Cycling 'needs more investment'.

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4240291.stm
Ministers say spending on cycling has risen from £29m to £39m since
2002.

All spent on useless white paint.

Not true. Where I live some has also been spent on pretty green Tarmac and
pretty blue signs informing motorists that they have paid for somewhere else
for me to ride instead of on the road they've graciously paid for.

Pete

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4240291.stm

The National Cycling Strategy Board said the level of cycling in
Britain is among the lowest in Europe with only 2% of journeys being
made on two wheels.

Well since the Government's now got rid of them don't expect much notice
to be taken

Quoted message said:

Ministers say spending on cycling has risen from £29m to £39m since
2002.

All spent on useless white paint.

Quoted message said:

But the government has pledged to spend an extra £10m to link the UK's
existing cycle lanes to schools around the country.

While discouraging kids from cycling through safety scare campaigns.

Quoted message said:

"Democracy is just another way of controlling and exploiting people".

"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for
the people" Oscar Wilde

Tony

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4240291.stm

Cycling 'needs more investment'

Cycling is not being promoted or funded well enough by the

government,

Quoted message said:

a sustainable transport watchdog says.

The National Cycling Strategy Board said the level of cycling in
Britain is among the lowest in Europe with only 2% of journeys being
made on two wheels.

Hardly suprising. It involves 'effort', and unless that 'effort'
involves kicking a ball, and other people around as well, yer average
Brit is just not interested in cycling. The car is far easier,
especially when transporting the double fish & chips and 24 pack. :-)

Our outlook on free time leisure activities is the same as our drinking
culture. Wasted!

Quoted message said:

The car is far easier,
especially when transporting the double fish & chips and 24 pack. :-)

I met Richard Reed (of Innocent drinks fame) on Friday. They are
branching out into lunchbox drinks for kids stimulated by an
ex-girlfriend's experience picking up her son from school. Another lad
came out of school eating an apple. At which his mother shouted "Put
that f***ing apple down or you won't be able to eat your f***ing chips"

Tony

Peter B said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4240291.stm
Ministers say spending on cycling has risen from £29m to £39m since
2002.

All spent on useless white paint.

Not true. Where I live some has also been spent on pretty green Tarmac and
pretty blue signs informing motorists that they have paid for somewhere else
for me to ride instead of on the road they've graciously paid for.

We got some patches of red tarmac and loads of artistic dashed lines
across junctions, where if I were on the road I could proceed at a
reasonable speed.
Instead its now stop/start/stop/start/stop/start...

John B

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4240291.stm

Cycling 'needs more investment'

Cycling is not being promoted or funded well enough by the government,
a sustainable transport watchdog says.

The National Cycling Strategy Board said the level of cycling in
Britain is among the lowest in Europe with only 2% of journeys being
made on two wheels.

Philip Darlton, the board's chairman, says an extra =A370m is needed to
meet government targets on reducing congestion and enhancing air
quality.

Ministers say spending on cycling has risen from =A329m to =A339m since
2002.

But Mr Darlton says he can see "no overall strategic commitment" to
cycling at ministerial level.

Only one in every 50 journeys made in the UK is currently made by
bicycle, he told BBC Radio Five Live.

Last June ministers abandoned the target of raising this figure to 6%
by 2010.

But the government has pledged to spend an extra =A310m to link the UK's
existing cycle lanes to schools around the country.

We need more cycle lanes, if there were more cycle lanes people would
use them more.. makes sense really doesn't it! They have them
everywhere in Europe.

Beany said:

We need more cycle lanes, if there were more cycle lanes people would
use them more.. makes sense really doesn't it! They have them
everywhere in Europe.

No thanks. We need more cyclists not more cycle lanes. Cycle lanes put
you in the wrong position on the road and condition drivers to think
cyclists belong in their own segregated ghettos rather than accepting
them as part of normal vehicular traffic. Makes more sense really
doesn't it.

Tony

"Beany" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

We need more cycle lanes, if there were more cycle lanes people would
use them more.. makes sense really doesn't it! They have them
everywhere in Europe.

No thank you. What we need are more cyclists and more enforcement of traffic
law against motorists who drive dangerously and act as if they own the
public highway. Cycle lanes in this country are often pitifully poor in
design, sometimes downright dangerous and perpetuate the myth to motorists
that cyclists have no place on the road - when we have every right to be
there along with every other road user. What we do need imported from
mainland Europe is the positive and courteous attitude to cyclists seen in
many a European country.

Cheers, helen s

Tony Raven said:

Beany said:

We need more cycle lanes, if there were more cycle lanes people would
use them more.. makes sense really doesn't it! They have them
everywhere in Europe.

No thanks. We need more cyclists not more cycle lanes. Cycle lanes put
you in the wrong position on the road and condition drivers to think
cyclists belong in their own segregated ghettos rather than accepting
them as part of normal vehicular traffic. Makes more sense really
doesn't it.

i'd go along quite happily with the level of coverage they have in the Netherlands.

But here?

Was that a pig that flew past?

John B

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4240291.stm

Cycling 'needs more investment'

I'm not so sure. I spend a lot of my time trying to get local govt to
keep its money in its pocket on a "do no harm" basis.

What we need is more *thought* going into road design, speed limits etc.
Sure, a bit of investment comes in handy; good parking is the classic
example but the biggest benefits for cycling could be almost free.

JohnB said:

i'd go along quite happily with the level of coverage they have in
the Netherlands.

"Research in Belgium and Austria has drawn attention to the poor safety
record of cycle paths, as have some papers associated with the Dutch
Masterplan. I have spoken to Dutch engineers who have told me that they
continue to build paths only because of public insistence; from a safety
point of view they would often do differently. More than 300 cyclist
deaths occur each year in the Netherlands; most are associated with
cycle paths."

John Franklin, Author of Cyclecraft and cycle safety expert.
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/sustrans1.html

Tony

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Research in Belgium and Austria has drawn attention to the poor safety
record of cycle paths, as have some papers associated with the Dutch
Masterplan. I have spoken to Dutch engineers who have told me that they
continue to build paths only because of public insistence; from a safety
point of view they would often do differently. More than 300 cyclist
deaths occur each year in the Netherlands; most are associated with cycle
paths."

John Franklin, Author of Cyclecraft and cycle safety expert.
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/sustrans1.html

Tony

Dont make us out to be fools Tony.. only an idiot would believe cycle paths
are more dangerous than roads. Your telling me you wouldn't want a cycle
path network that would rival roads?

The roads in this country are ridiculously small and personally I dont feel
secure when riding on them.. thats why I take the bus to work.

Tony Raven said:

JohnB said:

i'd go along quite happily with the level of coverage they have in
the Netherlands.

"Research in Belgium and Austria has drawn attention to the poor safety
record of cycle paths, as have some papers associated with the Dutch
Masterplan. I have spoken to Dutch engineers who have told me that they
continue to build paths only because of public insistence; from a safety
point of view they would often do differently.

Which does not mean no cycle paths.
It may mean a greater level of segregation or better integration.
in what way would they do it "differently"?

Quoted message said:

More than 300 cyclist
deaths occur each year in the Netherlands;

Yes I've seen that, but how many cyclists are there in the Netherlands
compared to the UK.
The level of cycle use is far far higher.
The figures are somewhere...

Quoted message said:

most are associated with
cycle paths."

Well, they are bound to be as that is where the Dutch mainly ride their bikes.

I hope you realise I'm playing devil's advocate here, although a
completely segregated, well-maintained network that went everywhere I
ever wanted to go would, in IMO, be better than dealing with the present
anarchy that exists on our present roads.
But it aint gonna happen.

Oh, and the network must also be devoid of headwinds.

John B

Bummer said:

Dont make us out to be fools Tony.. only an idiot would believe cycle paths
are more dangerous than roads. Your telling me you wouldn't want a cycle
path network that would rival roads?

Yes but at least my idiocy is based on research data. Did you read the
link I posted before? Thought not. How about reading it and continuing
your education with another one:

http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/research.html

"This list is intended to be without bias, but little evidence has been
found to suggest that cyclists are safer on paths than on roads."

e.g. "Before and after study of 105 new cycle paths in Denmark,
introduced 1978-81, totalling 64km. Cyclist casualties increased 48%
following introduction of paths."

Tony

JohnB said:

Which does not mean no cycle paths.
It may mean a greater level of segregation or better integration.
in what way would they do it "differently"?

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I hope you realise I'm playing devil's advocate here, although a
completely segregated, well-maintained network that went everywhere I
ever wanted to go would, in IMO, be better than dealing with the present
anarchy that exists on our present roads.

Did you read the link to the rest of the letter - a letter written
specifically to and about Sustrans routes -
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/sustrans1.html

Quoted message said:

Oh, and the network must also be devoid of headwinds.

Now that's a network I would use. Can it always be downhill as well -
in both directions?

Tony

Tony Raven said:

JohnB said:

Which does not mean no cycle paths.
It may mean a greater level of segregation or better integration.
in what way would they do it "differently"?

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I hope you realise I'm playing devil's advocate here, although a
completely segregated, well-maintained network that went everywhere I
ever wanted to go would, in IMO, be better than dealing with the present
anarchy that exists on our present roads.

Quoted message said:

Did you read the link to the rest of the letter - a letter written
specifically to and about Sustrans routes -
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/sustrans1.html

Yes I have read that. I often use references from it.

A big difference with my proposal above is that Sustrans routes (and all
others) are _not_ "completely segregated" which indicates you didn't
quite take in the gist of my posting.
Neither do they go everywhere, nor are they always well-maintained.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh, and the network must also be devoid of headwinds.

Quoted message said:

Now that's a network I would use. Can it always be downhill as well -
in both directions?

It could be a vote catcher ;-)

John B

Bummer said:

Quoted message said:

John Franklin, Author of Cyclecraft and cycle safety expert.
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/sustrans1.html

Quoted message said:

Dont make us out to be fools Tony.. only an idiot would believe cycle paths
are more dangerous than roads.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and charlatans are so
sure of themselves, and wise men so full of doubts" - Bertrand Russell.

So, Tony's linked to some data which shows that cycle paths confer no
measurable safety benefit, and these are presented by one of the world's
formost experts on cycle safety (and a certified expert witness to boot,
with many court appearances to his credit).

Knowing John Franklin quite well by now, I find it easy to trust his
judgment at least to the point where I would require some reasonable
data to believe that any particular cycle path is better than riding on
the roads; I am happy to believe that in general the increase in
problmeatic interactions with motor traffic at junctions and crossings
can easily wipe out whatever benefit might accrue from reducing the risk
of being hit from behind between junctions - which is, in any case, a
very rare kind of crash.

Your data, please?

Guy

Quoted message said:

Cycling is not being promoted or funded well enough by the government,
a sustainable transport watchdog says.

See earlier thread "cycling now officially off the agenda". Darnton is
a victim of the cuts, it seems.

Guy

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Oh, and the network must also be devoid of headwinds.

And cyclists who see no need to apply the keep left convention.

Pete