Cyclists could be advised to avoid a number of Melbourne streets deemed "unsafe" for cycling, under plans to cut deaths and serious injuries in the city.
In Australia's latest move to anger cyclists, a draft plan has been released suggesting certain roads should be declared "non-preferable routes" for cyclists.
Although the plan also proposes increasing safe cycle routes and bike parking the suggestion of non-preferable routes was met with derision by cycling groups, who say this is another case where cyclists are considered a lower priority than motor traffic.
The City of Melbourne's mayor, Robert Doyle, told 3AW radio station: "I don't like the word ban. I like to say some streets yes, some streets maybe, some streets no. A traffic light system."
"At the moment the road rules say [cyclists] can, they can go anywhere."
"It's not just the safety of the cyclist and the immediate vehicle.
"Often, because it's so narrow, the cars actually have to move out a lane or a half lane – it creates traffic confusion behind, and that creates danger as well.
"I just think to myself, honestly, high volumes of buses travelling at speed and bikes just don't mix."
Nik Dow, from the Melbourne Bicycle Users Group, told The Age: "Every time there's a clash between bikes and cars, council supports the cars."
"This is not planning that will get people riding. Their thinking is all wrong."
City of Melbourne is actually going to consider declaring certain CBD streets as no-go zones for riders. Pathetic. http://t.co/fGNDZuGUIF
— St Etienne (@BicycleAdagio) October 8, 2015
The proposals are part of the city's draft bicycle plan, which was presented to council after community engagement. Other aspects of the plan include building inter-connected neighbourhood routes and a floating pontoon bike route on the Yarra River.
"Non-preferred routes" is wrong, this is blame-shifting "Cyclists urged to avoid 'dangerous' Melbourne city streets" http://t.co/mLMUcaLjpU
— Yarra BUG (@yarrabike) October 8, 2015
As Doyle points out, however, not all of the roads are under his jurisdiction, and are instead the remit of VicRoads, the regional transport body.
He added the city's bike lanes have been built "at expense" and cyclists should use them.
"The designated lane is there to keep people safe and that's why we want them to use it. I think we will come to a point at some point where we designate streets," he said.
"Banning it? Well that's for VicRoads, not for us, but we can certainly start that process of education, saying to people, look, there are some streets where it's simply not safe to ride, that's common sense, let's abide by that.
"This is not anti-cycle, this is pro-cycle, this is common sense to keep people safe."
He went on to say VicRoads "is interested" to look into potential streets where it's "just not safe" to cycle, citing Copenhagen as a city where some roads don't permit bikes.























56 thoughts on “Melbourne mayor looks to discourage cyclists from some streets”
Quote:This is not anti-cycle,
Pro-cycling would be declaring these routes unfit for motor vehicles. If they can’t navigate a road without risk of killing a vulnerable road user, they shouldn’t be there.
I’d love to see a system where roads are measured on the number of deaths and serious injuries per mile driven. If it goes above a certain threshold, that road is closed to motor vehicles. Thank you very much, motorists, you had your chance, you killed people, now fuck off.
Nothing wrong with the
Nothing wrong with the principle that bikes and cars/trucks don’t mix.
Its just that the way to do that is to build the alternative before the ban not the other way round.
P3t3 wrote:Nothing wrong with
The other way round? You say that as though there is any intention to build the alternative routes!
Some roads just aren’t good
Some roads just aren’t good for cycling though.
When I take my motorbike to work (rather than train and bicycle), I commute along a stretch of the A2. I regularly pass cyclists on that road. Yes, bicycles are allowed there technically, but this is a very busy section of dual carriageway with a 50mph speed limit and it is not at all suitable for cycles.
Anyone riding it is mad if you ask me. There are other roads running parallel with 30mph limits that are a lot less dangerous for cycle use.
OldRidgeback wrote:Some roads
All true, but the public highway is nevertheless public space and should be fit for public use. Why can’t cyclists – like any other road user – take a map or a satnav and plan a route from A to B on roads they don’t know first hand, and expect it to be safe for their purpose?
ron611087 wrote:All true, but
Well said, sir; well said!
This completely ignores the
This completely ignores the sense of entitlement that the modern cyclist displays.
“I’ve bought a bicycle therefore I should be allowed to ride it anywhere and anyone who disagrees is a car bound fascist”.
crikey wrote:This completely
Yes, I mean why should we be allowed to use roads that we contribute towards the upkeep of, that by their very definition within the highway code are shared space?
Such entitlement…
crikey wrote:This completely
Does the modern motorist not display pretty much the exact same thing (along with the condition that they be able to park it anywhere)?
Maybe that’s just the way of the ‘modern person’. Or maybe it’s not even that modern at all.
crikey wrote:This completely
Fixed that for you (I believe is the term)
Bear in mind that Australians are the second-fattest people in the world, after Americans. Discouraging cycling is not a great way to reduce mortality.
(It sounds as if you are coming from the stance that cycling is a leisure/sporting activity and that it doesn’t much matter where you cycle? The point is that if its to be a practical way of going from one place to another, if routes aren’t safe you need to fix that, not just ban cycling from them)
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Actually as much as I hate fat Australian Mayors I hate bad statistics even more.
For those who are interested you can get the most up to date stats from here: http://www.worldobesity.org/resources/
The league-toppers may surprise you.
Anyone recall the League of Fatties from Judge Dredd? Who would have thought that would be so prophetic…
2old2mould
Actually as much as I hate fat Australian Mayors I hate bad statistics even more.
For those who are interested you can get the most up to date stats from here: http://www.worldobesity.org/resources/
The league-toppers may surprise you.
Anyone recall the League of Fatties from Judge Dredd? Who would have thought that would be so prophetic…— FluffyKittenofTindalos
I’m not sure I can be bothered to wade into the detail there (I’m lazy!). But I’m going on the study that was widely reported recently, that put Australia at number two in the developed world (the UK isn’t very far behind, obviously). It surprised me because I had a completely stereotyped view of Aussies as being bronzed surfer types.
And I don’t know what New Zealanders’ excuse is, with all that nice pretty Lord-of-The-Rings scenery to go hiking in.
(I mean, Australians I guess have to worry about skin cancer, spiders and sharks, so maybe they have an excuse not to go out – what’s keeping NZers from getting out and exercising?)
Might have been this story, can’t remember.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-29/australian-obesity-rates-climbing-fastest-in-the-world/5485724
The only other surprise that came up recently was that Mexico is almost as bad as the US, but that didn’t count as a developed country in the list.
I guess its not surprising that Saudi women are so overweight. Lack of cycle infrastructure being the least of the obstacles there.
crikey wrote:This completely
But isn’t it more that they’ve bought a vehicle which is legally entitled to ride on any road which is legally allowed to…? Bikes aren’t allowed to ride on motorways so they don’t go there. The rest of the road system- certainly here in the UK – is fair game. If a road, not a motorway, is so dangerous that they want to ban cycling there then it’s too dangerous full stop, and something really needs to be done about it.
A politician publicly
A politician publicly admitting that they have failed in their statutory(?) responsibilities to have streets which are safe for all to use, somewhere a Sir Humphrey is saying “how very courageous, Mayor”.
See?
As Professor Mercury
See?
As Professor Mercury suggested many years ago…
” I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride it where I like ”
One of the options is to suggest that some roads are not suitable for cycles just as some roads are not suitable for HGVs or buses or cars; which is a sensible, adult way of dealing with conflicts of interest.
Another way is to stamp your feet.
crikey wrote:One of the
Ideally though, with the caveat that acceptable bicycle-suitable options are actually provided.
This system is already in place to an extent; bikes are banned on Motorways, and ‘discouraged’ from roads such as the A46 (by way of “Cyclists advised to seek alternative route” signs), as well as shorter strips of road like the Hammersmith flyover.
Designing different roads with different forms of transport in mind is indeed, not a bad idea.
What IS a bad idea is the that of ‘improving cyclist safety’ solely through restriction, rather than though the enabling safer options.
What ‘the modern cyclist’ wants above all else is what other person wants from a form of transport; to be able to get where they’re going in a safe, straight-forward and direct manner. Simply ‘being banned’ is unsurprisingly, not what many people are looking for .
If you can argue that ‘being banned’ alone counts as a holistic solution to balancing the above 3 qualities, then the argument is yours for the taking, and you can continue poncing about on your high horse. If not, then you might be able to see what people are ‘stamping their feet’ about.
Quince wrote:crikey wrote:One
I’m not defending the plans, I haven’t seen them and i’ll warrant most of the people on here haven’t either – however it does seem from the article and the quotes that that plan does not involve a ban (that’s discussed a few times) and does have some other fluffier sounding stuff in it..
..whether they are any use to man or beast is another matter, but it would be more useful to slate people for what’s actually in the story and their comments rather than some imagined position or quote.
fukawitribe wrote:
I’m not
The bit that screams ‘ban’ the most to me is ironically this one;
“The City of Melbourne’s mayor, Robert Doyle, told 3AW radio station: “I don’t like the word ban. I like to say some streets yes, some streets maybe, some streets no. A traffic light system.””
More specifically, the “some streets no” part. To my ears “no to bikes” means as much as “bikes banned”, regardless of what words the mayor happens to “like to say”.
But you’re right in that I’ve swallowed the incendiary bit of the article with a bit too much gusto. It could be that the rest of the plan is full of sensible, progressive suggestions that would drastically improve Melborne as a place to live. I’ll flick through it. It may stop me automatically interpreting any article with the words ‘bicycle’ and ‘Australia’ as a proclamation of the Apocolypse.
Quote:(It sounds as if you
Just as people who drive cars (incidentally many of the same people who ride bicycles…) don’t get up in arms about not being allowed to drive through pedestrianised areas or on pavements, people who ride bicycles might want to consider that some roads are not desirable places to cycle on.
I don’t personally agree with segregation and have never been a supporter of removing cyclists from traffic by using separate facilities. There are, however, a number of roads that I choose not to cycle on because I regard them as unsafe.
We could try to make them safe, but the effort would cost a vast amount of money, further destroy valuable natural habitats and scenic valleys all so cyclists can say they won.
If cycling is to become a viable, sensible option for commuting, leisure and sport there are concessions to be made, compromises to be reached and above all a reduction in the silliness that suggests that cycles should be allowed everywhere.
crikey wrote:Quote:(It sounds
Perhaps we don’t radically disagree, but personally I want to see cars to be not allowed in nearly as many places as they currently are (there aren’t very many ‘pedestrianised areas’, that’s kind of the problem). That would certainly be the best way to create safer routes for bikes (and pedestrians, for that matter). So yes, concessions need to be made – mostly by motorists, who currently have the upper-hand. The silliest aspect of it is the extent to which motorists are at war with themselves, wanting to both drive and park in the same space.
“I personally don’t agree
“I personally don’t agree with segregation”.
Well there’s not much point listening to anything else you say then.
crikey wrote:There are,
Surely whether s road is safe or unsafe is a matter of your own perception. You choose not to cycle on roads that you feel are unsafe but someone else might be cool with them. If there are objective standards on safe/unsafe then the councils ought to have already fixed the unsafe ones for fear of a corporate manslaughter charge…
crikey wrote:
I don’t
It’s a slight misquote, but if you ARE in favour of ‘banning/restricting cycling on existing roads’ (to some degree), and are NOT in favour or providing alternative ‘separate, dedicated infrastructure’, isn’t the logical conclusion of the two that your grand dream for cycling is, ‘simply not being able to ride a bike in as many places’?
I’m really struggling to draw any other conclusion, and the two preceding statements seem pretty solid representations of what you’ve previously stated.
It just somehow doesn’t seem very ambitious.
crikey wrote:I don’t
Think about the roads you do choose to cycle on – would everyone else aged 8-80 feel safe cycling on them? Would you be happy for your young niece or elderly aunt to venture out on them by bike? You seem to forget that many roads currently feel very unsafe for a large percentage of the population – including schoolchildren, the elderly, women – that would love to cycle but have no desire to mix with heavy traffic.
Safe cycling infrastructure doesn’t have to mean adding protected bike paths everywhere – just where other alternatives wouldn’t be as effective. There is a whole range of things that cities and councils can do – such as filtered permeability – to remove conflict between different modes of transport, as the Netherlands has demonstrated to great effect.
In any case, DfT figures on the cost effectiveness of cycling infrastructure mirror those found across the world: projects in Cambridge and Oxford are expected to yield benefit to cost ratios of 35.5 :1 and 16.5:1. I think those benefits are well worth pursuing.
I’m mystified by this. First, the article is about central Melbourne and certain of its dangerous and supposedly completely unalterable streets. I visited last year and didn’t see many ‘valuable natural habitats’ or ‘scenic valleys’. In the Yarra Valley and Mornington Peninsula, yes, but not the CBD. Does the provision of infrastructure that offers a clean and active mode of transport as an alternative to congesting, polluting motor vehicles really destroy natural habitats?
But, whatever – we can’t have cyclists seen to be winning, can we?
I find it interesting that you feel that after decades of compromise and neglect on the part of transport authorities for a valuable mode of active transport, people who wish to use bikes deserve to expect no more than continued compromise and neglect.
And your argument is a strawman, anyway. No one is arguing that ‘cycles should be allowed everywhere’. That isn’t the case even in the Netherlands now.
crikey wrote:I don’t
Lucky you to have a choice.
Let me paint a real life scenario which is applicable in the UK as it is in AU:
Cyclist plans a new route to Upper Bottomwallop. Knowing the roads are designed by wuckfits he takes care to research and plan recommended roads avoid dangerous roads and sets off. Halfway there he realises the he has missed a turn somewhere and is no longer on the planned route. He has no idea where he is, but still heading in the right general direction so he cycles on looking for signposts. Some way on he finds a signpost pointing to Upper Bottomwallop. Joy! It’s not a motorway so he follows the signpost because hey, Upper Bottomwallop is where he wants to go!
A few miles on and the road has merged with another and taken on a different character. He’s now aiming a terrified course between HGV’s passing on his right and a heavily ridged rumble strip on his left with no way out.
Improbable? That’s happened to me and I bet I’m not the only cyclist who’s had that, or a similar experience.
You can’t have a road system where you say it’s OK to use, except where it isn’t. That’s not OK. Not now, not ever!
@fukawitribe
Fair point –
@fukawitribe
Fair point – Australia’s just an abstraction to me, really, just a pretext for arguing the general point. But still, if a route is officially designated ‘not desirable’ one wonders how long before that becomes a factor in legal cases in the event of an accident?
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Yeah, alas you’re probably right.
Quote:Perhaps we don’t
I would agree wholeheartedly with that. I’m just a bit weary and wary of the current demands being made on behalf of cycling. I feel there is a danger that we become seen as the enemy rather than a coherent part of the solution to everyone’s transport needs.
Cycling works for some people, for some of the time in some places. The demands of a vocal and largely well-off minority need to be tempered somewhat.
While I agree with all the
While I agree with all the above points on bikes having the right to roads having commuted in Melbourne I can tell you there are certain roads that you have to be INSANE to even think about riding on. That ratio is WAY HIGHER than in London. The city is complete death trap. Partly it’s the roads (big, wide suburban grids that people speed along 50mph on 30 roads is not uncommon) and partly it’s attitude – you think people hate cyclists here? Not even close. The attitude you can see demonstrated above – hate disguised as mere ignorance.
So, I kinda think he’s a little bit right at a practical level, but also he’s a lot wrong at a conceptual and humane level.
Is there not some kind of
Is there not some kind of test that can be applied before these people are allowed into public office?
Perhaps Melbourne would be a more harmonious place if this idiot wasn’t allowed to speak publicly? I don’t want to use the word ban, but perhaps he’d look somewhat less stupid if he didn’t make his thoughts public.
Quote:Well there’s not much
You’ve posted to tell me you’re going to ignore me? Bless..
@Quince; I’m against segregation because it requires a vast investment of pubic money which …at present… will only be of benefit to a small number and it reinforces the idea that the only way to be safe on a bike is to be away from traffic. Look at the Copenhagen video; cyclists as traffic.
Because the real world, and specifically the real world away from London, Bristol, Oxford etc., isn’t like that.
There are some places where bikes don’t work; that’s not a political stance, it’s fact of life in the UK.
crikey wrote: I’m against
Ok, cool. Let’s not bother planning for future provision.
@crikey
Relative to the
@crikey
Relative to the amounts currently being hosed away on building yet more roads, segregated facilities come cheap. And have the potential to benefit many people. I know a lot of people who would be much happier to start cycling if good segregated paths were available.
As for “there are some places where bikes don’t work”. Well, clearly. The Eigerwand, for example. But no road is among the places where bikes “don’t work”. What may be true is that some roads are too dangerous for bikes because of the selfish, impatient, aggressive incompetents using them in motorised vehicles. We could try to fix the real problem, instead of pretending that the danger is an inherent feature of the place.
crikey wrote:Quote:Why can’t
Fair enough, but can’t you see that there is a world of difference between saying “there are some places where bikes don’t work” and actually, legally, banning those bikes from certain roads.
Any tarmacced road within a city boundary *should* be a place where bikes work. Remember, the mayor of Melbourne isn’t talking about banning bikes from a motorway, but from streets within the city – imagine if TfL suddenly announced that bikes were banned from Oxford Sreet and Regent Street; of if Bristol City Council announced that bikes were banned from Baldwin Street…
brooksby wrote:Remember, the
No, he’s not saying they’re going to ban people from the streets though, is he ? The only discussion about that was with regard to VicRoads. The phrase was ‘declared “non-preferable routes” for cyclists’ which from alotronics comment is perhaps more a case of stating the obvious. The ideas may still be poor but they’re clearly not what you think they are.
crikey wrote:Quote:Well
You’ve posted to tell me you’re going to ignore me? Bless..
@Quince; I’m against segregation because it requires a vast investment of pubic money which …at present… will only be of benefit to a small number and it reinforces the idea that the only way to be safe on a bike is to be away from traffic. Look at the Copenhagen video; cyclists as traffic.
Because the real world, and specifically the real world away from London, Bristol, Oxford etc., isn’t like that.
There are some places where bikes don’t work; that’s not a political stance, it’s fact of life in the UK.
Small number? A good guess at the latent demand for cycling if there was decent infrastructure is the difference between UK and Dutch levels of cycling. Not a small number.
crikey wrote:
Because the
London, Bristol, Oxford, etc _is_ ‘the real world’. This is an urbanised country, most of the population live in urban areas. Its the rest of it that’s unreal!
@pamplemousse,Try not to be
@pamplemousse,Try not to be obtuse, eh?
Instead of constantly looking at Amsterdam or Copenhagen and shouting ever louder for ever more funds just for cycling, try thinking about the whole picture. Try thinking about mass transit, try thinking about people who travel into and out of towns and cities over long distances. Try thinking about less flat areas of the UK, try thinking about wetter, windier places. Try thinking about people who have children to get to school before a 15 mile commute.
The re-population of city centres is a recent phenomenon, as is the popularity of cycling. There are other important things to spend money on which will benefit more people than cycling facilities.
I wholeheartedly approve and support efforts to get more people on bikes, but in a realistic way.
crikey wrote:Instead of
But people are shouting for cycle funding precisely because funding for other roads for motor vehicle transport is the default position. Cycling does form part of the whole picture, you know.
I walk the kids to the village school then ride into work. About six miles or so; doesn’t kill me (of, and there *are* hills). I appreciate some people live thirty/forty/fifty miles from the office, but they kind of made that choice and nobody is expecting them to cycle that distance. But a *lot* more people would cycle within city boundaries if they were given the opportunity. And I’m afraid that does require some spending.
“I’m a cyclist myself…” 😉
For this to really be about
For this to really be about helping cyclists, they would have to complete the circle by also finding ways for discouraging motorised through-traffic on the roads recommended to cyclists. When I started commuting by bike I studiously looked at local bike routes that were recommended because they avoided busy and fast roads. Which was great…until I started to encounter drivers using these alternative routes as rat-runs. And those rat-running drivers – keen no doubt to make sure that taking the smaller and more circuitous roads is ‘worth it’ in terms of reducing their journey time by a few seconds – drive faster and take more risks. Super.
But how do you discourage through traffic? Any method I have ever heard of is accused of being part of a ‘war on the motorist’.
I’ve been a cyclist for 30
I’ve been a cyclist for 30 years, all through those times when there were no cycle lanes, no Hi Vis, not even clipless pedals or Gore Tex and we used jumpers for goalposts, hmmm, wasn’t it?
I’ve commuted for a long time by bike, I’ve completed 100s of surveys about infrastructure and been talked at by many a fresh faced youth keen to impress on me the wonders of cycling…
The mistake that most cyclists make is to frame the debate about themselves; they forget those for whom cycling would be difficult, they forget the elderly, they forget people who wouldn’t be able to work if cycles were the only transport.
I work in a department with 80 others. Even if money was no object and the best, most direct, safe routes were created, I think about 20 of them would cycle to work, only in the summer.
I’m 50 odd and riding home after 12-13 hours on my feet, in the dark, in the rain, in the wind, in the cold, up the hill is rubbish……even with £2Ks worth of bike and £300 of fancy kit to keep me warm and dry.
Quick, reliable, cheap, safe mass transit systems are the answer, cycling is part of the solution, but it’s not as important.
crikey wrote:
Quick,
The problem is, public transport is rubbish. In London (which probably has the best of it) buses are slower than walking and the tube is more expensive than flying (well, distance for distance!) as well as being horrendously overcrowded and unreliable.
I would say though that the number one reason why buses are so crap, is that there are too many cars clogging up the road. Swap as many cars as possible for bikes and there will be room for a useable bus service.
I also think you underestimate how many people would consider cycling if it were _radically_ safer and more pleasant than it currently is.
Quote:Small number? A good
You’re meant to be ignoring me, aren’t you?
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjABahUKEwi165KgqbXIAhXLSRoKHS-iDyw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fneweconomymanchester.com%2Fdownloads%2F2940-TNE-Travel-to-work-patterns-in-Greater-Manchester-pdf&usg=AFQjCNGM87LO5s8HhGL0rQs7c7Fj_JazcA
You can have a look here at the numbers; I’ve not read it all and I’m off to the pub.
http://road.cc/content/news/1
http://road.cc/content/news/167566-150000-slough-cycle-hub-yet-be-used-three-months-after-opening#comment-395037
:W
Crikey, I understand some of
Crikey, I understand some of the points you raise, and obviously cycling on a motorway wouldn’t make sense, on dual carriageways can be frightening.
As has been pointed out though, it is the actions of those in the powerful ton of metal that needs most redressing rather than someone who is probably reliant upon this mode of transport pressing a ‘ban’ button.
As for your empathy of those commuting into cities, on the school run etc. again I feel you massively miss the point (or live in a nice bubble). I am somewhat fortunate as I walk my 2 youngest to school (about a mile) and then ride to work (a further couple of miles). Rarely do I have an issue with other pedestrians, dogs, puddles etc. but every single day someone in a car endangers life. We cross a zebra crossing, our personal record is 8 cars passing over this whilst waiting to cross, usually in excess of the 30mph limit. Near to the school there is a 4 way traffic light system, quite a wide junction, every single day the “do not enter until your exit is clear” is totally ignored often resulting in card beeping and revving at those crossing the road as the green man is lit up (for a whole 10 seconds). Further to that is the amount of cars around the school; illegally parked, parking on the school’s yellow do not park lines, causing gridlock, opening doors into traffic, making stupid turning manoeuvres. To be fair, most of the time they aren’t endangering their child as they are in the car, it’s much more likely to be mine that they injure or kill.
People are ridiculous, apparently it is really hard to get into a school, er no, you pretty much automatically get a place in a school <2 miles from your house – walk! The desire to drive to work is understandable as public transport is shit, but rather than the government fix this issue they invest in more roads and let the private companies rip off and endanger their customers. As the commuter climbs into their metal box they take on the position of self righteous bully and try and intimidate those who have chosen not to become a slave to their car!
Imbeciles, one and all!
alansmurphy wrote:As the
Self-righteous ? All of them imbeciles ? Fuck me my ironicrometer just broke…
I agree and empathise with
I agree and empathise with all of that, and I appreciate we have moved away from the original topic somewhat. My concern is that cycling has become fashionable, the traffic cause du jour, and there is a danger that we invest in it for the benefit of relatively few people.
Cycling is a good thing, good for the environment, good for the health, good for many reasons.
Its not a panacea, it’s not going to answer the questions raised by the need to get a million people in to and out of Manchester every day.
If you build it they will come only works in films.
All of which brings us
All of which brings us neatly, albeit somewhat hysterically back to my original suggestion…
So because of your geographical ineptitude, every road in the entire UK should be made safe to cycle on?
Is it me, or is this;
a) naïve,
b) unrealistic, and
c) a wonderful example of the sense of entitlement that I was bemoaning a while ago?
Some roads are not suitable for bicycles.
A couple of examples that I have ridden on;
1. The A64 from Leeds to York.
Great fun to be dragged along in the wind at 30 mph by traffic doing 60 mph about 4 feet from my shoulder, but not for the faint hearted.
2. The A628 Woodhead pass.
Lovely, scenic, but given that it is a link between the M1 and the M6, M60 and joins Manchester to Sheffield, riding up it with streams of HGVs is not my idea of fun.
This is the situation now, today. We could try to change it, but in a political and economic climate of austerity I suspect that the money is better spent on, as above, mass transit systems which allow those distances to be covered quicker by more people…
crikey wrote:So because of
Geographical ineptitude?
Some of us occasionally miss a turn. I humbly apologise for not having first hand knowledge of every road in the UK and the expectations that the result doesn’t turn out to be fatal purely because I’m riding a bike, not a car.
FFS, what’s the name behind your handle. Keith Peat?
crikey does have a point
crikey does have a point about practicality though I think, saying “You can’t have a road system where you say it’s OK to use, except where it isn’t. That’s not OK. Not now, not ever!” is certainly on the wishful thinking side IMO, and I can’t see why it would want to be a target to try for.
You need to get one of those
You need to get one of those new fangled bicycles, the kind that can stop and then turn around when the route you have chosen to be on turns out to be less than suitable…
Yes, I’m playing to the gallery, yes I’m being argumentative, but it seems to be needed to expose the self righteousness that riding a bicycle encourages.
We are a tiny crowded country that has fallen hook, line and sinker for the ‘great car owning democracy’ line sold to us many years ago. The car has been king for a long time and changing that will take money, time and a sea change in attitude from the vast majority of the UK public.
Stamping our SPD shod feet will not help, being realistic and pragmatic about where we are and where we would like to be will.
Probably a reflection of diet
Probably a reflection of diet much more than exercise. ‘Abs are made in the kitchen’ apparently, according to my gym rat son.
I do my best to be properly hydrated, but again, ‘beer isn’t a recovery drink’.
I don’t know Bristol, but
I don’t know Bristol, but London and Oxford have the advantage of being flat. The weather is also better than that seen further North, and it doesn’t get dark as soon.
It’s grim up here. 😉
crikey wrote:I don’t know
If it helps to visualise: Bristol is very much the opposite of flat 😉
(And I grew up in the north – it wasn’t so grim…)
Melbourne is undoubtably the
Melbourne is undoubtably the worst urban centre that I have ever cycled in. It makes London feel like Amsterdam.
Shhh. It’s actually
Shhh. It’s actually brilliant, but we want to keep it quiet…