Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[WilliamNB]

barbaric - uncivilised and uncultured. That would be it........



my case reclines upon the divan and lights the cheroot of vindication

What case would that be then? The one arguing that you're not mature enough to avoid resorting to name-calling? We're agreed then!

 

[blockend]

I'd like to ask where the bicycle exists in strategic transport thinking for most sections of the A1, A50, A38, etc? Segregationist is a word used to polarise and simplify a complex debate, as are terms like 'riding in the gutter'.
What are the acceptable relative traffic speeds and road space required before a road is perceived as unrideable? If there are none why are cycle activists not pressing for the motorway network to be usable by cyclists?
Also, what is being done to positively enable 8 year olds (the age I first took to the road on a bicycle solo) to use the highway?

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Segregationist is a word used to polarise and simplify a complex debate, as are terms like 'riding in the gutter'.

Really?

 

[blockend]

Really?
[attachment=3857:Gutter.jpg]

Yes. Are you suggesting your example represents an exemplary model for mass cycle transportation? Or the kind of simplify and forget complacency I'm pointing out?

I'm suggesting cycle activism is completely stuck on the issue of utility cycling numbers and your exemplar is typical of the thinking involved. Roadamentalists (a mind-numbing counterpoint to segregationist) need shoot facilities to reinforce a status quo made up of teensy numbers of utility cyclists on the road. So far rhetoric has consisted of 'whoever said everyone should cycle?' (as big a white flag as yet raised to the car lobby) to cannon fodder cyclists in numbers reduces traffic speeds. Where in the picture is the catalyst for change and whither the I'm Alright Jack and sod the rest? I'm seeing the latter dressed in a variety of post-rationalisation hats and aquiescence presentled as pragmatism.

 

[Red Light]

Roadamentalists (a mind-numbing counterpoint to segregationist) need shoot facilities to reinforce a status quo

Seems like segregationsists are doing a pretty good job of helping them out if that is the case. Perhaps they should change their tactics of the past 80 years and actually build some non-shoot ones for a change to frustrate the Roadamentalists.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Yes. Are you suggesting your example represents an exemplary model for mass cycle transportation? Or the kind of simplify and forget complacency I'm pointing out?

I do see your point, thugh I think you also may be simplifying things too much here. There are some people in this discussion who believe segregation (in towns and cities) is wrong. There are some who believe it is right and is worth fighting for, despite the poor provision we have seen so far. Then there are those of us who used to dream of a wonderful cycling infrastructure 30 years ago, have seen how far we have got in 3 decades and realise that we will be long dead before anything even half decent has any hope of being implemented even if it were desirable, so take a more pragmatic view, which is to remove the harmful crap that is in place now and don't replace it until such time as it can be done properly. (There are probably many other points of view as well)

 

[Red Light]

I do see your point, thugh I think you also may be simplifying things too much here. There are some people in this discussion who believe segregation (in towns and cities) is wrong. There are some who believe it is right and is worth fighting for, despite the poor provision we have seen so far. Then there are those of us who used to dream of a wonderful cycling infrastructure 30 years ago, have seen how far we have got in 3 decades and realise that we will be long dead before anything even half decent has any hope of being implemented even if it were desirable, so take a more pragmatic view, which is to remove the harmful crap that is in place now and don't replace it until such time as it can be done properly. (There are probably many other points of view as well)

You forgot the ones who are prepared to accept anything rather than have nothing. I remember when I suggested to a campaign group that a design being consulted on by the Council was crap and it should be done properly, I was told the Council would never accept the proper job so the campaign had to support the crap one as that was better than getting nothing. The proper job by the way consisted simply of removing some parking bays to make the road wide enough.

 

[WilliamNB]

You forgot the ones who are prepared to accept anything rather than have nothing

Really? I didn't get the impression that there was anybody advocating this approach throughout the thread, and yes, I have read it all, from the very start.

In fact, it seems to me that some who argue most vehemently against segregation have convinced themselves that everybody even slightly in favour of some segregation actually wants the sort of crap regularly making an appearance on "Facility of the month". This of course is very far from the truth, and is quite possibly the main cause for some of the venomous posts on here.

Perhaps I am wrong, though, and I'll happily stand corrected if you can point out those who stated they slot themselves into the "anything is better than nothing" category.

 

[dellzeqq]

What case would that be then?

the case presented by David Hembrow's picture. It shows a terrible, meaningless place.

(By way of an aside it would have been simpler, cheaper, and much, much more congenial to have a crossroads)

 

[dellzeqq]

Really? I didn't get the impression that there was anybody advocating this approach throughout the thread, and yes, I have read it all, from the very start.

In fact, it seems to me that some who argue most vehemently against segregation have convinced themselves that everybody even slightly in favour of some segregation actually wants the sort of crap regularly making an appearance on "Facility of the month". This of course is very far from the truth, and is quite possibly the main cause for some of the venomous posts on here.

Perhaps I am wrong, though, and I'll happily stand corrected if you can point out those who stated they slot themselves into the "anything is better than nothing" category.

You are wrong. Indeed you could hardly be more wrong. My take on it is that those who advocate a 'Dutch' style segregation will be content with nothing other than an ideal that they are absolutely not prepared to make manifest by way of a real world example in UK city.

Hence my repeated request for a drawing.

And Red Light makes a point, but, since I'm in a generous mood I'll accept that all those ghastly attempts at segregation that are so derided by Warrington Cycle Campaign have been put in with the best of intentions (albeit with a complete disregard for public space) - as was LCN+. Real world difficulties got the better of designers.

Waayy back in this thread I posted a design for a segregated system at Islington Green (I had a 1 to 1250 map to hand). I gave it my best shot. It was dreadful. All the cross-cutting requirements, for deliveries, for pedestrian and wheelchair movement, for bus stops simply got in the way.

 

[blockend]

Really? I didn't get the impression that there was anybody advocating this approach throughout the thread, and yes, I have read it all, from the very start.

In fact, it seems to me that some who argue most vehemently against segregation have convinced themselves that everybody even slightly in favour of some segregation actually wants the sort of crap regularly making an appearance on "Facility of the month". This of course is very far from the truth, and is quite possibly the main cause for some of the venomous posts on here.

Perhaps I am wrong, though, and I'll happily stand corrected if you can point out those who stated they slot themselves into the "anything is better than nothing" category.

Spot on. But then it's always easier to throw round terms like segregationist than contemplate the bigger issues, like how do we get more than a minuscule amount of people riding for practical reasons? How do we apply the model of Cambridge or Central London to Birmingham or Middlesbrough? How does agreed policy reflect the realities on the ground? Are activists serious about expanding utility cycling numbers or have them given up on the idea and want to protect the liberties of remaining cyclists?

Those of us who've heard the debate shift to and fro since the 1970s while cycling has transformed from a cheap, practical means of travel into something you need to wear lycra clothing for and a survival book to adopt might be forgiven a little cynicism in the face of non sequiturs like 'segregationist'.

 

[dellzeqq]

Spot on. But then it's always easier to throw round terms like segregationist than contemplate the bigger issues, like how do we get more than a minuscule amount of people riding for practical reasons? How do we apply the model of Cambridge or Central London to Birmingham or Middlesbrough? How does agreed policy reflect the realities on the ground? Are activists serious about expanding utility cycling numbers or have them given up on the idea and want to protect the liberties of remaining cyclists?

Those of us who've heard the debate shift to and fro since the 1970s while cycling has transformed from a cheap, practical means of travel into something you need to wear lycra clothing for and a survival book to adopt might be forgiven a little cynicism in the face of non sequiturs like 'segregationist'.

I've no idea what you mean by the 'liberties of remaining cyclists', but if you're suggesting that I or anybody else on this thread want to exclude newcomers, then it's defamatory. Your bitterness has undermined your intelligence.

 

[blockend]

I do see your point, thugh I think you also may be simplifying things too much here. There are some people in this discussion who believe segregation (in towns and cities) is wrong.

It would be useful to define 'towns and cities'. Since the 1960s most such places have seen a desertion of the centre for the suburbs. If you believe town centres can reasonably avoid cycleways and adopt 20mph speed limits and road cycling I'm with you all the way. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of 'city' dwellers are suburbans who have to negotiate the excesses of post-war highway development.

Those suburban roads are extensions to the national highway infrastructure with lorries making deliveries to supermarkets, skip wagons, car commuters and the rest who have come to expect 50mph+ travel with the odd 40mph zone, within highway engineering designed to encourage their belief in such space as fast road transit zones. To make such areas cycle safe would require a reduction of all such zones to 20mph. I'm all for such an initiative but it would require a shift in mindset at least as great as contemplating Dutch style bikeways everywhere. It would mean mid and long distance private and commercial motor transport times doubling or tripling as drivers encounter a succession of 20mph main roads, with the financial implications that go along with it.

If you believe that picture is an exaggeration of the requirements for safe utility cycling then you have to accept that speed differentials in large areas of the city (as well as existing highway engineering) make riding a bike a skilled enterprise with the low numbers who'll adopt such a mentally and physically focused activity.

 

[blockend]

I've no idea what you mean by the 'liberties of remaining cyclists', but if you're suggesting that I or anybody else on this thread want to exclude newcomers, then it's defamatory. Your bitterness has undermined your intelligence.

What do you mean by bitterness please? This isn't the first time you've portrayed a difference in perception as some character weakness, explain yourself.

 

[Red Light]

Really? I didn't get the impression that there was anybody advocating this approach throughout the thread, and yes, I have read it all, from the very start.

In fact, it seems to me that some who argue most vehemently against segregation have convinced themselves that everybody even slightly in favour of some segregation actually wants the sort of crap regularly making an appearance on "Facility of the month". This of course is very far from the truth, and is quite possibly the main cause for some of the venomous posts on here.

Perhaps I am wrong, though, and I'll happily stand corrected if you can point out those who stated they slot themselves into the "anything is better than nothing" category.

I stand corrected and I missed the "In this discussion.." rider. I was talking about the world out there in general where such people do abound in significant numbers.