London to shut streets to cars



Erik Sandblom wrote:

>
> Amsterdam and Copenhagen have cycle commuting rates of 30-40%. They also
> have good cycle facilities and checked car traffic. And a cycling
> culture that goes back decades.
>
> To get high cycling rates you facilities *and* checked car traffic *and*
> a cycling culture. Public transport is similar.
>


You just need the culture issue. Cambridge achieves similar levels to
Amsterdam and Copenhagen but doesn't check car traffic (much) and
generally has **** facilities where it has facilities

Tony
 
Den 2007-07-10 18:58:13 skrev Tony Raven <[email protected]>:

> Erik Sandblom wrote:
>
>> Amsterdam and Copenhagen have cycle commuting rates of 30-40%. They
>> also have good cycle facilities and checked car traffic. And a cycling
>> culture that goes back decades.
>> To get high cycling rates you facilities *and* checked car traffic
>> *and* a cycling culture. Public transport is similar.
>>

>
> You just need the culture issue. Cambridge achieves similar levels to
> Amsterdam and Copenhagen but doesn't check car traffic (much) and
> generally has **** facilities where it has facilities



Cambridge is quite small and I assume you can cycle from one end to the
other very quickly. I doubt this is true for Amsterdam or Copenhagen. I
briefly visited Cambridge and found it quite pedestrianised. I venture a
guess that you can get from anywhere to anywhere else without encountering
motor traffic going faster than 40-50 km/h. Correct me if I'm wrong.

In general I suspect there is too much separation and too little traffic
calming. In my opinion it's better to calm and reduce than to separate.
This is my New Theory :)

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies
 
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:21:46 +0200, "Erik Sandblom"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Den 2007-07-10 18:58:13 skrev Tony Raven <[email protected]>:
>
>> Erik Sandblom wrote:
>>
>>> Amsterdam and Copenhagen have cycle commuting rates of 30-40%. They


>> You just need the culture issue. Cambridge achieves similar levels to
>> Amsterdam and Copenhagen but doesn't check car traffic (much) and
>> generally has **** facilities where it has facilities

>
>
>Cambridge is quite small and I assume you can cycle from one end to the
>other very quickly. I doubt this is true for Amsterdam or Copenhagen. I
>briefly visited Cambridge and found it quite pedestrianised. I venture a
>guess that you can get from anywhere to anywhere else without encountering
>motor traffic going faster than 40-50 km/h. Correct me if I'm wrong.


You're wrong. Cambridge town centre is as you describe, but it's a
much larger city than that, albeit perhaps not quite as large as the
others.

>In general I suspect there is too much separation and too little traffic
>calming. In my opinion it's better to calm and reduce than to separate.
>This is my New Theory :)


Penalise the car driver and breed more resentment, you mean?

What seems to me to be much more relevant to the difference are the
different attitudes uf road users towards one another. In France and
Switzerland, where I live and work, cycles, motorcylists/peds, even
roadgoing wheelchair users, tend to be given a wide berth by cars and
buses. The culture is very much that they've at least as much right to
be there and that other road users should look out for them.

I've never worked out why it's _so_ different in the UK, apart from
the fact that perhaps a much lower proportion of drivers are, or have
been, cyclists too, but it's these 'cutural' issues that need to be
worked on, in my opinion, not more traffic rules.
 
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:48:41 +0200, Ace <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>
>
>What seems to me to be much more relevant to the difference are the
>different attitudes uf road users towards one another. In France and
>Switzerland, where I live and work, cycles, motorcylists/peds, even
>roadgoing wheelchair users, tend to be given a wide berth by cars and
>buses.


wandering off topic, presumably you're the UKRM Ace. (see sig gives no
clue, as there's no sig). And if so, how's the back?

(Do a bit of lurking on UKRM via google groups)


Tim
 
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:16:37 +0100, Tim Hall
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:48:41 +0200, Ace <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>>What seems to me to be much more relevant to the difference are the
>>different attitudes uf road users towards one another. In France and
>>Switzerland, where I live and work, cycles, motorcylists/peds, even
>>roadgoing wheelchair users, tend to be given a wide berth by cars and
>>buses.

>
>wandering off topic, presumably you're the UKRM Ace.


Aye, that's me.

>(see sig gives no clue, as there's no sig).


Yeah, I used to have a URC one, many years ago under a different name,
but haven't got round to creating one, and thought the ukrm one
perhaps innapropriate.

>And if so, how's the back?


Had surgery to remove the titanium rods & screws[0] last week, so am
sitting at home dosed up on painkillers at the moment. The hope is
that now the metal's all out I should be able to return to a virtually
pain-free existence.

As it was, I was unable to progress beyond a certain level of fitness,
which while allowing me to ski well enough ('cos I'm dead good, so can
still be better that 99% of folk[1] on the mountain even if I'm unfit)
I could only sustain a pathetic 12mph or so when cycling, even on flat
roads, and even then only for an hour or so.

It was a good excuse to buy a new bike, mind, in that I 'needed' full
suspension to stop the jolting of the back, and I found that many more
modern[2] mountain bikes also tend towards a higher bar height, hence
a more upright position, which also helped.

Ended up with a german make, Focus, that I'd never heard of, as seen
here:
http://www.focus-bikes.de/englisch_neu/bikes_neu/bikes_lang.asp?modell=super bud
Very pleased with it so far, after three months use.

[0] Crappy scans of the x-rays at
http://acenet.ifrance.com/scan0001s.jpg and
http://acenet.ifrance.com/scan0002s.jpg
[1] This is true, although the %age will depend on the particular
mountain and conditions.
[2] Than my 10-y-o cadex.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Ace wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:21:46 +0200, "Erik Sandblom"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Cambridge is quite small and I assume you can cycle from one end to the
>>other very quickly. I doubt this is true for Amsterdam or Copenhagen. I
>>briefly visited Cambridge and found it quite pedestrianised. I venture a
>>guess that you can get from anywhere to anywhere else without encountering
>>motor traffic going faster than 40-50 km/h. Correct me if I'm wrong.

>
>You're wrong. Cambridge town centre is as you describe, but it's a
>much larger city than that, albeit perhaps not quite as large as the
>others.


There's very little of it not a 30mph speed limit or less. At uncongested
times of days little of the traffic actually obeys the limits, but it's
not going _very_ much over 50km/h.
 
Den 2007-07-10 19:48:41 skrev Ace <[email protected]>:

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:21:46 +0200, "Erik Sandblom"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> In general I suspect there is too much separation and too little traffic
>> calming. In my opinion it's better to calm and reduce than to separate.
>> This is my New Theory :)

>
> Penalise the car driver and breed more resentment, you mean?



I used to think like that too. I've switched sides. Now I tend to think,
why should the noisiest and most dangerous road users set the pace?

You might have heard the term "unprotected road users" or "vulnerable road
users". The idea is gaining ground that the most vulnerable road users
should set the pace, at least in cities and towns. But since the term
"unprotected road users" suggests promiscuity and irresponsibility, I
prefer the term "soft road users". It puts the burden back on the "hard
road users".


> What seems to me to be much more relevant to the difference are the
> different attitudes uf road users towards one another. In France and
> Switzerland, where I live and work, cycles, motorcylists/peds, even
> roadgoing wheelchair users, tend to be given a wide berth by cars and
> buses.



Many people are put off by fast-moving motor traffic even if you're given
wide berth by cars. Even after the huge cycling boom in London, what is
the share of cycling? Two percent? This needs to go much, much higher if
there is to be a significant reduction in congestion, noise and emissions.
I suggest you check out the share of cycling in France and Switzerland.
How much is it there, one or two percent? Even if you look at numbers
where cycling is ideal, such as journeys between two and ten kilometres,
the share will be very low.

I'm sorry if you find me predictable, but one of the main reasons for low
cycling rates is in fact that people are afraid to be hit by fast cars. It
really is that simple.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies
 
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:48:41 +0200, Ace <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:21:46 +0200, "Erik Sandblom"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In general I suspect there is too much separation and too little traffic
>>calming. In my opinion it's better to calm and reduce than to separate.
>>This is my New Theory :)

>
>Penalise the car driver and breed more resentment, you mean?


Resentment, reschmentment. They should learn to control their temper.

>What seems to me to be much more relevant to the difference are the
>different attitudes uf road users towards one another. In France and
>Switzerland, where I live and work, cycles, motorcylists/peds, even
>roadgoing wheelchair users, tend to be given a wide berth by cars and
>buses. The culture is very much that they've at least as much right to
>be there and that other road users should look out for them.
>
>I've never worked out why it's _so_ different in the UK, apart from
>the fact that perhaps a much lower proportion of drivers are, or have
>been, cyclists too, but it's these 'cutural' issues that need to be
>worked on, in my opinion, not more traffic rules.


Maybe it's the legal environment. Maybe the Swiss and French laws work
to positively discriminate in favour of the vulnerable, in contrast to
the UK approach which champions innocent until proven guilty?
 
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:28:21 +0100, Marc Brett
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:48:41 +0200, Ace <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:21:46 +0200, "Erik Sandblom"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>In general I suspect there is too much separation and too little traffic
>>>calming. In my opinion it's better to calm and reduce than to separate.
>>>This is my New Theory :)

>>
>>Penalise the car driver and breed more resentment, you mean?

>
>Resentment, reschmentment. They should learn to control their temper.


Unfortunately refusing to accept reality doesn't help either. Measures
that are seen by drivers as inconvenient at their expense in favour of
cyclists will no encourage them to feel friendly towards them. This in
turn will lead to more aggression on the part of the driver and
correspondingly reduced safety for cyclists.

>>I've never worked out why it's _so_ different in the UK, apart from
>>the fact that perhaps a much lower proportion of drivers are, or have
>>been, cyclists too, but it's these 'cutural' issues that need to be
>>worked on, in my opinion, not more traffic rules.

>
>Maybe it's the legal environment. Maybe the Swiss and French laws work
>to positively discriminate in favour of the vulnerable, in contrast to
>the UK approach which champions innocent until proven guilty?


No, I don't think they do. And I'm certain that no fear of the law is
going to encourage drivers to be polite and considerate to other road
users, which is what I see demonstrated in practice.

I'm a frequent driver, motorcyclist, cyclist and pedestrian in both
countries, which show some equally obvious cultural differences
between them. For example, a Swiss pedestrian _knows_ that cars will
stop for them on a zebra crossing, and therefore doesn't feel the need
to check for oncoming traffic. The driver learns to expect this
behaviour and therefore ensures that he checks crossings carefully
when approaching them.

This is not due to any legal differences, as in both countries, as in
the UK, a zebra crossing user will always have the right of way, but
somehow it's just become accepted that peds will exercise their rights
and that wheeled vehicles will stop.

So it's clearly a difference in culture; in this case, I think it's
more of a respect for regulation, rather than a fear of the
consequences. As has been said before, the Swiss are very much like
the Germans but without the German's reckless disregard for authority.

But whatever the reasons, it seems to be very safe for all road users.
 
Den 2007-07-11 12:11:54 skrev Ace <[email protected]>:

> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:28:21 +0100, Marc Brett
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:48:41 +0200, Ace <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Penalise the car driver and breed more resentment, you mean?

>>
>> Resentment, reschmentment. They should learn to control their temper.

>
> Unfortunately refusing to accept reality doesn't help either. Measures
> that are seen by drivers as inconvenient at their expense in favour of
> cyclists will no encourage them to feel friendly towards them. This in
> turn will lead to more aggression on the part of the driver and
> correspondingly reduced safety for cyclists.



Your argument boils down to "he made me do it". You're just making up
excuses. In reality, it's up to everyone to be considerate.

Besides, being aggressive in a car is different from being aggressive on a
bicycle or on foot, just like being agressive with a fist is different
from being agressive with a tank or a jet fighter. That's why there are
more restrictions for motor traffic than for non-motorised traffic.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies
 
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:59:07 +0200, "Erik Sandblom"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Den 2007-07-11 12:11:54 skrev Ace <[email protected]>:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:28:21 +0100, Marc Brett
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:48:41 +0200, Ace <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Penalise the car driver and breed more resentment, you mean?
>>>
>>> Resentment, reschmentment. They should learn to control their temper.

>>
>> Unfortunately refusing to accept reality doesn't help either. Measures
>> that are seen by drivers as inconvenient at their expense in favour of
>> cyclists will no encourage them to feel friendly towards them. This in
>> turn will lead to more aggression on the part of the driver and
>> correspondingly reduced safety for cyclists.

>
>
>Your argument boils down to "he made me do it". You're just making up
>excuses.


Not at all. I'm merely supporting the idea that cultural differences
play a much more important role in cyclist safety than legislation.
I'm also interested in solutions which provide a better, safer, and
faster transport system for _all_ road users, not just a minority of
them.

>In reality, it's up to everyone to be considerate.


Of course, but don't you see that consideration isn't something you
can force on someone by inconveniencing them?

>Besides, being aggressive in a car is different from being aggressive on a
>bicycle or on foot, just like being agressive with a fist is different
> from being agressive with a tank or a jet fighter.


Yes, and your point is? I've not seen anyone suggesting that drivers
being aggressive towards other road users is anything other than
A_Bad_Thing.
 
Erik Sandblom wrote:

> I used to think like that too. I've switched sides. Now I tend to think,
> why should the noisiest and most dangerous road users set the pace?
>
> You might have heard the term "unprotected road users" or "vulnerable
> road users". The idea is gaining ground that the most vulnerable road
> users should set the pace, at least in cities and towns. But since the
> term "unprotected road users" suggests promiscuity and irresponsibility,
> I prefer the term "soft road users". It puts the burden back on the
> "hard road users".


I tend to think the opposite way around. I am a normal
road user, however many users feel vulnerable, and so have
to surround themselves in a layer of steel armour, with
side impact stuff, crush zones, and air bags. (The term
cagers is good here).

When I am in a car, (usually someone else driving as I
don't own a car), I feel cooped up.

> Many people are put off by fast-moving motor traffic even if you're
> given wide berth by cars.


> I'm sorry if you find me predictable, but one of the main reasons for
> low cycling rates is in fact that people are afraid to be hit by fast
> cars. It really is that simple.


And these people who are afraid of fast cars are the ones
driving them.
 
Den 2007-07-11 14:07:10 skrev Ace <[email protected]>:

> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:59:07 +0200, "Erik Sandblom"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Den 2007-07-11 12:11:54 skrev Ace <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:28:21 +0100, Marc Brett
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:48:41 +0200, Ace <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Penalise the car driver and breed more resentment, you mean?
>>>>
>>>> Resentment, reschmentment. They should learn to control their temper.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately refusing to accept reality doesn't help either. Measures
>>> that are seen by drivers as inconvenient at their expense in favour of
>>> cyclists will no encourage them to feel friendly towards them. This in
>>> turn will lead to more aggression on the part of the driver and
>>> correspondingly reduced safety for cyclists.

>>
>>
>> Your argument boils down to "he made me do it". You're just making up
>> excuses.

>
> Not at all. I'm merely supporting the idea that cultural differences
> play a much more important role in cyclist safety than legislation.



You were trying to excuse aggressive behaviour from motorists by saying
it's the road's fault.


> I'm also interested in solutions which provide a better, safer, and
> faster transport system for _all_ road users, not just a minority of
> them.



Unfortunately, a safer and better transport system will necessarily
inconvenience those who, purposely or otherwise, intimidate and endanger
soft road users.


>> In reality, it's up to everyone to be considerate.

>
> Of course, but don't you see that consideration isn't something you
> can force on someone by inconveniencing them?



I see that. It's a conflict. Sometimes you have to inconvenience people.
Like, I can't bring a gun wherever I want. I can't drink and drive. Etc.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies
 
Den 2007-07-11 16:49:48 skrev Martin Dann <[email protected]>:

> Erik Sandblom wrote:
>
>> I used to think like that too. I've switched sides. Now I tend to
>> think, why should the noisiest and most dangerous road users set the
>> pace?
>> You might have heard the term "unprotected road users" or "vulnerable
>> road users". The idea is gaining ground that the most vulnerable road
>> users should set the pace, at least in cities and towns. But since the
>> term "unprotected road users" suggests promiscuity and
>> irresponsibility, I prefer the term "soft road users". It puts the
>> burden back on the "hard road users".

>
> I tend to think the opposite way around. I am a normal road user,
> however many users feel vulnerable, and so have to surround themselves
> in a layer of steel armour, with side impact stuff, crush zones, and air
> bags. (The term cagers is good here).
>
> When I am in a car, (usually someone else driving as I don't own a car),
> I feel cooped up.
>
>> Many people are put off by fast-moving motor traffic even if you're
>> given wide berth by cars.

>
>> I'm sorry if you find me predictable, but one of the main reasons for
>> low cycling rates is in fact that people are afraid to be hit by fast
>> cars. It really is that simple.

>
> And these people who are afraid of fast cars are the ones driving them.



Ok good point but I don't think you should use the term "normal road
user". It suggests that anyone who is unlike you is abnormal and perhaps
illegitimate. There will always be a conflict between hard and soft road
users, no point in hiding that.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies
 
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:20:58 +0200, "Erik Sandblom"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Den 2007-07-11 14:07:10 skrev Ace <[email protected]>:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:59:07 +0200, "Erik Sandblom"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:


>>> Your argument boils down to "he made me do it". You're just making up
>>> excuses.

>>
>> Not at all. I'm merely supporting the idea that cultural differences
>> play a much more important role in cyclist safety than legislation.

>
>
>You were trying to excuse aggressive behaviour from motorists by saying
>it's the road's fault.


<Re-reads posts>

Nope, not I. Perhaps you were confusing me with someone else.
 
Den 2007-07-11 19:21:29 skrev Ace <[email protected]>:

> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:20:58 +0200, "Erik Sandblom"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Den 2007-07-11 14:07:10 skrev Ace <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:59:07 +0200, "Erik Sandblom"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>>> Your argument boils down to "he made me do it". You're just making up
>>>> excuses.
>>>
>>> Not at all. I'm merely supporting the idea that cultural differences
>>> play a much more important role in cyclist safety than legislation.

>>
>>
>> You were trying to excuse aggressive behaviour from motorists by saying
>> it's the road's fault.

>
> <Re-reads posts>
>
> Nope, not I. Perhaps you were confusing me with someone else.



Yes, you wrote:

"Measures
that are seen by drivers as inconvenient at their expense in favour of
cyclists will no encourage them to feel friendly towards them. This in
turn will lead to more aggression on the part of the driver and
correspondingly reduced safety for cyclists."

So you are in fact trying to excuse aggressive behaviour from motorists by
saying it's the road's fault, as I said. Do you not agree? Is there no
truth at all to my paraphrase?

Do you have any comments regarding my other statements? I'm particularly
interested in what you think of this statement: "Unfortunately, a safer
and better transport system will necessarily inconvenience those who,
purposely or otherwise, intimidate and endanger soft road users."

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies
 
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:32:47 +0200, "Erik Sandblom"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Den 2007-07-11 19:21:29 skrev Ace <[email protected]>:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:20:58 +0200, "Erik Sandblom"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:


>>> You were trying to excuse aggressive behaviour from motorists by saying
>>> it's the road's fault.

>>
>> <Re-reads posts>
>>
>> Nope, not I. Perhaps you were confusing me with someone else.

>
>
>Yes, you wrote:
>
>"Measures
>that are seen by drivers as inconvenient at their expense in favour of
>cyclists will no encourage them to feel friendly towards them. This in
>turn will lead to more aggression on the part of the driver and
>correspondingly reduced safety for cyclists."
>
>So you are in fact trying to excuse aggressive behaviour from motorists by
>saying it's the road's fault, as I said. Do you not agree? Is there no
>truth at all to my paraphrase?


None whatsoever. Hint: it's written in English - if that's not your
native tongue then that may account for your lack of comprehension.
There's a _hyuge_ difference between excusing somebody's bad behaviour
and trying to understand and mitigate against it.

>Do you have any comments regarding my other statements? I'm particularly
>interested in what you think of this statement: "Unfortunately, a safer
>and better transport system will necessarily inconvenience those who,
>purposely or otherwise, intimidate and endanger soft road users."


I had no comment to add, so I didn't add one.
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Erik Sandblom wrote:
>
>>
>> Amsterdam and Copenhagen have cycle commuting rates of 30-40%. They
>> also have good cycle facilities and checked car traffic. And a cycling
>> culture that goes back decades.
>>
>> To get high cycling rates you facilities *and* checked car traffic
>> *and* a cycling culture. Public transport is similar.
>>

>
> You just need the culture issue. Cambridge achieves similar levels to
> Amsterdam and Copenhagen but doesn't check car traffic (much) and
> generally has **** facilities where it has facilities


Can you see a geomorphological pattern emerging there?
 
Den 2007-07-11 20:00:11 skrev Ace <[email protected]>:

> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:32:47 +0200, "Erik Sandblom"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Den 2007-07-11 19:21:29 skrev Ace <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:20:58 +0200, "Erik Sandblom"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> Yes, you wrote:
>>
>> "Measures
>> that are seen by drivers as inconvenient at their expense in favour of
>> cyclists will no encourage them to feel friendly towards them. This in
>> turn will lead to more aggression on the part of the driver and
>> correspondingly reduced safety for cyclists."
>>
>> So you are in fact trying to excuse aggressive behaviour from motorists
>> by
>> saying it's the road's fault, as I said. Do you not agree? Is there no
>> truth at all to my paraphrase?



snip


> There's a _hyuge_ difference between excusing somebody's bad behaviour
> and trying to understand and mitigate against it.



So how do you want to mitigate against excessive speed on the part of
motorists? Without drivers seeing it as being "inconvenient at their
expense"? If I have to drive slower, that's always going to be
inconvenient at my expense.

If the goal is to encourage more walking and cycling along roads with
fast-moving traffic, it's the motorists who are going to have to move
over. I don't think there is a middle way.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies
 
Jeremy Parker <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:eek:[email protected]...
> > Den 2007-07-03 20:13:30 skrev Jeremy Parker
> > <[email protected]>:
> >>
> >> "Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>> But I'm beginning to think that fast-moving road traffic (say 50
> >>> km/h or 30 mph) simply does not have a place in a city,
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> I live in the London borough of Barnet, where sixty people commute
> >> by
> >> car for every person who commutes by bike. If somebody decides
> >> that
> >> that cars and bikes are incompatible, who's votes do you think
> >> will
> >> win the road?

> >
> >
> > Many people do not commute by bike because they are afraid of being
> > run over by a car. So making car traffic less intimidating as
> > discussed above can potentially reduce car dependency in itself.
> > Actually making it happen requires political leadership, such as
> > we are seeing in London.
> >
> > Erik Sandblom

>
> Many people's intimidation is miraculously cured by an £8 congestion
> charge for their car, or a tube strike or derailment, or whatever.
>

yes but the numbers are still very low, they have increased from a lower
point but still very low numbers, while cars are every where.

> The one thing we do know about the increase in cycling in London is
> that it is not due to any change in speed limits or speeds. Those
> haven't changed, except to the extent that cars probably go faster in
> central London now, because there is less congestion
>


> Jeremy Parker


roger

--
www.rogermerriman.com