srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
Seeing as you have no posts on any other thread on this site, it is going to be a bit tricky for anyone to guess what else might interest you.
Seeing as you have no posts on any other thread on this site, it is going to be a bit tricky for anyone to guess what else might interest you.
Should @srw now resign for posting pictures of his dildo covers on social media?Dildo covers?
NO my dear fellow, he means that, sinceDildo covers?
Ah, the build it and they will come hypothesis: As related by every town planner and highway engineer in the UK over the last half century or so. Of course they were keen on segregation before that, but they didn't even attempt to claim it was for our benefit then - they hoped for legislation to force us to use it.I dThat facts (and god, they are unpopular) are that in places with more and better dedicated cycling infrastructure, more people cycle.
So how do we get the every road is a cycle lane thing, without bothering with the segregated lanes?
So how do we get the every road is a cycle lane thing, without bothering with the segregated lanes?
Ah, the build it and they will come hypothesis: As related by every town planner and highway engineer in the UK over the last half century or so. Of course they were keen on segregation before that, but they didn't even attempt to claim it was for our benefit then - they hoped for legislation to force us to use it.
However, it is a testable hypothesis. We have built a lot of cycle infrastructure over the last 60 years. The post war new-towns, starting with Stevenage and continuing with Milton Keynes, Linvingston, Telford, Skelmesdale, Runcorn ... the list goes on. IF there was any merit whatsoever in your theory then these towns would see a lot of cycling. But they don't. Without excetion these are among the most car dependent settlements in the UK.
And don't try to brush this off by claiming that somehow these cycle neworks are incomplete or inadequate. Because the now towns were built on green fields there were not the constraints of space so they could build continuous comprehensive networks - and of reasonable quality - they don't tend to feature in Facility of the Month. People living in thes places could cycle to anywhere else in them without having to mix with traffic or any of the things you seem to think makes cycling scary - yet they don't.
Ah, the build it and they will come hypothesis: As related by every town planner and highway engineer in the UK over the last half century or so. Of course they were keen on segregation before that, but they didn't even attempt to claim it was for our benefit then - they hoped for legislation to force us to use it.
However, it is a testable hypothesis. We have built a lot of cycle infrastructure over the last 60 years. The post war new-towns, starting with Stevenage and continuing with Milton Keynes, Linvingston, Telford, Skelmesdale, Runcorn ... the list goes on. IF there was any merit whatsoever in your theory then these towns would see a lot of cycling. But they don't. Without excetion these are among the most car dependent settlements in the UK.
And don't try to brush this off by claiming that somehow these cycle neworks are incomplete or inadequate. Because the now towns were built on green fields there were not the constraints of space so they could build continuous comprehensive networks - and of reasonable quality - they don't tend to feature in Facility of the Month. People living in thes places could cycle to anywhere else in them without having to mix with traffic or any of the things you seem to think makes cycling scary - yet they don't.
edit ive seen eight cyclists today all pretty serious types drop bars matching lycra (caveat ive also seen four other people on bikes three had a can of lager/cider in hand whilst riding the fourth was about 7 years old so doesnt count as he was on the path)it seems to have worked pretty well for cars. just a thought
And don't try to brush this off by...