On a related point, I am an experienced cyclist (though not necessarily a very skilled one) and I prefer Dutch/continental style networks to road cycling. I know other experiencd cyclists who agree. So, it is clear that not all experienced cyclists chose to prefer road cycling. So please do not spread this falsehood. Hwyl fawr
..>Sort of here here- I am quite happy to cycle on continental roads-I do cycle on UK roads but I am not so happy about that.
Quoted message said:
I do not cycle on the cycle paths where I live much but I do use them for recreational travel. What I really miss in Scotland is cycling as a natural mass transit travel experience and I really miss the cycle facilities found in most northern
2 - You may think worrying about gender and age profile of cycling is silly, but to my mind it is in fact the central issue.
Quoted message said:
You are so right- mass cycling will come from the largest economic unit----------the family. Yet again most facilities will not commence cycling on the average UK road--they will commence on a cycle path--ergo--we need cycle paths.
The future of mass cycling will not come from the dedicated torch bearing few who are keeping cycling alive in the UK[who I admire immensely}-just. tam
"Jeremy Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
<[email hidden]> wrote
[snip]
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
What this means is that cyclist lobby groups tend to share the
ideology that off-road faciltiies are for in-experienced cyclists (indeed the claim was made by one person on this site recently that experienced cyclists would prefer not to use them). Thus they approach design of such facilties in a way that is thought to be appropriate for in-experienced and meek cyclists rather than in the continental fashion which sees quality cycle networks as appropriate for all cyclists including the 'experienced'. I hope this answers your question.<<
[snip]
I can't help thinking of the multilingual Dutch cycling author Rob Van der Plas here. He probably has written more books than Richard Ballantine. His English language book, "The Bicycle Commuting Book" is pretty good, and makes much the same suggestions as do John Franklin, in "Cyclecraft", John Allen, in "Street Smarts", and John Forester in"Effective Cycling".
Rob Van der Plas wrote an article, "Some call it paradise: Bicycling in Holland", and promptly emigrated to California
Perhaps, if you do not believe you are a vehicle driver, you do not believe that you belong on the roads
I certainly belong on the roads on my trike--cycling in rush hour on tram lines on a trike being chased by a Trabi is a regular experience for me.
Quite happy to ride in the road.
You will not get the masses to commence cycling on UK roads.
Even with significant investment in cycle lanes, that would suggest that cycling is doomed in this country because people would still need to travel on roads to the cycle paths.
This country needs to educate its road users about the rights of cyclists, horse-riders and the like.
What this means is that cyclist lobby groups tend to share the ideology that off-road faciltiies are for in-experienced cyclists (indeed the claim was made by one person on this site recently that experienced cyclists would prefer not to use them). Thus they approach design of such facilties in a way that is thought to be appropriate for in-experienced and meek cyclists rather than in the continental fashion which sees quality cycle networks as appropriate for all cyclists including the 'experienced'. I hope this answers your question.
I think you'll find it's not the cyclist lobby groups pushing for this, but instead it's forced upon the designers by other constraints including budget. The client (ie council asking for suitable design of a track) will say the main target is inexperienced cyclists, so there's no need to make them good enough for others. This will result in lower standards in areas such as sight lines and design of junctions, since the expected speeds are much lower.
Just in case the above isn't clear : It's not cyclists asking for the low-standard tracks, it's the authorities. And it's not an attempt to make things easier for the inexperienced cyclists, but instead it's a recognition that they can't/don't want to afford (space, money, whatever) to do something suitable for all.
Or put another way, pretty much all youre deductions above are wrong. Sorry.
clive
The context was about cycle groups specifically. The points you make about LAs etc are valid, but do not invalidate my observation about the ideology of the UK cycle activist establishment - observe for example the comments about experience etc and comments on cycle tracks on this site. PAul
On Jan 19, 10:02 pm, David Martin <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
The per-distance figures are not a lot of use. People may not walk 10 miles to work, shop or go the cinema, but will cycle 10 miles or drive 40 miles and all in the same time (in general).
But they are relevant at real distances. If I live 2 miles from work I could walk or cycle or drive. Per distance is the obvious measure to use. I can't see me riding 10 miles just to take the same time as walking 2.
..d
see my response to a similar point made by someone else (sorry name already forgotten!) a few items earlier, Paul
You will not get the masses to commence cycling on UK roads.
Even with significant investment in cycle lanes, that would suggest that cycling is doomed in this country because people would still need to travel on roads to the cycle paths.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Not at all in Europe the cycle path is just another option.
Quoted message said:
This country needs to educate its road users about the rights of cyclists, horse-riders and the like.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>Or get millions of car driving punters cycling.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>It can happen very quickly- the UK mind set is no different from the >continental-its just our love affair with 4 wheels excludes >others--perhaps your average UK driver is "thicker" than his continental >brother- certainly I do not remember dim wits like J C getting mega >bucks on european TV.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Clive George said:
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
What this means is that cyclist lobby groups tend to share the ideology that off-road faciltiies are for in-experienced cyclists (indeed the claim was made by one person on this site recently that experienced cyclists would prefer not to use them). Thus they approach design of such facilties in a way that is thought to be appropriate for in-experienced and meek cyclists rather than in the continental fashion which sees quality cycle networks as appropriate for all cyclists including the 'experienced'. I hope this answers your question.
I think you'll find it's not the cyclist lobby groups pushing for this, but instead it's forced upon the designers by other constraints including budget. The client (ie council asking for suitable design of a track) will say the main target is inexperienced cyclists, so there's no need to make them good enough for others. This will result in lower standards in areas such as sight lines and design of junctions, since the expected speeds are much lower.
Just in case the above isn't clear : It's not cyclists asking for the low-standard tracks, it's the authorities. And it's not an attempt to make things easier for the inexperienced cyclists, but instead it's a recognition that they can't/don't want to afford (space, money, whatever) to do something suitable for all.
Or put another way, pretty much all youre deductions above are wrong. Sorry.
The context was about cycle groups specifically. The points you make about LAs etc are valid, but do not invalidate my observation about the ideology of the UK cycle activist establishment - observe for example the comments about experience etc and comments on cycle tracks on this site.
The points I make about LAs etc aren't merely valid, they're vital. The "UK cycle activist establishment" you complain about doesn't actually do the harm you claim it does - in fact, it's rather the opposite. The low quality facilities come about despite the efforts of the cyclists, not because of them. Without the efforts of the activists, yes, we may have more "facilities", but you can be sure they'd be worse.
"Clive George" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
The points I make about LAs etc aren't merely valid, they're vital. The "UK cycle activist establishment" you complain about doesn't actually do the harm you claim it does - in fact, it's rather the opposite. The low quality facilities come about despite the efforts of the cyclists, not because of them. Without the efforts of the activists, yes, we may have more "facilities", but you can be sure they'd be worse.
The per-distance figures are not a lot of use. People may not walk 10 miles to work, shop or go the cinema, but will cycle 10 miles or drive 40 miles and all in the same time (in general).
But they are relevant at real distances. If I live 2 miles from work I could walk or cycle or drive. Per distance is the obvious measure to use. I can't see me riding 10 miles just to take the same time as walking 2.
I think the per-distance data are more important than the per-time data, but the per-distance data are not 100% of the story
e.g. commuting to work you have to do the distance whether walking, cycling driving, or by bus. But going to the shops, I might walk ten minutes to a local shop, or I could cycle 10 minutes to the city centre. I could walk 30min to the city centre, or could cycle to the out of town shopping centre.
So how far you go depends upon your chosen method of travel. e.g. I am more likely to walk in bad weather, and cycle in good weather. Thus in bad weather, I am more likely to go a shorter distance.
my own favourite, lath and canvas cars, as fragile as WW1 aeroplanes. Cycle facilities as provided by a car culture like ours are bound to be insultingly bad.
You will not JC to test drive them unless they have a 200bhp engine.
I haven't checked, but am willing to wager that the Peel P50 has substantially fewer than 200 bhp.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
tam said:
Quoted message said:
my own favourite, lath and canvas cars, as fragile as WW1 aeroplanes. Cycle facilities as provided by a car culture like ours are bound to be insultingly bad.
You will not JC to test drive them unless they have a 200bhp engine.
I haven't checked, but am willing to wager that the Peel P50 has substantially fewer than 200 bhp.
Why go with _your_ gut feeling? Let's go with mine; enforce the traffic laws, make sure motorists behave themselves. --
I would rather just go with having millions cycling in the UK just like our continental neighbours. That way the motorist who cycles behaves a bit more sensibly. However 26 million cars are unsustainable even over the next 10 years. Especially south of Watford Gap. Cycling will become the practical option for up to 15% of journeys-yup I am nostradamus. tam
It's not a competition, though: it's a comparison. Walking is an acceptable risk (in fact, it's probably not an activity you thought of as risky at all) - oh, look, so is cycling.
Having been on the board of trustees of the Pedestrians' Assn/.Living Streets for 5 years until a couple of years ago, you may rest assured that it did not need the correspondents on this site to draw the risk of walking to my attention.
Feck'n'ek!
-- Don Whybrow
Sequi Bonum Non Time
"There is a wicked pretense that one has been informed. But no such thing has truly occurred! A mere slogan, an empty litany. No arguments are heard, no evidence is weighed. It isn't news at all, only a source of amusement for idlers." (Gibson-Sterling, The Difference Engine)
"David Damerell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoting tam <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Why go with _your_ gut feeling? Let's go with mine; enforce the traffic laws, make sure motorists behave themselves.
I would rather just go with having millions cycling in the UK just like our continental neighbours.
Yes. However, why should we trust your guess about how to get there?
Its based on unenlightened cynicism--.
Unlike the continental politicos ours will convert to severly restricting big trucks and cars and encouraging cycling-because it relieves pressure on them. Road construction costs are increasing steeply-motorists have shown themselves to absorb very high costs per mile-tax wise-so just soak them even more- while progressively tightening the screw---ie restricting road space.
Cycling is "green with a capital G-very trendy-its just a question of getting Kate Moss and a few celebs on bikes plus about £500 million on a bike campaign----a mere bagatelle--compared to Northern Rock.
The alternative is not going to happen--rebuilding Britains roads-they are falling apart---says my road expert brother in law. So the bike will fill the gap------of course you will not get politicians to "get on their bike"---now that would be a miracle--in which I do not believe anyway. tam
