The Guardian bike blog - 5 out of 6 isn't bad

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
srw

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
I see that the infrastructure-everywhere fanboys are out in force, despite one quite sensible (I thought) contribution. There is a "recommend" button on the comments.
 
OP
OP
srw

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
Which is pretty much what he's saying too. But if he's going to give evidence it might at least be reasonable evidence...
 

Ern1e

Über Member
I still question the relevance of a journalist giving evidence to a Parliamentary inquiry... what insight can he offer that would be any different from what any cyclist plucked from the street might give?

This inquiry is pure window-dressing.
Just to add my view on this subject I think if he attends as a cyclist and not a reporter (unlikly) he may just put across a valuable case, I also agree it may be better for them to go out on the street and grab passing cyclists then ask them.
Ernie.
 

StuartG

slower but no further
Location
SE London
I have worries about any government having ideas on what we should do. That is not for them but for us as individuals.

I don't have worries about government helping us to stop doing things we don't want to do or can't stop ourselves. In this case the elephant in the room is car travel. It is reaching unsubstainable levels and its cons have moved well ahead of its pros. It benefits all if traffic levels can be lowered - especially for drivers themselves. If we can siphon off a proportion of car journeys to other modes it would be great. It is of secondary, nay tertiary importance whether this be train, bus, bikes or shank's pony.

That's what the parliamentary inquiry should be about. But this and AFAIR previous governments have funked targets for reducing car travel.
 
Top Bottom