So how come cycling has been historically very popular in Cambridge without much of it? How come cycling has shot up by a huge amount in London without much of it?
Congestion charges-road congestion-lack of parking-no flexibility of journey-by road vehicle.
Only the congestion charge has changed recently there, and it has slightly reduced road congestion.
Quoted message said:
Cost of vehicle transport vs bike-speed of bike over 4 wheels.
Also not a new fact. So why has cycling shot up in London? -- David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field! Today is Tuesday, January.
Quoting tam <[email hidden]>: [Vile quoting unmangled]
Quoted message said:
It appears to me-with little knowledge of the history-that the bulk of activist UK cyclists are against them historically.
I wonder if they know somerthing you don't.
Quoted message said:
1 We are one of the richest nations-but-cyclist facilities paths etc are almost zero in supply this is reflected in our national journeys by bike figure of a shamefull 1.5%.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Quoted message said:
I just want the same choice I get in Europe-we can afford it and it would encorage what I see in Europe-hundreds-not ones and twos-of young families cycling.
Correlation does not... well, y'know.
Quoted message said:
We must raise the profile of cycling above that of Christmas toys for kids-that needs off road provision en mass.
Says you, but why should we believe it? -- David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field! Today is Tuesday, January.
2 British car drivers-of which I am one are much less aware of cyclists on the road
I wonder what we could do to improve that? Oh yes, encourage cyclists onto off-road paths so drivers see even less of them, that'll help raise awareness of cyclists on the road. </sarcasm>
But, as Tam and others have pointed out (correctly from my experience) you do get a better approach from motor drivers in other countries which do have such facilities, so your argument is clearly counter- evidential.
Had you followed the arguments you would understand why that isn't counter-evidence.
"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
tam said:
Here we are again cyclists arguing against cycle path provision.
Here we are again with you not actually appearing to realise why it needs arguing about. In short, because it isn't actually clear if it's /actually any good/.
It is actually useful to find out if things will help before doing them.
You will not get your average British family to commence cycling on UK roads I am absolutely certain of that.
effective, so isn't it worth a bit of debate rather than forge ahead on the basis of a few people being convinced by their gut feeling?
Why not go with gut feeling?. Our political masters are quite happy to do that. I will not quote some of the recent spends but UK politicos have spent hundreds of billions on "gut feeling". Why not spend a few billions on cycle facilities-"you know it makes sense". Tam
"tam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
tam said:
Here we are again cyclists arguing against cycle path provision.
Here we are again with you not actually appearing to realise why it needs arguing about. In short, because it isn't actually clear if it's /actually any good/.
It is actually useful to find out if things will help before doing them.
You will not get your average British family to commence cycling on UK roads I am absolutely certain of that.
Tam
Exactly what is 'your average British family'? And then tell me how providing special cycle farcilities, of which there are loads anyhow, is going to get them on bikes.
Also not a new fact. So why has cycling shot up in London?
Nobody knows the definitive answer-but-I would guess its to do with on a bike in the London rush hour you can always move towards your destination--a very important factor in the UK male concept of progress. I do think that for many journeys in London the bike is faster than the alternatives--and--a lot cheaper. Tam
Exactly what is 'your average British family'? And then tell me how providing special cycle farcilities, of which there are loads anyhow, is going to get them on bikes.
The sort of famililies that surrounded me in Berlin 6 weeks ago. It was 8 AM in the morning-school time in Charlottenburg-I was on my way to central Berlin -choice-the river path muddy but scenic-cycle path paved and quick-in the road crammed with rush hour traffic-but-still an option. The kids and mothers were on their bikes- babies in their trailers it was cycle chaos-heaven. Compare that to bad tempered homicidal rush hour Britain I know which is the best system. We will not make it happen without mega bucks being spent on cycling but it could be possible in the UK. Tam
Why not go with gut feeling?. Our political masters are quite happy to do that.
So the war in Iraq was okay after all then? That's nice.
Quoted message said:
Why not spend a few billions on cycle facilities-"you know it makes sense".
Because I don't know it makes sense.
Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Also not a new fact. So why has cycling shot up in London?
Nobody knows the definitive answer-but-I would guess its to do with on a bike in the London rush hour you can always move towards your destination--a very important factor in the UK male concept of progress.
That doesn't answer the question, because if that was the answer it would have shot up a long before it started shooting up in the recent past.
Quoted message said:
I do think that for many journeys in London the bike is faster than the alternatives--and--a lot cheaper.
There's no doubt about it, but it's no truer now than well before the current cycling increases.
Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
You will not get your average British family to commence cycling on UK roads I am absolutely certain of that.
But do you know cycle tracks will help, and if so then what sort and where?
Perhaps the kids would start things off by getting interested in cycling as a result of training programs giving them the confidence to safely cycle /anywhere/, rather than just where money has allowed some tracks to be put in. Personally I'd prefer widespread training to providing something that provides an /illusion/ of not needing how to interact with motor vehicles.
Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
On Jan 17, 5:41 pm, Mark T <pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
Quoted message said:
"Mike Sales" <[email hidden]> wrote innews:[email hidden]:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Even more obvious: ask 'em why they aren't cycling. IME it normally comes down to the perception of danger. This is one of the things cycle tracks etc can help with even if, taken as a whole, they haven't added to safety.
Quoted message said:
Isn't there a moral problem here? Should prospective cyclists be encouraged to use the more dangerous cycling option, even if it agrees with their mistaken perception?
As Pete pointed out, it's more a case of 'less safe' than 'more dangerous' - cycling is perceived to be dangerous, but carries a similar risk to walking.
Figures and source to back up your suggestion that cycling carries a similar risk to walking, please. Paul Gannon
On Jan 18, 11:16 am, David Damerell <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Quoting <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
1 - I think you mean the question re why waste money on tracks. Well because, contrary to what you think, tracks are very effective. I
Not for safety. Even after claiming that everyone but you can't read research, the best you can do is to suggest that there is no evidence that well-designed tracks are any more dangerous than the roads. Not really a ringing endorsement.
Quoted message said:
But much more conclusi ve is the spending by other countries which they have seen having the expected effect. You seem to think that all these countries are full of fools who are unable to predict and then assess.
Nice way of putting it, but in fact, a moment's glance at the UK will show that the idea that cycle track provision is done entirely incompetently is not at all implausible.
Quoted message said:
2 - You may think worrying about gender and age profile of cycling is silly,
I don't; I think assuming that cycle tracks will change it is silly. -- David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field! Today is Tuesday, January.
You say, 'Even after claiming that everyone but you can't read research,'
Please pay attention - I have asked people for the evidence they rely on to assert this alleged danger of cycle tracks. All the responses make it clear that no one has read any of the sources. I wish they would! Please try to understand, thanks Paul
Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Exactly what is 'your average British family'? And then tell me how providing special cycle farcilities, of which there are loads anyhow, is going to get them on bikes.
The sort of famililies that surrounded me in Berlin 6 weeks ago. It was 8 AM in the morning-school time in Charlottenburg-I was on my way to central Berlin -choice-the river path muddy but scenic-cycle path paved and quick-in the road crammed with rush hour traffic-but-still an option. The kids and mothers were on their bikes- babies in their trailers it was cycle chaos-heaven. Compare that to bad tempered homicidal rush hour Britain I know which is the best system. We will not make it happen without mega bucks being spent on cycling but it could be possible in the UK. Tam
Spot on, but our other correspondents will be spluttering about 'correlation and causation'. Paul
Please pay attention - I have asked people for the evidence they rely on to assert this alleged danger of cycle tracks.
And they have asked in return for the evidence you rely on that they are the panacea you claim. No sign of it yet...
Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
As Pete pointed out, it's more a case of 'less safe' than 'more dangerous' - cycling is perceived to be dangerous, but carries a similar risk to walking.
Figures and source to back up your suggestion that cycling carries a similar risk to walking, please.
"tam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Exactly what is 'your average British family'? And then tell me how providing special cycle farcilities, of which there are loads anyhow, is going to get them on bikes.
The sort of famililies that surrounded me in Berlin 6 weeks ago.
So that'll be your average German family then, not your average British family ;-)
Quoted message said:
It was 8 AM in the morning-school time in Charlottenburg-I was on my way to central Berlin -choice-the river path muddy but scenic-cycle path paved and quick-in the road crammed with rush hour traffic-but-still an option. The kids and mothers were on their bikes- babies in their trailers it was cycle chaos-heaven. Compare that to bad tempered homicidal rush hour Britain I know which is the best system. We will not make it happen without mega bucks being spent on cycling but it could be possible in the UK. Tam
What you describe is what I see when cycling in Europe - an utterly different mindset to cycling than is found here in the UK. I've already stated why, in a previous post, I think this has nothing to do with cycle farcilities and everything to do with how cycling is viewed as a normal activity and not denegrated as it is in much of the UK media, which is, let's face it, utterly petrolhead-centric.
You say, 'Even after claiming that everyone but you can't read research,' Please pay attention
Please learn to quote a news article.
Quoted message said:
All the responses make it clear that no one has read any of the sources.
So, in fact, you are claiming exactly that.
I notice (once again) you've carefully avoided all the questions I ask to blather about how wonderful you are. -- David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field! Today is Tuesday, January.
