Connect2



Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:15:59 -0000, "wafflycat"
> <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> If the motoring lobby (in which one has to include Sustrans - by their
> >> fruits shall ye know them) succeed in getting cyclists off the roads in
> >> some areas, the already widespread attitude that cyclists 'shouldn't be on
> >> the roads' will spread and harden, and we'll all be worse off.
> >>
> >> The solution isn't building ghettos for cyclists. The solution is making
> >> the roads safe for people.
> >>
> >
> >Exactly. Couldn't have put it any better myself.
>
> And what if you just want a pottle in the countryside, perhaps along a
> river, and away from noise and fumes?

Is that Sustainable Transport or leisure?

I remain very firmly ambivalent (sic) about Sustrans. My local sections
of the NCN appear to be either downright dangerous or perfectly ordinary
B-road. Frankly, I don't need Sustrans to supply me with B-roads. They
may do something for some people in some areas but, until they
demonstrate a genuine desire to assist cyclists I shall be unlikely to
give them my support.

In my opinion, I should be able to take my four-year old daughter on a
Sustrans off-road route. I certainly can't do that round here: indeed I
wonder how many casual cyclists would feel confident.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
In article <[email protected]>, w*a*ff£y£cat*@
£btco*nn£ect.com says...
>
> The more money
> spent on segregated farcilities, then there will be louder and louder cries
> of 'we've spent £X millions' on providing cycle paths, you have to use them'
> and it *will* be to the detriment of our current right to cycle on the road.

As indeed is the case in the Netherlands. Try cycling on a road with a
cycle path alongside and the famously cycle tolerant Dutch motorists
demonstrate a different side to their character.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]e says...
> >
> >Make no mistake, the more money spent on 'traffic-free' farcilities, where
> >cyclists are segregated away from roads, the greater the clamour to get us
> >off the roads completely.
>
> I see no evidence to back up that claim. Indeed, the opposite may be
> the case.
>

Are you honestly saying you have never had "Get on the cyclepath!"
shouted at you while cycling on the road and that you've never seen
letters like this one in last week's Cambridge Evening News (sorry link
seems not to be working at the moment)

"WHILST I fully support the current campaign to get cyclists to use
lights, perhaps you could extend it for the use of cycleways.

Why is it that bike riders still use the road when a cycle path is
available? For example, Cherry Hinton Road, between Walpole Road and
Fulbourn, and Queen Edith's Way both have excellent cycle paths yet many
cyclists still insist on using the road, creating a hazard. Thousands of
pounds have been spent on creating these cycle paths. It should be
mandatory for cyclists to use them."

> Segregated facilities encourage more cycling. More cycling on
> segregated facilities will lead, in time, to more cycling on roads.
>

On the other hand there is no evidence that that is the case. If you
can come up with any research that investment in segregated facilities
encourages significantly more cycling I would be interested to know
about it.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
 
in message <[email protected]>, tam
('[email protected]') wrote:

> This is a cracking thread.
> I do hope it goes on at this level.
> Sad to see cyclists arguing against cash being spent on cycling.

It isn't being spent on cycling. And later, when we do want some money
spent on cycling, we won't get it because the 'cycling budget' will
already have been squandered.

> Why not take the improvements AND cycle on the roads.

That assumes they are improvements - and that is precisely the point we're
arguing.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; ... exposing the violence incoherent in the system...
 
Peter Clinch wrote, of the Tay:

> but as the UK's biggest river by discharge
> volume

Didn't know that. Thanks.
 
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:32:40 -0000, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> >
>> >Make no mistake, the more money spent on 'traffic-free' farcilities, where
>> >cyclists are segregated away from roads, the greater the clamour to get us
>> >off the roads completely.
>>
>> I see no evidence to back up that claim. Indeed, the opposite may be
>> the case.
>>
>
>Are you honestly saying you have never had "Get on the cyclepath!"
>shouted at you while cycling on the road and that you've never seen
>letters like this one in last week's Cambridge Evening News (sorry link
>seems not to be working at the moment)

No, that is not what I am saying. However, what I am saying is that
the "Gerr off mi road" yelps may reduce with more cycling, and that
more extensive and better segregated facilities may increase all types
of cycling.

>"WHILST I fully support the current campaign to get cyclists to use
>lights, perhaps you could extend it for the use of cycleways.
>
>Why is it that bike riders still use the road when a cycle path is
>available? For example, Cherry Hinton Road, between Walpole Road and
>Fulbourn, and Queen Edith's Way both have excellent cycle paths yet many
>cyclists still insist on using the road, creating a hazard. Thousands of
>pounds have been spent on creating these cycle paths. It should be
>mandatory for cyclists to use them."
>
>> Segregated facilities encourage more cycling. More cycling on
>> segregated facilities will lead, in time, to more cycling on roads.
>>
>
>On the other hand there is no evidence that that is the case. If you
>can come up with any research that investment in segregated facilities
>encourages significantly more cycling I would be interested to know
>about it.

London would make a good case study.
 
Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:26:12 -0000, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Compare:
> >> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/weekendrides/leavalley/PB252044
> >> A Sustrans upgraded path.
> >> with:
> >> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/weekendrides/leavalley/PB252063
> >> A proposed Sustrans upgrade.
> >>
> >
> >Personally I prefer the latter. If you want a surfaced route through
> >the countryside try something called a road.
>
> I frequently frequent roads - and have no problem cycling on some of
> the country's busiest: A74 Carlisle to Gretna, A23 Portsmouth to
> Havant, A2 Sun in Sands Roundabout to the M25. However, there are
> times when I prefer a gentle pootle in a motor traffic free
> environment - and I'd rather not slip and slide my way along a narrow
> muddy track with nettles tickling my ankles.

Oh, you mean my local section of the NCN.

Cheers,
Luke



--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:31:05 -0000, "wafflycat"
> <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:

> >Make no mistake, the more money spent on 'traffic-free' farcilities, where
> >cyclists are segregated away from roads, the greater the clamour to get us
> >off the roads completely.
>
> I see no evidence to back up that claim. Indeed, the opposite may be
> the case.
>
> Segregated facilities encourage more cycling. More cycling on
> segregated facilities will lead, in time, to more cycling on roads.

Much as I would like to believe you, I see no evidence to back up your
claim either.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
I totally sympathise with the views of Tony, Wafflycat and Simon in
their desire for cyclists to maintain a right to use the roads.None of
these schemes (at least those remotely local to me) are aimed at
removing cyclists from the roads per se. Instead, they are aimed at
providing useful links between areas that people want to cycle. They
bypass bottlenecks and make it possible for the average jo to cycle
without fear or feeling they are holding everyone up.

NCN has come in at a 'continuous route at any cost' philosophy. It got
a lot of stick for the contrived nature of many of the routes, and the
poor quality of the farcilities which are rightly lampooned. However,
it has got people cycling. It has got people riding their bikes and
asking questions about the quality of the facilities. It has also
highlighted many of the problems, legacies of the last seven or so
decades of motor led transport planning, that we have known but TPTB
haven't.

I am not about to insist that we need a complete parallel network of
cycle paths. Far from it. But there are key bottlenecks where it makes
sense, just as putting a bypass around a Norfolk village on the A
whatever makes sense, to put a cycle bypass that avoids conflict and
enables the enjoyment for pleasure or utility of roads which are
pleasant to cycle on. You have already had the example of Perth quoted
to you. Dumfries has a proposed scheme. It is not a ghetto. It is a
new route over the river Nith for 100m on an old viaduct. It joins two
centres of population where the alternative route is a mile along busy
A roads.

I can see nothing wrong with these schemes.They require big money that
is not going to be forthcoming from the local councils. They provide
clear utility. They do not marginalise cyclists but instead prioritise
them. They add value to the road network for cyclists in the same way
that motor specific implementations add value for motorists. They are
not a three times longer diversion with extra dismounts for good
measure but more direct, faster and more pleasant routes.

I am not prepared to take seriously an argument based on 'X facility
was **** therefore all Sustrans routes are bad'. It is the same
quality of argument used to deride cyclists as all being red light
jumpers. Local to me the Sustrans branded facilities (NCN 1 and NCN
77) are generally of very high quality. The bad ones are the local
council efforts. We may have a battle when the new Dundee bypass is
proposed as that will cut many of the minor roads. We will need to
ensure that these links are maintained in a safe manner. Judging the
proposal by what is present elsewhere (implemented with the
constraints of budget and local planning diktat) is not appropriate.
Look at the proposed facilities near you, where you are familiar with
what they can do to the local travel patterns.

...d
 
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:48:55 GMT,
[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:26:12 -0000, Tony Raven
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Compare:
>> >> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/weekendrides/leavalley/PB252044
>> >> A Sustrans upgraded path.
>> >> with:
>> >> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/weekendrides/leavalley/PB252063
>> >> A proposed Sustrans upgrade.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Personally I prefer the latter. If you want a surfaced route through
>> >the countryside try something called a road.
>>
>> I frequently frequent roads - and have no problem cycling on some of
>> the country's busiest: A74 Carlisle to Gretna, A23 Portsmouth to
>> Havant, A2 Sun in Sands Roundabout to the M25. However, there are
>> times when I prefer a gentle pootle in a motor traffic free
>> environment - and I'd rather not slip and slide my way along a narrow
>> muddy track with nettles tickling my ankles.
>
>Oh, you mean my local section of the NCN.

Oh. Is that another section that could benefit from a Sustrans
upgrade? I expect that £50m of lottery money would bring that upgrade
a little closer.
 
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:04:50 -0800 (PST), David Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I totally sympathise with the views of Tony, Wafflycat and Simon in
>their desire for cyclists to maintain a right to use the roads.None of
>these schemes (at least those remotely local to me) are aimed at
>removing cyclists from the roads per se. Instead, they are aimed at
>providing useful links between areas that people want to cycle. They
>bypass bottlenecks and make it possible for the average jo to cycle
>without fear or feeling they are holding everyone up.
>
>NCN has come in at a 'continuous route at any cost' philosophy. It got
>a lot of stick for the contrived nature of many of the routes, and the
>poor quality of the farcilities which are rightly lampooned. However,
>it has got people cycling. It has got people riding their bikes and
>asking questions about the quality of the facilities. It has also
>highlighted many of the problems, legacies of the last seven or so
>decades of motor led transport planning, that we have known but TPTB
>haven't.
>
>I am not about to insist that we need a complete parallel network of
>cycle paths. Far from it. But there are key bottlenecks where it makes
>sense, just as putting a bypass around a Norfolk village on the A
>whatever makes sense, to put a cycle bypass that avoids conflict and
>enables the enjoyment for pleasure or utility of roads which are
>pleasant to cycle on. You have already had the example of Perth quoted
>to you. Dumfries has a proposed scheme. It is not a ghetto. It is a
>new route over the river Nith for 100m on an old viaduct. It joins two
>centres of population where the alternative route is a mile along busy
>A roads.
>
>I can see nothing wrong with these schemes.They require big money that
>is not going to be forthcoming from the local councils. They provide
>clear utility. They do not marginalise cyclists but instead prioritise
>them. They add value to the road network for cyclists in the same way
>that motor specific implementations add value for motorists. They are
>not a three times longer diversion with extra dismounts for good
>measure but more direct, faster and more pleasant routes.
>
>I am not prepared to take seriously an argument based on 'X facility
>was **** therefore all Sustrans routes are bad'. It is the same
>quality of argument used to deride cyclists as all being red light
>jumpers. Local to me the Sustrans branded facilities (NCN 1 and NCN
>77) are generally of very high quality. The bad ones are the local
>council efforts. We may have a battle when the new Dundee bypass is
>proposed as that will cut many of the minor roads. We will need to
>ensure that these links are maintained in a safe manner. Judging the
>proposal by what is present elsewhere (implemented with the
>constraints of budget and local planning diktat) is not appropriate.
>Look at the proposed facilities near you, where you are familiar with
>what they can do to the local travel patterns.

Local to me there is the Bermondsey link:
http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/schemes/project_detail.php?id=15

Local to Wafflycat there is this:
http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/schemes/project_detail.php?id=74

And Tony should be happy about this deselection local to him:
http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/schemes/project_detail.php?id=84
 
On Nov 28, 10:19 pm, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:04:50 -0800 (PST), David Martin
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I totally sympathise with the views of Tony, Wafflycat and Simon in
> >their desire for cyclists to maintain a right to use the roads.None of
> >these schemes (at least those remotely local to me) are aimed at
> >removing cyclists from the roads per se. Instead, they are aimed at
> >providing useful links between areas that people want to cycle. They
> >bypass bottlenecks and make it possible for the average jo to cycle
> >without fear or feeling they are holding everyone up.
>
> >NCN has come in at a 'continuous route at any cost' philosophy. It got
> >a lot of stick for the contrived nature of many of the routes, and the
> >poor quality of the farcilities which are rightly lampooned. However,
> >it has got people cycling. It has got people riding their bikes and
> >asking questions about the quality of the facilities. It has also
> >highlighted many of the problems, legacies of the last seven or so
> >decades of motor led transport planning, that we have known but TPTB
> >haven't.
>
> >I am not about to insist that we need a complete parallel network of
> >cycle paths. Far from it. But there are key bottlenecks where it makes
> >sense, just as putting a bypass around a Norfolk village on the A
> >whatever makes sense, to put a cycle bypass that avoids conflict and
> >enables the enjoyment for pleasure or utility of roads which are
> >pleasant to cycle on. You have already had the example of Perth quoted
> >to you. Dumfries has a proposed scheme. It is not a ghetto. It is a
> >new route over the river Nith for 100m on an old viaduct. It joins two
> >centres of population where the alternative route is a mile along busy
> >A roads.
>
> >I can see nothing wrong with these schemes.They require big money that
> >is not going to be forthcoming from the local councils. They provide
> >clear utility. They do not marginalise cyclists but instead prioritise
> >them. They add value to the road network for cyclists in the same way
> >that motor specific implementations add value for motorists. They are
> >not a three times longer diversion with extra dismounts for good
> >measure but more direct, faster and more pleasant routes.
>
> >I am not prepared to take seriously an argument based on 'X facility
> >was **** therefore all Sustrans routes are bad'. It is the same
> >quality of argument used to deride cyclists as all being red light
> >jumpers. Local to me the Sustrans branded facilities (NCN 1 and NCN
> >77) are generally of very high quality. The bad ones are the local
> >council efforts. We may have a battle when the new Dundee bypass is
> >proposed as that will cut many of the minor roads. We will need to
> >ensure that these links are maintained in a safe manner. Judging the
> >proposal by what is present elsewhere (implemented with the
> >constraints of budget and local planning diktat) is not appropriate.
> >Look at the proposed facilities near you, where you are familiar with
> >what they can do to the local travel patterns.
>
> Local to me there is the Bermondsey link:http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/schemes/project_detail.php?id=15
>
> Local to Wafflycat there is this:http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/schemes/project_detail.php?id=74

Hmm. Shorter, More direct. Suitable for kids who are not road trained.
Stuff that, stick them out onto the A road with the trucks to play
with?

Nope - they'll be driven everywhere instead.

...d
 
Simon Brooke wrote on 28/11/2007 21:40:
> in message <[email protected]>, tam
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >> Sad to see cyclists arguing against cash being spent on cycling.
>
> It isn't being spent on cycling. And later, when we do want some money
> spent on cycling, we won't get it because the 'cycling budget' will
> already have been squandered.

I thought this was extra lottery money being talked about? Noone's
budget - the council, highways agency or anyone else's...?

(I might have just got a bit confused in this thread, in which case I
apologise.)

Peter

--
http://www.scandrett.net/lx/
http://www.scandrett.net/bike/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]e says...
> >
> >Are you honestly saying you have never had "Get on the cyclepath!"
> >shouted at you while cycling on the road and that you've never seen
> >letters like this one in last week's Cambridge Evening News (sorry link
> >seems not to be working at the moment)
>
> No, that is not what I am saying. However, what I am saying is that
> the "Gerr off mi road" yelps may reduce with more cycling, and that
> more extensive and better segregated facilities may increase all types
> of cycling.
>

So getting more people cycling off the roads is both going to make
motorists more tolerant of cyclists on the road. I see.. And how do
you explain the view "Thousands of pounds have been spent on creating
these cycle paths. It should be mandatory for cyclists to use them."
evaporating when millions have been spent on them?

How many cyclists do you see using the road alongside Dutch cycling
facilities?

> >
> >On the other hand there is no evidence that that is the case. If you
> >can come up with any research that investment in segregated facilities
> >encourages significantly more cycling I would be interested to know
> >about it.
>
> London would make a good case study.
>

Yes, well there's not much there in the way of segregated cycle
facilities to claim responsibility for the success of cycling recently.
OTOH the Congestion Charging leading to better control of cars has had a
massive effect.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
 
"Peter Scandrett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Brooke wrote on 28/11/2007 21:40:
>> in message <[email protected]>, tam
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>> >> Sad to see cyclists arguing against cash being spent on cycling.
>>
>> It isn't being spent on cycling. And later, when we do want some money
>> spent on cycling, we won't get it because the 'cycling budget' will
>> already have been squandered.
>
> I thought this was extra lottery money being talked about? Noone's
> budget - the council, highways agency or anyone else's...?
>
> (I might have just got a bit confused in this thread, in which case I
> apologise.)
>
> Peter

Do you think that Joe Public is going to actually notice the difference? It
is still Joe Public's money being spent.
 
On Nov 28, 10:59 pm, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>
>
> > >Are you honestly saying you have never had "Get on the cyclepath!"
> > >shouted at you while cycling on the road and that you've never seen
> > >letters like this one in last week's Cambridge Evening News (sorry link
> > >seems not to be working at the moment)
>
> > No, that is not what I am saying. However, what I am saying is that
> > the "Gerr off mi road" yelps may reduce with more cycling, and that
> > more extensive and better segregated facilities may increase all types
> > of cycling.
>
> So getting more people cycling off the roads is both going to make
> motorists more tolerant of cyclists on the road. I see.. And how do
> you explain the view "Thousands of pounds have been spent on creating
> these cycle paths. It should be mandatory for cyclists to use them."
> evaporating when millions have been spent on them?
>
> How many cyclists do you see using the road alongside Dutch cycling
> facilities?

How many of the connect2 proposals are for parallel, segregated routes
along existing corridors?
You don't know? Neither do I but of the ten or so I looked at at
random, none of them were.

It is a straw man argument you are raising. You imply that it is the
worst of ghettos that are being proposed, white paint on pavements,
inconvenient and awkward bits of green tarmac around cycle hostile
junctions. Yet this is erroneous. The connect2 proposals are about
connections, providing new links. New bridges, new routes on old
transport lines that are otherwise no longer in use, and in all the
cases I have looked at shorter, more convenient and more pleasant than
riding on the road. My benchmark as an experienced cyclist of many
years who is confident, road savvy, willing to ride any road I legally
can in UK should I need to and with a prime consideration of journey
time and convenience, is whether I would chose that route over the
alternatives. In most cases the answer is a clear yes. In some cases
it is probably. In none of the cases I have looked at have I thought
that the proposal would be worse than what already exists on the
ground.

I have seen plenty of cycle facilities from the shocking to the
excellent in several countries. I'm supporting the Sustrans bid.

I'll also raise another observation. In my trip to Hinxton last month
I rode from Cambridge, via Addenbrookes, some lane I cannot remember
to Great Shelford and through to Duxford. There is an alternative main
road. I took the relatively quiet country road from Great Shelford.
There were a number of cyclists between Gt Shelford and Duxford, more
than I saw between Cambridge and Gt Shelford. On the way back I took
the stripey path from Gt Shelford (the one with the gene sequence
painted on it). It was relatively teeming with people of all ages on
bikes of all descriptions. OK, the cambridge end was poorly signed for
tourists, but that was beside the point. It was a clear, fast route
that avoided what passes for a hill in Cambridge and some relatively
busy roads. And it was well used.
The cycle park on the Hinxton campus was also well used - probably 1
in 10 of the staff living reasonably locally (within 10 miles or so)
travel by bike. Increased I might add in recent years by the provision
of some more pleasant routes, good cycle parking and free changing/
shower facilities.

...d
 

>> This is a cracking thread.
>> I do hope it goes on at this level.
>> Sad to see cyclists arguing against cash being spent on cycling.
>
> It isn't being spent on cycling. And later, when we do want some money
> spent on cycling, we won't get it because the 'cycling budget' will
> already have been squandered.
>
>> Why not take the improvements AND cycle on the roads.
>
> That assumes they are improvements - and that is precisely the point we're
> arguing.
>
I am a bit confused again.
The money is being spent on improving routes for cycles.
How is that- not money- being spent on cycling.
Tam
 
"tam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>> This is a cracking thread.
>>> I do hope it goes on at this level.
>>> Sad to see cyclists arguing against cash being spent on cycling.
>>
>> It isn't being spent on cycling. And later, when we do want some money
>> spent on cycling, we won't get it because the 'cycling budget' will
>> already have been squandered.
>>
>>> Why not take the improvements AND cycle on the roads.
>>
>> That assumes they are improvements - and that is precisely the point
>> we're
>> arguing.
>>
> I am a bit confused again.
> The money is being spent on improving routes for cycles.
> How is that- not money- being spent on cycling.
> Tam

There are those of us that do not see segregated farcilites as improvements,
but rather as long-term detriments to cycling, particularly to our right to
cycle on road, which is constantly under attack already.
 
"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "tam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> This is a cracking thread.
>>>> I do hope it goes on at this level.
>>>> Sad to see cyclists arguing against cash being spent on cycling.
>>>
>>> It isn't being spent on cycling. And later, when we do want some money
>>> spent on cycling, we won't get it because the 'cycling budget' will
>>> already have been squandered.
>>>
>>>> Why not take the improvements AND cycle on the roads.
>>>
>>> That assumes they are improvements - and that is precisely the point
>>> we're
>>> arguing.
>>>
>> I am a bit confused again.
>> The money is being spent on improving routes for cycles.
>> How is that- not money- being spent on cycling.
>> Tam
>
> There are those of us that do not see segregated farcilites as
> improvements, but rather as long-term detriments to cycling, particularly
> to our right to cycle on road, which is constantly under attack already.
>
I fail to understand this arguement that improving cycle facilities will
lead to a removal of cyclists from the road.
Lung cancer kills approx.800 people a week in the UK a significant
percentage of the young population smoke
the govt. has not banned smoking---------why should they ban cyclists on
roads.
This is paranoia---------in my opinion.
The big UK picture is personal transport by vehicle is coming to an end.
The Europeans have grasped the nettle with their mass transit systems and
cycle facilities.
As usuall the UK will trail behind.
Even in lightly populated Scotland where the bulk of the population live in
a strip 80 miles long by 10 miles wide
the highland roads are completely overwhelmed in the rush hours.
On most summer days the A9 is bumper to bumper.
The govt. are trying to make the motorists life as expensive and miserable
as possible--instead of being proactive.
The cycle has a big future in the UK even in hilly Edinburgh punters are
working out the bike is quicker than the car.
Tam
 
tam wrote:
>
> I fail to understand this arguement that improving cycle facilities will
> lead to a removal of cyclists from the road.

Separate cycle farcilities encourage motorists to think that cyclists
should no be on the road. This leads to more aggression etc. against
cyclists, reducing numbers.

> Lung cancer kills approx.800 people a week in the UK a significant
> percentage of the young population smoke
> the govt. has not banned smoking

The government has (or is talking about) raising the age that you can
buy ciggies from. However they are unlikely to ban them because
a) they will just be smuggled in from the continent,
b) the amount of tax raised from ciggies pays for the NHS.

---------why should they ban cyclists on
> roads.

The road lobby in the uk is huge, and contributes billions in tax, and
probably millions to the Labour party via unwitting stooges.

> This is paranoia---------in my opinion.
> The big UK picture is personal transport by vehicle is coming to an end.

Try telling the electorate that and you won't be in the next government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Connect2 phone voting
Replies
37
Views
785
UK and Europe
Danny Colyer
D
M
Sustrans Connect2 projects, vote early vote often!
Replies
7
Views
482
UK and Europe
MJ Ray
M
Top Bottom Back