Ming the Merciless
There is no mercy
- Location
- Inside my skull
it was a click bait article
cyclists deaths up 50 % overall up 66%
With cyclists numbers doubled on rural roads. Risk of death unchanged.
it was a click bait article
cyclists deaths up 50 % overall up 66%
How do you work that out?With cyclists numbers doubled on rural roads. Risk of death unchanged.
Absolutely not.So should we at least try pricing drivers off the road before dismissing it?
During this period I distinctly remember lots of new wobbly cyclists and the massively reduced traffic. However, there were many, many times I experienced that the reduced traffic was driving like absolute lunatics. Lockdown cycling for me was not all sweetness and flowers. It is interesting that the big increase in deaths were on rural A roads, typically the roads an experinced cyclist will avoid.We need to establish who is responsible for these extra deaths before we get too excited. For the period in question cycling numbers are up, but car road miles are down so any correlation is not immediately clear.
Absolutely not.
Almost any scheme which makes driving more expensive will hurt those least able to afford it.
We're going OT I know, but a scheme that charges to drive can be effective, but only if it is accompanied by other measures. The London Congestion Charge has been effective, but it's focused on a small, dense area that is well served by public transport, and IIRC there was a boost given to bus services when it was introduced. Just charging to drive alone is unlikely to have much effect apart from making driving more expensive. It might deter frivolous short journeys, like 1 mile to take the kids to school, but it might not - as people might just carry on as before but just complain more.Absolutely not.
Almost any scheme which makes driving more expensive will hurt those least able to afford it.
Whether it would "work" or not (I'm not convinced it would), it should not be considered.
Why respond to my post with something that just totally ignores what I said?Making it expensive for those who can run a car means getting them to be much more selective about how they use their vehicle and when. It needn't mean that their annual costs necessarily increase unless they fail to adjust their usage.
There are simply far too many on the roads we have and building more roads only brings more cars.
We had one of them. School was < 400 metres walking, but nearer 1.5 miles if you drive, don't ask a really 'imaginative' traffic calming system. He drove them to school in the Morning, at Lunch time back to the house and return to school and afternoon home. With his return home* it was about12 miles a day to save the little darlings walking about a mile a day. Then he complained they didn't want to go to bed.Could walk to does not equal will walk to.
We live near a school, there is one parent Neighbour at least who drives their child to school, every day, a distance of less than 1 mile!
Keeping the population down might be a better idea then. Now, how can we possibly do that? . Remember, politics not allowed...There are simply far too many on the roads
Most schemes to reduce driving will hurt those drivers who can barely afford it, who have structured their life around it. Of course we should have a transitional scheme to support them stopping driving.Absolutely not.
Almost any scheme which makes driving more expensive will hurt those least able to afford it.
Whether it would "work" or not (I'm not convinced it would), it should not be considered.
Cycling politics is still allowed in the advocacy forum. Party politics probably not. But I don't agree with those who advocate so-called "human population planning" when it amounts to coercion and state regulation of births.Keeping the population down might be a better idea then. Now, how can we possibly do that? . Remember, politics not allowed...
That's not what I was meaning. It was a wee dig at @glasgowcyclist and a previous political thread. About Glasgow... and, well, politics!But I don't agree with those who advocate so-called "human population planning" when it amounts to coercion and state regulation of births.
Why respond to my post with something that just totally ignores what I said?
I can't remember which one that was (I'm not asking to re-ignite it either!).....
That's not what I was meaning. It was a wee dig at @glasgowcyclist and a previous political thread. About Glasgow... and, well, politics!