there were other factors: it's possible that existing activism suddenly became more popular because of an oil crisis, and the political system meant smaller political parties could push for change.

I recall that in Amsterdam the local government's plan to smash a ring road around the old city met with great resistance when they moved in the demolish a historical building, and became a catalyst for change.

I'm fearful for the Dutch model of cycling.

I've just spent a week there, cycling, talking to people and reading newspapers, and notice a big change. There is a strong movement there to promote the idea that cycling is dangerous, lots of publicity given to the increase in cyclist deaths (from miniscule to tiny). Many older people are wearing headgear, which was unknown only five years ago. There is a moral panic about "foreign people" on illegal electric bikes.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom