In article <
[email protected]>,
"Clive George" <
[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> Ah. You'd be a bit silly then.
And what evidence can you show that your opinion isn't the silly one?
Note that I said that I regard them as positively harmful, not that
I am sure that I am right. Indeed, I am happy to admit that I am very
likely to be wrong, and wouldn't oppose them for that reason. But why
do you say that I am silly for holding a view contrary to yours?
Personally, I regard people who say that someone else is silly just
because they disagree, without being able to provide some evidence
for that claim, as more than just silly.
|> Regular meetings for cyclists - like it or not, cyclists are a minority
|> group, except possibly in places like Cambridge. Without such things,
|> cyclists will simply be ignored. People in decision making positions like
|> having a simple point of contact for information, and these meetings offer
|> this - without them we have to rely on the person's personal experience,
|> which is likely to be useless.
The question is whether that does more good than the harm caused by
encouraging the population to think of cyclists as a separate group.
Would you like to provide evidence for that view?
|> Supporting racing - it's actually very good for the local economy. I had a
|> man describing the Otley criteruim races. First set got ignored by the
|> traders and everybody. Then they noticed the people coming for them - now
|> they open late specially, because they make money from them. This is exactly
|> the sort of thing councils should be doing.
Perhaps. But does it do more good than the harm it causes by encouraging
the population to regard cycling as something to watch and not to do.
|> You seem to have omitted the cyclo-sportives, which aren't racing or
|> spectator sport - they're about participation.
True, but that is even more of a specialised and somewhat eccentric
activity - see above.
|> And you do know that a lot of the cycle routes being talked about by the
|> likes of Kirklees aren't off-road sustrans type ones, don't you? Hardly
|> pushing the opinion that cyclists don't belong on the road.
And you do know that many Sustrans routes are all off-road, don't
you?
It makes little difference. It encourages the belief that cyclists
should be moved off the main road network and onto a few routes out
of the way of real road users.
As I said, I haven't YET seen any evidence that cyclists are being
hassled for using rural roads that are not part of official routes,
but I have noticed the same attitudes developing in motorists and
recreational cyclists as towards cycle facilities and the 'main'
roads for routinely getting from A to B (e.g. A and B roads) in the
1970s, which developed into the situation we have today.
I HAVE been told by people who were both motorists and the modern
type of recreational cyclist that I SHOULD be using the official
recreational cycle routes and not the rest of the road network etc.
And this is class C rural roads, green roads and bridleways I am
talking about as the alternative!
Seriously. I don't think that you realise what is happening.
Unfortunately for me, I have Cassandra's curse - though I am by
no means so reliable (only about 70% in principle and 30% in
detail).
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
