Vehicuar transport vs. Segregation...why?
Well it seems that several issues are simultaneously playing out on this thread. To be honest, the segment I am most interested in is that of past efforts of DfT and LCC by Dellzeqq.
Generally, confrontation on ones beliefs causes them to cling even more tightly to them (like The tale of the Sun and the Wind), and this is evident with Nipper's assertions; although I would say that most have been more tolerant and patient than is strictly necessary.
I can see the argument from both ends (clearly the goal of the thread), indeed there is a lot to say for segregated cycling, and the practicality of vehicular cycling. I often lament that certain cities (Basingstoke, Milton Keynes, and parts of London) were built for cars first, HGVs second, then every other conceivable use bar cyclists, then pedestrians last. The
walkability of a town plays a keen part, when resources are near, there is little reason to drive. This is one of the reasons, bar economy why I believe that cycling really has taken off in parts of London (particularly Lambeth, the East, and Wandsworth.): it is simply more convenient to cycle than undergo other pricier less efficient forms of transport such as the car (snail pace, high cost of petrol, expense of parking, and the proximity of services) and even the well run bus and tube systems. Interestingly enough, in the Netherlands and Denmark, the segregated cycle paths are not created to divert cyclists, but to shorten the distances between various resources; this is why they work. Surely, in a well constructed transportation system pedestrians and cyclists should get the most direct routes to services, and motor transport should be made to meander - after all the significance of a quarter mile varies wildly amongst a car driver, a cyclist, and a pedestrian.
Vehicular cycling works best in areas where motor transport is externally slow, therefore it would work well in a busy high street prone to traffic jams, it wouldn't work well on a stretch with a loosley enforced 20mph limit. The China argument almost fits into here, but cannot be applied in full: in China, the bike is historically the most economic and versatile form of transportation so one could argue the critical mass argument (as could they tie in the example of 50's Britain), although this cannot be used to argue in favour of vehicular cycling since the roads are famously congested with slow moving traffic going predictable routes to the extent that a whole culture has emerged to allow motor traffic and cyclist to coexist. As the country has become more 'prosperous' more people are looking to cars as a status symbol, and for use in much the same way as we do here (a means to isolate oneself from the surrounding commotion whilst travelling from A to
, this shall cause similar problems to be faced as we have here, particularly if the motor car becomes 'ubiquitous' there, as it did in America, and it has here.
Segregated cycling is ideal for faster moving transport, therefore I would point to the perfect example of this, following the A4 (Great West Road) from Brentford to Heathrow ,through Hounslow. It would also be ideal on the Embankment, Piccadilly, and tricky fast junctions such as Park Lane. Whether it is needed through the residential streets of Chelsea is another thing, although exemption of one way routes would be handy.
Indeed the key goals necessary to promote and facilitate cycling are safety and convenience, but also economy. We need safe routes, scooters should not be allowed on cycle paths (nor on bus lanes); more considered cycle routes (e.g. through parks, and major roads) are required, and serious traffic calming (if not car-free) measures are required particularly in the city centres where people concentrate.
If we argue purely for one ideology over the other then the state of our infrastructure shall continue to deteriorate, since accountability is something missing in our public sphere. It is easier to build an expensive cycle route which fails to meet its users requirements, than it is to seriously address the issues surrounding fair and effective infrastructure, as the former can serve the footnote of an 'I told you so', unlike the latter which initially can be deemed a 'courageous' decision.
