Pulling wheelies

@wtjs thanks!

@HarrogateSpa could be. With some Labour / other socialist types I think it's: a) a historic reaction to the toff and/or mill owner and their horse-enhanced status. So "we'll damn well have cars also". ("Fairness", I guess). b) (partly related) many working people rely on their vehicles for work (or to get there). So "we'll fight anything that looks like them taking our independence". Of course I think excellent arguments against motor traffic dependence could be made for most political persuasions - but unfortunately it also seems that those for the status quo can also.

@kingleo but according to some posters here aren't those terrible places marred by very high cyclist fatality numbers, dreadful driving conditions, rampant drug use and (inevitably) "communism"? ("non-countries" eh Nige?) One major difference, which perhaps doesn't get enough attention, is that in NL they went through a process of deciding what all streets and roads were primarily "for". Then re-designating and indeed redesigning them and re-engineering the network to "make it so". "Monofunctional roads/streets". That means that it's much clearer where cycle infra is *required*, and where less obvious measures will do. That *would* be a major change for the UK. Our process has been that motor traffic appeared on streets which used to be foot / horse / carriage / cycle. We then had to add footways as it became clear the motor traffic was a danger (also as drivers demanded "their" streets). Then as the traffic got bigger / faster / volumes increased those non-vehicle spaces shrank... So now we commonly have a "high street" which is 1) a "place" or destination (so people want to drive and park there, but then will walk about) 2) maybe also a residential location 3) a major through route. And everyone complaining "our streets are too narrow to accommodate cycling".

@Rendel Harris Hold out for a Halfords Apollo* at least. * I did once own one. I bought it in skinter days to replace a Rudge 3-speed that I found in a scrapyard. Guess which one lasted me 4 years and which one lasted me 4 months.

@Mr Blackbird isn't it "this pub survived two World Wars, but will be destroyed by this ludicrous, dangerous cycle lane, which nobody wants and which will only be used by illegal immigrants riding unlicensed electric motorbikes..." ?

@Mr Blackbird The report on this case is on page 19 of today's Times. Maybe the more right wing rags didn't bother at all? It was on the BBC News website yesterday, but was not featured on this morning's Breakfast News.

@Rendel Harris no no NO! Won't you think of blind pedestrians, who will be in danger of falling in, then being run over by the peloton, then drowning?! Not to mention people with limited mobility who might stumble in and then not be able to get out? Or just those walking around in a relaxed manner, not paying too much attention? No, what is needed is a dedicated area to support accessibility for all. We could call it a ... road! Those with sight impairment would doubtless be ok with that as they would be able to hear the motor vehicles (unlike those deadly silent cyclists). And they could get taxis also. In fact all those who *have to drive* could use it! Cyclists would have nothing to complain about, they could ride there if they don't get in the way of motor vehicles and come to a compete stop whenever they see a pedestrian looking like they might cross...

@HoarseMann I've probably given this too much thought, but alongside each of the bridges I was going to have little in and out ramps to allow cyclists to exit for the shops rather than be confined to a straight-through run.

@kingleo Just picture a lovely character pub with all the original internal features. Baskets of flowers hanging outside. It serves an excellent selection of real ales, craft ales, quality lagers and quality ciders. Todays menu includes a ploughman's lunch, seafood platter and a vast range of sandwich fillings ; all made using locally sourced foods. But wait! A new cycle lane has just been constructed in front of the pub. It is far too dangerous to cross and enter the pub. You turn around and trudge home. Stopping at Tesco to buy a 4 pack of Carling.

@Hollis Jones as Rendel said, the key difference here is there were two strong pieces of evidence distinguishing this from "we all *know* they were aware of the cyclist", one of them a human witness. Outside that it's simply "but the prosecution cannot prove they didn't notice..." and legally that must fail. Like a "he said, she said" but where one of the sides is absent, because they're dead.