Stevie D said:Velvet said:I'm still trying to get across the point that cycle paths can be a lot
more dangerous, or don't get you where you want to go if you're cycling
to/from a destination, even if they are nice for leisure cycling - I'm
past the stage of pootling along a cycle path slowly (yay!).Those points are not absolutely intrinsic to cycle paths, though. It
would be perfectly possible to design a city with an integral network
of cycle routes that (i) give quick, direct access to places, and (ii)
are sufficiently wide and well-segregated from other users.I don't know to what extend Canada achieves this - but I've yet to see
anywhere in Britain that comes close.
True - but it was just that every mention of cycle paths (and how
wonderful they were) also seemed to be in the same breath as 'along the
river/in the national park' etc, rather than how they linked lots of
useful places.
My parents' idea of cycling is *very* different to mine. They still
think roads are too dangerous to cycle on, that I'm mad for cycling
anywhere except on paths, and that I'm mad full stop, really, for
getting a bike again after all these years.
I'll spare you the details of their comments when I regale them with
tales of 30 mile rides, and the reaction when I told them I was doing
the london to cambridge ride...
My concern is, you see, that their idea of a good network of cycle paths
is from the perspective of a not-well-informed non-cyclist. They
thought cycle helmets offered similar levels of protection to riding
hats, after all - and insisted that I ride on the pavement as a kid and
never on the road - and still think badly designed cycle paths beside
roads are better than the roads themselves.
--
Velvet