Cyclist casualties almost double in Yorkshire district that hosted Tour de France

Isn't this the whole problem in a nutshell? Takes ages to deliver half a scheme, which is then poor at the intended purpose, thus promoting even the middle ground to conclude that few want to cycle and it's a waste of money / capacity? The status quo is that way because it's self-reinforcing (now... with large injecting of taxpayer money...) Cars offer convenience. But they also reduce any desire to walk / cycle in closer proximity to them. Because they're space-inefficient they then take over spaces. And for decades we've framed "where should we site x" in terms of "can people drive there from y", building in motor dependency. Then: because all the money and effort goes into motor vehicle works, the councils don't have expertise or large budgets to hand for active travel - especially not cycling. Because of the space inefficiency and incentive to drive, small losses in motoring capacity can easily lead to substantial delays and (short term) congestion. And thus promote an outsize reaction from drivers. ("No alternatives" - because we've gone all-in on motoring). And businesses everywhere consistently overestimate the importance of customers being able to *drive* to their business.

Sorry, but Glasgow City Council keep quoting Victoria Road, and the higher than average share of traffic thats on bikes. The majority of the road is blocked to cars, with only buses and taxi's permitted beyond the southern end, so cars generally avoid going via this route. It's meaningless. Try looking at the parallel roads to see where the cars are. I am a keen cyclist and all for safer riding, but how Glasgow has gone about this - and totally mismanaged its delivery with schemes that should take months taking years, resulting in chaos and a city that looks like a council dump - has resulted in unprecedented animosity toward cyclists. Glasgow isnt a model to shout about.

A climate scientist taken out by a motorist is symbolic of the primary societal problem causing driver anger toward cyclists. It’s irrational, but climate emergency fear and denial is resulting in angrier motorists taking it out on those they consciously or subconsciously perceive to be the enemy. Cyclists are symbolic of the inevitable change ahead, whereby active transport is the best solution for the rampant energy consumption problem for humanity in the post Industrial Age. (AI data centres and water consumption will be next). Conversely protecting cyclists is symbolic of a self aware society preparing for a better world without fossil fuels. It’s obvious, so why isn’t it happening? RIP Francois Primeau and thank you.

@ktache thanks very much, you have a good memory, the thread was about a crowdsourced site to give details of cars that would fit road bikes without a rack outside. I’ll post the links separately as they’ll be stuck in moderation. I’ve just got back from a brilliant weekend cycling in France, in Suisse Normande.

@ktache thanks very much, you have a good memory, the thread was about a crowdsourced site to give details of cars that would fit road bikes without a rack outside. I’ll post the links separately as they’ll be stuck in moderation. I’ve just got back from a brilliant weekend cycling in France, in Suisse Normande.

That's the most convoluted logic I can imagine! Cyclists don't frequent this road because there is no cycle lane. Then a cycle lane is put in for the cyclists. Now cyclists don't use the cycle lane even though there IS a cycle lane! What's the point of putting in a cycle lane and wasting all that money!!!! ("Forgot" to mention that cars park in the cycle lane.)

@ktache isn't it mostly European standards which apply for impacts with pedestrians? notjustbikes was suggesting in on of his videos that as a result of the US tariff strong-arm tactics Europe at least might be doing a deal with "reciprocal recognition of standards". That would essentially declare the US tests as good - and apparently US car makers get to mark their *own* homework also...

Cradle Care you say? "Nobody shops for their baby clothes on a bike!" "You certainly can't carry a child on a bike!" "No way can you carry *two* kids on a bike!" "These cycle paths make it too dangerous for children which is why we all drive them and need to park right outside (to minimise the danger from ... er ... cyclists" I'm being unfair, but isn't it mostly "we can't walk / cycle because places are unpleasant / feel too dangerous *because of all the motor traffic*?" Yes, I know there's quite a steep hill there...

There was a bit in the forum a while back, someone was attempting to create a web based thing. Forum went a bit sour with the upgrade, but I do remember mark1a's fine travelling tool kit...

Clearly it's hard not to do so - indeed you seem to have separated "us that ride bicycles" from others already... Ultimately concentrations of people - that is, urban spaces - work best when there is indeed a (physical) separation between quite different modes of transport *. Trains, motor vehicles, "cycles" and pedestrians. And bigger, heavier vehicles (driven by the same indifferent drivers) just make things more dangerous / put pressure on authorities to allocate even more space for their use etc. * Or as eg. the Dutch sustainable safety principle has it - homogeneity of speed / mass. And "combine where possible, separate where necessary". Note that means it *can* be sensible to share space but only where speeds / volumes of the more dangerous mode(s) are suitably controlled. Of course - "different roads for different modes" "doesn't work" if we start from the assumption that motoring is *and will/must be* the predominant mode, so that should get the existing direct routes and everything else must then be designed around it...