User, I have pretty much agreed with everything you have said so far but there is one thing which worries me about the CTC campaign which you have mentioned below:
Okay, so all the above is pretty much on the money, apart from many area of the UK where reduced to dust during WWII also. The rebuilding plan as far as I'm aware never or hardly accounted for cycling during a time when therewas a bicycling boom in the UK. But that is not exactly my point or though it does support it.
My point is that great cycling minds have identified that with critical mass real benefits / cycling nirvana can be an achievable goal. BUT (and this is my point) these cycling minds appear to think that they can leapfrog the infrastructure bit. Okay so it is not as widespread as many may think, but having cycled in Germany, Denmark and Holland there is a huge gap in facilities with th UK.
I just wonder how the 'critical mass' can be achieved without the initial investment in facilities to entice new cyclists to the street?
I rarely subscribe to the view that there is one issue or factor that can be identified which is to blame.
User;853233]Holland said:The biggest differences in those countries are:This is what makes these countries the 'nirvana' for cyclists - not the facilities.
- The sheer number of people who cycle means that cycling is seen as 'normal' (the very point that the CTC 'Safety in Numbers' is seeking to make) and drivers are more likely to be regular cyclists themselves. This in itself makes cycling safer, as cyclists are not seen as outsiders.
- They have a presumption of liability. This makes motorists far more cautious around cyclists
Okay, so all the above is pretty much on the money, apart from many area of the UK where reduced to dust during WWII also. The rebuilding plan as far as I'm aware never or hardly accounted for cycling during a time when therewas a bicycling boom in the UK. But that is not exactly my point or though it does support it.
User said:If you knew anything in-depth about these countries, you would know that the focus of 'facilities' building is moving away from separate lanes and into more utilitarian facilities, such as secure cycle parking and integration with rail, etc. It is accepted that now a 'critical mass' of cyclists has been reached, there is less need for segregation in order to protect cyclists.
My point is that great cycling minds have identified that with critical mass real benefits / cycling nirvana can be an achievable goal. BUT (and this is my point) these cycling minds appear to think that they can leapfrog the infrastructure bit. Okay so it is not as widespread as many may think, but having cycled in Germany, Denmark and Holland there is a huge gap in facilities with th UK.
I just wonder how the 'critical mass' can be achieved without the initial investment in facilities to entice new cyclists to the street?
I rarely subscribe to the view that there is one issue or factor that can be identified which is to blame.