The golden age of cycling?

[Munroast]

I note the emotive language, but is it necessary? Does it not also hurt if you *only* get run over by a 1.5 tonne "family car"? Or is the intention just to demonise a particular type of road user? It's much harder to hate something called "family car" than it is to hate something called "SUV", I guess...

Nobody is saying that cyclists should be restricted to only cycling on cycle paths, that's a strawman argument. The gripe tends to be against cyclists who insist on using the road when there is a cycle path available, set aside for them and not available to motor vehicles. However, if you want more cycle paths, are you willing to pay Dutch levels of tax in order to get them?

If you're going to complain about having so few cycle paths close to where you live, I guess I can also justifiably point out that I live just under 40 miles from my nearest motorway junction. I haven't mentioned "fast" at all, you've just made that assumption. This isn't about "fast" it's about space, is it not? If you really can't stand sharing the road, it's probably much easier for you to get your bike to your "exclusive roads known as" cycle paths without riding it, than it is for me to get the car to my "exclusive roads known as motorways" without driving it...

It tends to be the large SUVs that are driven the most aggressively. I take it that is what you drive?

So you like to ride in the gutter so as not to impede the motorist - and you claim to be a regular cyclist - LOL

Are you Jeremy Clarkson - I claim my five pound

 

[RandomGrinch]

Another question for me, how difficult will it be to impose a 20mph speed limit on cyclists?
I occasionally cycle, but only once to my knowledge, have broken a speed limit (42 in a 40 on a MTB coming down Caerphilly mountain! ).
One of my local 20mph trial areas is a village with access only by a very narrow, twisty, single track road.
This also seems to be a regular route for cyclist that like to travel in packs!
I have witnessed a couple of incidents where the cyclists have been travelling far faster than the speed limit and have nearly got into difficulty due to the poor road conditions and visibility.

 

[Avocet]

It tends to be the large SUVs that are driven the most aggressively. I take it that is what you drive?

So you like to ride in the gutter so as not to impede the motorist - and you claim to be a regular cyclist - LOL

Are you Jeremy Clarkson - I claim my five pound

Gosh! Prejudice? Much...?! Imagine replacing "SUVs" with "Black people" or "Jews" in that first sentence...
I have two cars, but I can only drive them one at a time. I have a family saloon that weighs considerably less than 1.5 tonnes because it's over 30 years old. I also have a company car, which I would call an MPV but you might wish to call an SUV? (I don't know, really, I'm not sure how you arrive at your chosen prejudices). It's only 2 wheel drive, but has 7 seats and is a fair bit bigger and heavier than my family saloon, does that qualify? Yet it has a measly 1.5 diesel engine which emits massively less of any pollutant you care to mention than my "family saloon", uses less fuel, and is demonstrably safer for both me and for other road users, so maybe it doesn't? I'll leave you to work out which one is the villain of the piece, but as you're already brandishing your torch and pitchork, and hungry for a witch to burn, I think I can probably guess...

Yes, I keep well to the left so as not to impede any other road user, be it a motorist or an emergency services vehicle, or indeed, a faster-moving cyclist (of which there are plenty). It's the most efficient use of a finite shared space - oh, and it's unselfish. What's not to like? As mentioned, I've only ever been the victim of one avoidable close pass (which, ironically, was on a much wider "A" road), and by and large I'd say I got along just fine with my fellow, motorised road users. Perhaps they appreciate the gesture? I know I certainly do when I'm in my car, but these days, it's getting harder and harder to find unselfish road users (regardless of their chosen form of transport...).

I claim to be a regular cyclists because... well... I AM one. I don't do "big miles" on my pushbike, but just because I don't have a Lycra fetish, it doesn't mean that when I'm on my pushbike I'm not a cyclist. however, it is an interesting (and not particularly endearing) peculiarity about some of the more militant cyclists, that I've noticed, now you come to mention it. They scoff and look down upon others who share their chosen form of transport but not their militancy. This doesn't seem to happen among any other group of road users. I can't remember the last time I saw a Bentley driver sneering at a Focus driver and saying "...and you claim to be a regular motorist". Nor, for that matter, do I ever recall having seen a fully togged-out walker plodding down Keswick High Street with his walking poles, sneering at other more modestly-equipped pedestrians and levelling the equivalent accusation... Maybe it happens with horse riders? Maybe there's a group of those with thoroughbred horses who sneer at someone on a donkey, and say "tsch! Call yourself an equestrian"?! I dunno - I don't really move in equestrian circles...

So tell me, what's the minimum annual mileage that has to be covered on two wheels before one can claim to be a "cyclist"? Would I be right in thinking it would be somewhere between "a bit less than what you do" and "more than anyone you don't like" does?

 

[Lucid]

Discussions about cycling do have a habit of getting quite emotive.

I'm not convinced it's all that helpful comparing the UK to the Dutch model. Theirs is a system that has taken almost five decades of planning and building to evolve. As mentioned, they had the help of a certain Austrian chap but really the start of this was in the 70s, so they had a good 20 years or more of conventional town planning before making some rather radical changes to their city centres.

Something that hasn't been mentioned so far is that The Netherlands suits a bike culture because it's so flat. One feature of Wales is that very little of it is flat. That's got to have a significant impact on the viability of cycling as an alternative transport mode, particularly for the longer commutes that are implied when talking about roads with speeds up to 60mph.

We have had a biking culture in the past in the UK, but more from necessity rather than design. When cars were only for the very well off and people worked en-masse in factories and mills and mines (so their housing was built close by too) then cycling in the UK made sense. We don't do that any more. We don't have thousands of workers all converging on the same points. We don't have the sorts of jobs-for-life culture that provides the stability to choose housing close by. We've exported many of the types of jobs that would have been a natural fit for a cycling culture. Work is decentralised and so commuting is decentralised too.

For someone say working an 8 hr shift in a warehouse, and the commuting distance is say 10 miles each way - which would be the distance from Eric's village to Welshpool - then cycling that journey is roughly a 2 hr trip every day. Do we really expect commuters to happily add 25% extra unpaid time to their working day? Who really benefits from that?

What we're talking about then in many cases (not all, let me be absolutely clear on that) are the benefits for leisure cycling. If that's the case, and many of those cycling miles - which is good exercise - are a choice of how to spend leisure time, then wouldn't it make sense to stay off the sort of roads where cyclists are more in danger?

If the UK economy wants the benefits of a mobile, flexible and responsive workforce then some kind of motorised transport is absolutely central to that. Obviously it's not going to be public transport. Taxis cost too much and there aren't nearly enough of them at the sort of times needed because many of our work places now operate 24/7. You can't get a bus or a taxi at 5am unless you live in a major city. What's the answer then?

This.

I'm not kidding. Think about the benefits.

* Less road congestion - you'll fit 3 - 4 bikes in the space of one car

* Parking - 3 bikes to one car parking space

* Pollution I - we're starting to see electric motorcycles as well as electric cars

* Pollution II - bikes use petrol not diesel

* Revenue - petrol tax receipts continue to flow as does road tax

* Economy - bikes still need servicing and spares, repairs, insurance - so all the allied industries still benefit

* Road safety I - a motorcycle can pass a cyclist far easier and on narrower roads too without endangering either

* Road safety II - a motorcycle (2 or 3 in fact) will fit in the poxy-sized garages now being built with new housing, therefore suburban roads will have fewer boxes parked on them which then aids pedestrian safety and makes access easier for emergency services

If we should champion anything it should be motorcycling

 

[RandomGrinch]

I'm not convinced it's all that helpful comparing the UK to the Dutch model

It's similar to the oft made comparison between UK and European railways.
The difference in the railways development and evolution make a direct comparison non-sensical.

the commuting distance is say 10 miles each way - which would be the distance from Eric's village to Welshpool - then cycling that journey is roughly a 2 hr trip every day. Do we really expect commuters to happily add 25% extra unpaid time to their working day?

My 10 mile commute into a city centre location is close to 3/4 of an hour each way (and can sometimes be way longer!). When I have cycled, my ride is about 50 to 55 minutes, but the benefit is ending up at the door, rather than a remote car park.
The journey by train is around 30 minutes plus 10 to 15 on foot.
These times are quite typical for many commuters in my area!

....and don't even think about the bus (well not at rush hour anyway)!

 

[Lucid]

These are just my observations rather than any sort of scientific study, but I've just driven 8 miles to my next job. The journey has taken me from Middlewich (small town) via Sandbach (small town) to Crewe (large town). The route included some rural and urban roads and a short length of bypass.

On that journey I passed 15 cyclists. 7 looked like they were travelling for work (1 in Sandbach, 6 in Crewe). Of those on the roads between towns none looked like they were travelling for work. They were lycra warriors.

Now I full accept that someone might well travel in cycling gear then change at site. I get that. No one needs hammer that point home. My point though is that the sort of person that has that sort of gear is pretty much a hardcore cyclist.
I'm going to call it then that
(a) cycling for pleasure outdoes cycling for necessity.
(b) cycling for necessity is centred around short distances whereas cycling for please involves linger trips


[My flameproof suit is waiting]

 

[Avocet]

Discussions about cycling do have a habit of getting quite emotive.

I'm not convinced it's all that helpful comparing the UK to the Dutch model. Theirs is a system that has taken almost five decades of planning and building to evolve. As mentioned, they had the help of a certain Austrian chap but really the start of this was in the 70s, so they had a good 20 years or more of conventional town planning before making some rather radical changes to their city centres.

Something that hasn't been mentioned so far is that The Netherlands suits a bike culture because it's so flat. One feature of Wales is that very little of it is flat. That's got to have a significant impact on the viability of cycling as an alternative transport mode, particularly for the longer commutes that are implied when talking about roads with speeds up to 60mph.

We have had a biking culture in the past in the UK, but more from necessity rather than design. When cars were only for the very well off and people worked en-masse in factories and mills and mines (so their housing was built close by too) then cycling in the UK made sense. We don't do that any more. We don't have thousands of workers all converging on the same points. We don't have the sorts of jobs-for-life culture that provides the stability to choose housing close by. We've exported many of the types of jobs that would have been a natural fit for a cycling culture. Work is decentralised and so commuting is decentralised too.

For someone say working an 8 hr shift in a warehouse, and the commuting distance is say 10 miles each way - which would be the distance from Eric's village to Welshpool - then cycling that journey is roughly a 2 hr trip every day. Do we really expect commuters to happily add 25% extra unpaid time to their working day? Who really benefits from that?

What we're talking about then in many cases (not all, let me be absolutely clear on that) are the benefits for leisure cycling. If that's the case, and many of those cycling miles - which is good exercise - are a choice of how to spend leisure time, then wouldn't it make sense to stay off the sort of roads where cyclists are more in danger?

If the UK economy wants the benefits of a mobile, flexible and responsive workforce then some kind of motorised transport is absolutely central to that. Obviously it's not going to be public transport. Taxis cost too much and there aren't nearly enough of them at the sort of times needed because many of our work places now operate 24/7. You can't get a bus or a taxi at 5am unless you live in a major city. What's the answer then?

This.

View attachment 274439


I'm not kidding. Think about the benefits.

* Less road congestion - you'll fit 3 - 4 bikes in the space of one car

* Parking - 3 bikes to one car parking space

* Pollution I - we're starting to see electric motorcycles as well as electric cars

* Pollution II - bikes use petrol not diesel

* Revenue - petrol tax receipts continue to flow as does road tax

* Economy - bikes still need servicing and spares, repairs, insurance - so all the allied industries still benefit

* Road safety I - a motorcycle can pass a cyclist far easier and on narrower roads too without endangering either

* Road safety II - a motorcycle (2 or 3 in fact) will fit in the poxy-sized garages now being built with new housing, therefore suburban roads will have fewer boxes parked on them which then aids pedestrian safety and makes access easier for emergency services

View attachment 274440


If we should champion anything it should be motorcycling

I don't think you'll fit 3 or 4 bikes into the space of a car? Not whilst moving at any speed, at any rate! All the ones I see, take up about half the space off a car each.
Also, the fact that bikes use less fuel means that tax receipts would fall.

Other than that, I agree, but safety is likely to take a hit. And, of course, bikes aren't much use when you have to carry the family or a load of stuff (or both)! Funny enough, the car on the right in your photo is a wheelchair-accessible taxi.

 

[RandomGrinch]

Another question for me, how difficult will it be to impose a 20mph speed limit on cyclists?

Ok, my question has been answered!

The rule on cyclists going at 20mph as part of Wales' new road laws

It seems that Wales' new 20mph law won't count for everyone

www.walesonline.co.uk

...in other words; it is very difficult to impose any speed limit on a cyclist!

 

[Avocet]

Speed limits have only ever applied to mechanically propelled vehicles.

 

[Avocet]

Pedestrian safety is above all, even in driving school they teach this.

Whether it is someone on foot, on a bike, on a horse, in a car, lorry, SUV, they're ALL human beings. I don't think any human being's safety is more important than any other human being's safety?

 

[pcaouolte]

Whether it is someone on foot, on a bike, on a horse, in a car, lorry, SUV, they're ALL human beings. I don't think any human being's safety is more important than any other human being's safety?

It is quite rare for a person on foot to kill a person in a lorry. It is all about protecting the most vulnerable road users.

Locally a bit of policing of the cyclists would go a long way to improve their safety, it is not unusual for a cyclist in a black hoody to cross the road from one footpath to another without looking or giving any indication of their intentions. A car driver would stand no chance of missing them, even at 20mph if they perform manoeuvres like that when the car is immediately behind them.

The same goes for red traffic lights which do not appear to apply to cyclists here.

 

[Avocet]

It is quite rare for a person on foot to kill a person in a lorry. It is all about protecting the most vulnerable road users.

Locally a bit of policing of the cyclists would go a long way to improve their safety, it is not unusual for a cyclist in a black hoody to cross the road from one footpath to another without looking or giving any indication of their intentions. A car driver would stand no chance of missing them, even at 20mph if they perform manoeuvres like that when the car is immediately behind them.

The same goes for red traffic lights which do not appear to apply to cyclists here.

Of course it is! But not so uncommon for a person in a lorry to kill another person in a lorry. At the end of the day, we all have a right to life and we all have a responsibility to protect that right - for everyone. Now it's true that the pedestrian doesn't have to do very much to adequately discharge that responsibility, whilst the driver of a motor vehicle has to do a lot more, but the basic principle still stands - ALL lives have equal value, whether they're in a Bentley or on a skateboard. People like to pit one group of road users against another, but that's divisive. It's like pitting rich against poor, Right wing against Left, black against white, one religion against another. I think a lot of society's trouble stems from this. Far better (IMO) to regard people as people!

And yes, some cyclists could do a lot more to help themselves. I've been in that exact situation, in fact. Manchester, one rainy night. A Black lad on a black bike, with no lights, in a black hoody and black tracksuit bottoms (or whatever they were). First thing I saw were (literally) the whites of his eyes! Bloody lucky the traffic was just crawling.

 

[pcaouolte]

People like to pit one group of road users against another, but that's divisive.

I have no interest in pitting any group of people against any other. As far as road users are concerned I would simply like them ALL to follow the rules in the Highway Code. The really young road users who are unable to do that should be cared for by someone who can take responsibility for their safety.

 

[Avocet]

I'm sure we can all agree on that!