Maybe not scientists, but maybe politicians should be: original Marlboro Man Bob Norris quit in disgust at the effect of his ads on children and contributed to anti-smoking campaigns. Norris never smoked, while one of his successors, Wayne McLaren, did and then starred in an anti-smoking ad from his hospital bed.When fighting cancer the scientists aren't forced to take into account the views of the Marlboro Man.
You may be right, but do people/individuals apply the same logics as businesses do? Are they driven by similar goals?What I suspect this is likely to result in is a change in ownership. Rather than sinking capital into a car for exclusive use people will be paying at the time of use for transport services from someone - either car sharing or an Uber type model. A bit like the fact that no company sinks capital into datacentres any more.
Whether this will result in more cycling or not I have no idea.
Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro. Most things I've seen say it'll be tunnelled under the city centre, which seems a bit of an expensive choice in such a notoriously wet lowland. Also, buses are planned to use at least some of the current busways but the proposed tunnel uses a different guidance system. All rather odd to me and some suggest bi-mode battery-electric trolleybuses would make more sense.I think Cambridge are planning driverless minibuses, running very frequently on demand along bus routes.
I wish there was but i don't think that change is coming anytime soon, what i see around me is too less to late and made designed by people who are unlikely to ever use it themselves. Which leads to a cycle lane that merges with a 2 lane 70mph road for example, and if that was because they would be no space you could argue something like '' they needed to do something etc.'; but it's not probably after an x amount of yards it no longer their problem because it is an other council/county council whatever.I'm not sure there's the same desire here in the UK right now that there was in the Netherlands back then. But perhaps perceptions are shifting?
How hopeful am I that the future will be much better?
Better? Yes, guardedly hopeful.
Much better? Not so much, at least not within a decade.
Oh I know far too many examples of that. In London, most cycle routes that stray onto a road controlled by Kensington Borough downgrade abruptly. In the West Midlands, there's an OK-but-not-great cycleway along the A429 that dumps you back onto the wrong side of the road at the Warwickshire boundary, although it looks like they have at least extended the 30mph limit since the first time I rode it, making it marginally easier not to get squished as you merge across by a motorist approaching from over your left shoulder. https://showmystreet.com/#v6a85_-xh27_77.a_-af43probably after an x amount of yards it no longer their problem because it is an other council/county council whatever.
But then there's Belgium, which is almost as good for cycling (but not quite) and such things in Flanders are currently controlled by a cluster fark of 2300ish government bodies (consolidation into I think 17 was agreed a week or two ago). I think they've done it by making their Cycling/Road Design handbook compulsory by law and having a regulator slapping roads authorities silly if they deviate too far. That could happen in England, with Active Travel England as the slapper, but we still don't know whether it will or not... here's hoping!That also a difference with the Netherlands, watermanagement, roads etc. are all controlled by one government body.(and i'm in general not a favor of a big goverment but it this example it works really well.)
Ah, the good old "parallel cycling network which covers the whole count[r]y" myth. No. No-one is waiting for or expecting that any time soon. Excluding or restricting motor vehicles is a fine way to make existing roads acceptable cycling infrastructure. I'm all in favour of that. It's what they do in the Netherlands: I think more than half of my first cycling tour in the Netherlands was done on motor-restricted roads rather than specific cycleways.Cycling infra is a total red herring. We've a nationwide system of roads, perfectly good enough for cycling. The problem is that we are obliged to share it with drivers of motor vehicles. The answer, in my view, is not to marginalise cyclists into their own (incomplete, poorly designed, poorly maintained) ghetto of cycling facilities, it's to exclude or restrict motor vehicles. Slow em down, introduce presumed liability, firmly enforce existing laws and, when the opportunity arises, redesign roads and junctions to prioritise the safe passage of peds and pedallers. If we wait for a parallel cycling network which covers the whole county we'll be waiting forever. Literally forever.
Hear Hear, preferably the 9,000 quid jobbies!The government should work out how many gazillions have been spent on scrappage schemes, grants towards the purchase of battery cars, etc, and devote the same about to buying new bicycles for those that want to cycle.
The Bicycle Association called for zero VAT on bikes and parts, and grants for ebikes. https://road.cc/content/news/industry-calls-no-vat-bikes-subsidies-e-bikes-273329The government should work out how many gazillions have been spent on scrappage schemes, grants towards the purchase of battery cars, etc, and devote the same about to buying new bicycles for those that want to cycle.
Proper self driving cars are miles away (pardon the pun) from reality and even then it will take decades for normal cars to be driven off the roads.