Transport Minister Robert Goodwill MP has drawn criticism from a number of campaigners following comments made to the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group as part of its inquiry into the Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS).
The draft CWIS was slammed by campaigners when it was published in March, with British Cycling’s Chris Boardman saying it was “not worth the paper it’s written on” without funding.
Yesterday (Monday May 24) saw Goodwill questioned about the proposals, along with a number of others, including Boardman, representatives of cycling organisations and a number of transport experts.
One of Goodwill’s more eyecatching comments was that the perception of fear of cycling in places like London could be blamed on media coverage of cycling fatalities.
However, it was his response to a question about key performance indicators (KPIs) on diversity that drew most ire on social media.
Robert Goodwill says he will consider KPIs but we need to know why women don’t want to cycle to work. His wife says a helmet spoils her hair
— APPCG (@allpartycycling) May 23, 2016
Mark Treasure, chair of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, pondered whether this might also be a major reason why so few men cycled to work.
Also bear in mind here that >96% of men don’t cycle to work. Must be worried about their hair, or something https://t.co/DXaWffDFC9
— Mark Treasure (@AsEasyAsRiding) May 23, 2016
Another claim was that funding per cyclist was in a healthy state in the UK. Although he also said that more was always wanted.
Robert Goodwill says there will never be enough money for cycling. He says that spending has tripled to £7 per head
— APPCG (@allpartycycling) May 23, 2016
The sustainable transport charity Sustrans calculates the current level of spend to be £1.35 per person per year. It says that £17.35 per person per year will have to be spent over the next 10 years if the government is to meet its target of doubling the levels of cycling over the next decade.
Goodwill also said Britain was ‘on a par’ with other European countries when it came to cycling. When asked by the panel which ones, he said he would get back to them.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
100 thoughts on “Transport Minister draws flak after cycling inquiry”
To be fair there will be a
To be fair there will be a subset within a subset within a subset of women who will actually have to worry about a helmet or wind wrecking their appearance as they roll into work who do not have the ability to smarten themselves up after a ride either due to lack of experience, skill or facility.
Since the wife started cycling I’ve never once heard her talk about hair other than (jealous!) slights about how my legs are silkier than hers. Clueless drivers, rain, the absolute horror of an assault course that passes itself off as ‘roads’ in Edinburgh, all feature regularly.
Q) Which one of these would you like the transport minister to concentrate on in his job?
I think he’s right, but not
I think he’s right, but not just about women. The problem is showering and wash facilities when you arrive at work. My office is great with 6 (3 female, 3 male) showers and decent changing facilities and secure bike locking. we probably have 60/40 men to women cycling to work, approximately the same ratio as the population of the office.
I couldn’t cycle to work if these facilities weren’t here.
balmybaldwin wrote:
Personally, I wouldn’t even ride to the shops without a change of clothes and a place to shower…
Via the wonderful new cyclingfallacies.com – “half of all commuters in England travel less than 3 miles to work”. That’s where we fail first, and demographics come into play. Women on average have shorter commutes than men and are also the ones least likely to cycle when the environment is dangerous.
balmybaldwin wrote:
While showers are a bonus the reality of it is they are not necessary as most people live within 2/3 miles of their work place and this kind of distance doesn’t require a shower. It’s a distance that can be covered in 10/15 minutes without breaking a sweat. In many ways we do cycling as a mode of transport a great disservice by creating an image of wearing Lycra and all the other accoutrements and arrive at the office dripping with sweat happily content that we’ve managed a personal best on Strava. It is something that really does put folk off. I’ll freely admit I wear Lycra for my commute, the only reason being is that I’ll cycle 30 miles home as I finish at 1pm. This is my choice. If I was to cycle the normal 5 miles home I would be in regular clothes. Same applies to socialising/shopping I wear regular clothes and don’t demand shower facilities when using my bike.
People are interested in cycling to work. A good number of my colleagues would cycle, but the attitudes of motorists put them off as well as the poor infrastructure. I tell them that they don’t need special kit or helmets or drop bars to get to work. All they need is a reliable bike. And they’re sorted. it doesn’t need to be carbon, electronic shifting bike which many of the bike chains will try and sell you on the CTW scheme. It just needs to be a bike. I usually point folk in the direction of the local bike recycling centre to get them started for less than a hundred quid.
There is no need for showers and changing facilities in the workplace for vast majority of employees. The only requirement I would have is secure storage facilities.
Good summary here: http://www
Good summary here: http://www.cyclingindustry.news/cyclingandwalkinginvestmentstrategy/?platform=hootsuite
The sustainable transport
The sustainable transport charity Sustrans calculates the current level of spend to be £1.35 per person per year.
Cycling UK calculate 72p per person.
@Balmybaldwin
@Balmybaldwin
Regarding showers, you say you couldn’t cycle to work if they weren’t there. What on earth are you doing on your cycle to work? I need no such facilities. My commute is 15km each way. I used to live in the Netherlands for a few years, and similarly there, no-one was rushing off to the shower when they got to work any more than anyone who walked to work, or got there any other way.
Citizen Wolf wrote:
Some people sweat more than others.
Some people have higher standards of personal hygiene than others.
Some people have hillier, windier commutes than others.
Some people are fitter than others.
Some people are more efficient than others.
Some people’s jobs require them to be more presentable than others.
Some people care more about their appearance than others.
There is no way I would cycle to work (6 miles) without access to a shower any more than I would go to work straight from the gym / pool without showering and a complete change of clothing.
L.Willo wrote:
This is falling into the trap of looking at your own circumstances and extrapolating to a population as a whole.
The goal is to get to a point wehre cycling becomes normalised,e.g. a significant proportion of the population commute by bike, go to the shops by bike etc etc… The low hanging fruit 25% or so of trips under one mile are where we need to start. Simply looking at the road environment its obvious why people that could cycle don’t bother. Talking about showers is a simple distraction because at the root of it it simply isn’t a problem.
By virtue of you being on here you are an enthusiast, your cycle commute is admirably long and I imagine you take great pleasure in cycling it as fast as you can because ultimately its a sport. Nothing wrong wtih that at all. But don’t imagine you are doing a journey that would be first on this list to be converted to a cycle trip, the place to start is with journeys of a mile or less. In the right environment this doesn’t require rubber knickers, sweating or showers.
P3t3 wrote:
And this, frankly, is the issue I have with a lot of ‘cycle campaigners’ – in their enthusiasm to provide subjectively (not necessarily objectively) safe routes for people to cycle short distances, they seem to lose sight of the difficulties these generally rather useless paths inflict on those of us who cycle, quite happily, rather further.
oldstrath wrote:
Selfish bastards.
[/quote]
[/quote]
And this, frankly, is the issue I have with a lot of ‘cycle campaigners’ – in their enthusiasm to provide subjectively (not necessarily objectively) safe routes for people to cycle short distances, they seem to lose sight of the difficulties these generally rather useless paths inflict on those of us who cycle, quite happily, rather further.
[/quote]
You are saying “don’t build it because it doesn’t suit me”. Which is a false dichotomy in its self. Good quality infrastructure could work for you too. If it doesn’t, it isn’t good enough.
I’m suggesting is that showers are fairly far down the list of things to fix in order to encourage cycling. If prospective cycle commuters need to shower then the battle has already been lost, they won’t cycle for the reasons that get them in a sweat.
P3t3 wrote:
I’m saying don’t build stuff that is of similar quality and utility to what has been built to date. The paths constructed near us are neither convenient nor, in reality, especially safe; they are significantly slower and less well maintained than the roads; and their existence encourages motorists to expect my absence from ‘their road’.
I know you believe that campaigning for ‘proper infrastructure’ would fix the issues – having cycled in Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands I sympathise with this view, but my experienced reality in this country is that campaigns for segregated facilities are simply seen as validating the provision of rubbish, whatever the intent of the campaigners.
My personal experience is that the provision of showers, bike parking and a drying room do indeed help encourage cycling., maybe because all of us who cycle to my workplace have journeys of at least 6 miles and tend not to cycle slowly.
oldstrath wrote:
And that, right there, is the problem. This is your experience because that subset – the fit young (and mostly male) – go far and fast and don’t see segregated infrastructure as helping them. As evidenced by your comments. What you’re listing there (with the exception of bike parking) caters exclusively to that rather small subset of people.
But that subset isn’t likely going to increase very much. They already brave the roads, no matter how little investment active travel gets. But if we ever want to exceed our pitiful modal share of 1-2% we somehow have to get a wider subset of people on bikes.
People who won’t cycle as far. Or as fast. People who would indeed prefer sub-optimal paths as long as they’re not on the roads. There are a lot of people like that who would cycle if those needs were met, and their number far exceeds our fit and young ‘velo elite’.
That’s exactly the core of the problem with active travel in Britain. Cycling is seen as a sport, not as a mode of transport. A hobby for the indulgent middle class, not a viable alternative to the motor car for some journeys for normal people.
And people like you and me, we’re not helping, we’re reinforcing the stereotype if we only look at our needs and not at the needs of others. Others who are too scared, and – in their mind, because they only have us to look at – too unfit.
userfriendly wrote:
Young? Cheers, but I’m not sure 57 counts as young.
Fit? Well, depends on your point of view.
Male? Well yes I am, but at least half the bikes have a female rider.
Far? Not convinced that my 12 miles each way counts as far – my father would have seen that as a bit of a warm-up.
As for braving the road – the only bit of my journey where I ever get serious hassle is the section where I “should be on” the dysfunctional facility. And yes, the bike is indeed for me a viable alternative to the car, for almost all my journeys, and I feel fairly normal.
oldstrath wrote:
*sigh* fine, you’re a bit older. So what? Are you saying the typical British road cyclist isn’t young, fit and male? Are you saying we are a representative cross section of society? Come on. Of course you’re not. You know exactly what I mean, don’t be deliberately obtuse.
And yes, 12 miles – to people who don’t cycle – is far. Not to you or me. Thanks for making my point.
And again, yes, you’re largely fine on the road. So am I. Doesn’t change the fact that people who don’t cycle perceive the roads a dangerous place to be for someone on a bike. Possibly because of the way they themselves tend to drive …
oldstrath wrote:
Fit? Well, depends on your point of view.
Male? Well yes I am, but at least half the bikes have a female rider.
Far? Not convinced that my 12 miles each way counts as far – my father would have seen that as a bit of a warm-up.
As for braving the road – the only bit of my journey where I ever get serious hassle is the section where I “should be on” the dysfunctional facility. And yes, the bike is indeed for me a viable alternative to the car, for almost all my journeys, and I feel fairly normal. — oldstrath
You’re not normal, though. It’s not normal to cycle 12 miles to work. That’s fine, my 11 miles are quite abnormal as well. For most people, though, 12 miles is utterly unthinkable.
But the goal is not to get people commuting 12 miles by bike. It’s to try to persuade those commuting 5 miles or less, which is a lot of people, to go by bike.
userfriendly wrote:
I don’t think that’s the core of the problem. No one looks at me and says, there’s fifteen stone of fit lycra-warrior. I bike-commute as slow as possible, often besuited in my finest attire, as I live close enough that walking is my default choice when I don’t have meetings to get to. And I never take the road bike. I don’t think that makes me a “better” bike commuter.
Hesitation towards infrastructure may be a problem. I do hate it when drivers scream at me use the substandard and dangerous bike infrastructure a the one road where I refuse to use the pathetic excuse for a bike lane. And I’d definitely hate to be legally required to do so. But the vast majority of fit road cyclists do not fear bike infrastructure anywhere near how much they fear bad driving. It’s a worry, but it’s not the main worry. Maybe it would be better if we were all in on bike paths uber alles, but most of those who worry about some of them still support proper segregated bike paths overwhelmingly.
So I really don’t think a huge issue. Look at the Giro top three right now. All of them come from relatively cycling friendly countries. But the kicker is that two of those weren’t quite as cycling friendly until recently. The idea that sport cycling has a negative effect on transport cycling may not be all that clear. What’s more, I think the drivers who associate cycling with sporting triumph are exactly the sort of people who we need on our side. Even the Jason Wells of the world would likely give Sir Bradley his three feet. Would it be better if it didn’t matter who was cycling, sure. But change means convincing those who weren’t already on your side. Who may not think the arguments you find reasonable as compelling as you do and some you find ridiculous quite important.
And on showers: there used to be three people who bike-commuted in my office. When summer really hit, one man with a long commute (I think the fixie was also an issue, but whatever) just gave it up for good. The other man started to cycle between his cycles (moto and push). And the woman started to periodically take the bus. I think proper showers would have kept at least two of them cycling, maybe all three.
Is showers the biggest issue facing bike commuting, of course not. But again, I do think every bit helps. Just like every additional cyclists helps. I do think even us young-ish males, even those who chose to wear lycra, help make cycling a more acceptable way to get around. YMMV, as ever.
oldstrath wrote:
Agreed. It’s amazing what comes out of long-running cycling organizations’ efforts to provide “something like the Netherlands”. I can honestly say that I have never seen a decent “segregated facility”.
The provision of what can only be described as dangerous crap and the resulting pressure on me from drivers to use it puts me off cycling sometimes.
I used to forego the shower
I used to forego the shower even when we had them provided after seeing a guy I worked with (foreigner! which will give Kippers some pleasure) standing there peeing in it shamelessly. Wasn’t even having a shower, just used it instead of a urinal and there were urinals free. Just two of us in the whole area! Totally put me off so I used to take wipes and freshen up with those and some roll on. Was fine really. I do tend to sweat a lot and would definitely smell if I didn’t have a wash or wipe myself down thoroughly and change my undershirt/underwear.
most folk,even those who
most folk,even those who drive cars have a wash or shower when they get ready in the morning for work as part of their daily routine, works showers simply enable people to time shift their daily routines around to make cycling more practical for them, that’s the whole point make things practical we aren’t one size fits all cyclists,some of us would like changing rooms as I would struggle to cycle to work in regular office clothes & be presentable, in a time that made cycling commuting more practical than just hopping straight in a car.
Exactly. So how about making
Exactly. So how about making the roads safe to cycle on without a helmet?
I don’t have showers at work,
I don’t have showers at work, so I’m supporting the ‘baby wipes and spray deodorant’ industry. My commute is only six miles or thereabouts, but quite hilly (mainly uphill, going towards work). My office does have secure bike parking, though.
Unfit people sweat alot, for
Unfit people sweat alot, for a little or moderate exercise.
But once fit it is a different journey. Also having a change of clothes at work would certainly help
CXR94Di2 wrote:
Source?
I thought the science was clear that the fitter you were the sooner your body responded to temperature changes and the more efficient it became at that process (sweating sooner and sweating in larger volumes, respectively).
Goodwill’s comments are crass
Goodwill’s comments are crass in the wake of the female cyclists death in Croydon. Maybe he should consider the fact that they don’t cycle because they die when they get hit by lorries!
#FuckAllToDoWithHair
Sweat doesn’t smell – rotting
Sweat doesn’t smell – rotting sweat does. Simply wipe yourself dry with a towel and you’re good to go. Or do you have a shower following a nice walk on a hot day?
Well I’m sure Robert Goodwill
Well I’m sure Robert Goodwill has now learned his lesson.
Next time he’ll talk about showers as a distraction tactic.
If you have good segregated
If you have good segregated infrastructure then you can cycle in at a reasonable pace and (providing it is not hilly) not break a sweat. As soon as you start sharing roads with drivers impatient to reach the next queue, speed, effort and body temperature increase, because otherwise you get a massive increase in close passes.
So while it may be possible to commute and not shower on arrival, I tend to shower at work. I would shower in the morning anyway why do it before the exercise?
If I cycled the 11 miles to
If I cycled the 11 miles to work and then didn’t take a shower my colleagues would lynch me. That or I’d get sacked for being late on account of cycling at 6mph to avoid breaking a sweat. My average speed would go to pieces as well.
vonhelmet wrote:
Both those excuses have been taken, please provide some better ones.
I cycle 11 miles each day and am not a pariah at work, where ‘washing facilities’ are the disabled loo. I use a flannel on the days I get a bit warm but otherwise I just swap into my office garb. Speed in the mornings isn’t important, I save the effort for the ride home.
From the quote Mr Goodwill seems to mention his wife’s hair, I’m not sure if he assumes she is representative of women in general. But that, and blaming “media coverage of cycling fatalities” suggest he’s just really out of touch. Which, sadly, is about right for a Transport Minister.
Simon E wrote:
Good for you. I get a sweat on as soon as I look at a bike, so I can’t get away with it.
vonhelmet wrote:
— vonhelmetThat’s unfortunate (in this context, anyway).
One way I avoid or reduce overheating on the morning commute is to be ‘underdressed’ – today my summer jersey & armwarmers and lycra 3/4 felt a bit chilly at 9 deg C.
I keep clothes at work so most days carry only a bumbag with lunch, tools, keys & cash.
18 miles each way here, you
18 miles each way here, you pansies.
I need the showers.
Whether you or the next
Whether you or the next person feels accetable using a baby wipe versus shower is very personal, as an earlier comment suggested the factors involved are considerable.
As a lowly Notherner, despite a very short slow paced commute, if that big round orange thing is in the sky and I have a bag on, my shirt is utterly drenched!
Maybe if I ask this question,
Maybe if I ask this question, someone will get the point.
Amongst the people you know, what is the shortest distance you’ve known someone commute by car?
bikebot wrote:
About 0.4 km, which seemed astonishingly idle for someone with no apparent disability (except bulk). But so what?
bikebot wrote:
I girl I used to work with used to commute less than half a kilometer by car. She was 20 something and healthy.
P3t3 wrote:
You really wanted to say fit didn’t you?
What’s all the fuss about?
What’s all the fuss about? His wife does not want to cycle because a helmet will mess up her hair… but the good news is that she can _actually get on a bicycle and cycle without a helmet_ and the only difference will be that she has her hair as she likes it at the end of her pleasant, helmet-free journey.
Helmets are not a necessary part of cycling and if it’s the only thing stopping her then she should just hop on the bike and enjoy herself.
Ush wrote:
No no no no no… Don’t invoke the helmet debate; L Willo will rise from their grave and we’ll never hear the end of it!
I doubt many of these people
I doubt many of these Copenhagen commuters need a shower when they get to work:
Decent infrastructure is great for everyone. If a small number of individuals choose to mix with motorised traffic and take the extra risks that entail then fair enough but most people definitely do not! Fear of traffic is cited as the main reason many people won’t cycle regularly and good infrastructure is the only way to get around that.
Simon E wrote:
I doubt many of them are cycling 10 miles or more at 15mph or more, so the comparison isn’t fair. People in Britain commute further, because no one wants to or more likely no one can afford to live nearer to their place of work. That photo is probably a bunch of people commuting a couple of miles.
vonhelmet wrote:
And we come full circle. I’ll just repost the exact same quote again, from the same website, which has a name which more people really need to take heed of.
“half of all commuters in England travel less than 3 miles to work”, cyclingfallacies.com
bikebot wrote:
I did realise I was being somewhat inconsistent given I posted once saying people live too far to commute while also saying the target group are those who live close to work… I guess it’s an issue of there being multiple problems to solve. I live relatively far from work, so showers at work are essential for me. Others live closer but the issue of them even riding a bike is near insurmountable, be it because of fitness issues, safety, whatever.
vonhelmet wrote:
Modal share of cycling is about 2%. No reason at all that most cities and towns in the UK can’t match the 20% that Cambridge already has (and Cambridge isn’t that cycle friendly). For the next decade at least I think it’ll be for individual cities and towns to make that choice.
The job of national Government will be to enable that through planning standards, grants and favourable tax benefits. It’s not going to happen by focusing on womens hair.
And just briefly on the distance issue, everyone has missed the other big change that is happening in everyday utility cycling. Road.cc have just launched a whole website about it. http://ebiketips.co.uk/
bikebot wrote:
Cambridge is small and flat. Copenhagen ditto. Amsterdam ditto.
If you seriously think that a city like Sheffield will hit anything like 20% ….
Cycling isnt the solution to congestion. The solution is to allow people to use their time productively while travelling. This is the future, whether we like it or not:
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/24/tesla-model-s-driver-asleep-autopilot/
…. or facebook, playstation, netflix, kindle …
L.Willo wrote:
I’m not convinced that “journies of any length three or times a week” is a very helpful measure, but here goes: according to http://www.cyclinguk.org/resources/cycling-uk-cycling-statistics Bristol has 9% of people who travel by bike 3 or more times a week (DfT figures state ~2%, but have been picked apart a great deal and do at least confirm that no cyclists travel on the M32).
Anyway, Bristol a long way from being small or flat, and yet has a LOT of cyclists, so hills alone are not something that puts people off.
brooksby wrote:
Also, Bogotá, Boulder, Sevilla. All cities with (again) both a sport cycling tradition and ever improving bike path networks.
brooksby wrote:
Compared to London which has a radius of 13 miles, Bristol is small. Bristol like Cambridge is also has a higher than average student population, more likely to cycle being younger, fitter and broker (sic). Also until recently Bristol had a very pro cycling mayor who put money into cycling.
And with all that, modal share is still 9% compared to Cambridge’s 20%. What could be making the difference? The hills?
Anywhere where it is flat and a town bike is viable, a bit of energy to get it moving then microdoses to maintain momentum, mass cycling for transport is viable. Most people cannot be arsed with derailleurs, lycra and working up a sweat to get around.
PS Thinking of family, friends, colleagues …. I cannot think of anyone who has a commute of less than 5 miles. It is the nature of a megapolis that people don’t necessarily work anywhere near where they live. That is why better, cheaper, joined up public transport ought to be the first, second and third priority.
L.Willo wrote:
The statistics don’t support that argument. Two-thirds of Londoners car journeys are under 3 miles – never mind cycling, they could just be walked (personally I tend to walk anything 3 miles or less, can’t be arsed locking/unlocking a bike, and I find walking is almost always faster than messing about with buses).
The size of London vs Bristol is irrelevant, you could just as well select a region of London that is smaller than Bristol and make the same argument in reverse.
Oh, and the other point is, the best way to get better public transport is to get cars off the road. The main reason why buses are rarely worth bothering with is the cars that clog up the roads and slow them down to the point of uselessness. More bikes means more space for buses.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Assumptions? How do you know that the occupants are capable of walking three miles (45 minutes at a decent pace) without arriving at their destination hot and sweaty?
How do you know what equipment, heavy shopping etc is in the boot therefore making a 3 mile walk utterly impractical?
How do you know what the weather conditions might be on the day that someone chooses to drive rather than walk 3 miles?
L.Willo wrote:
You really are clutching at straws now. You are suggesting a large proportion of Londoners are disabled to a point where they can’t walk a couple of miles? Really?
I carry my shopping in a rucksack, incidentally. Not everyone can do that, of course, but I just don’t see why I should have to subsidise those who could but choose not to. And I know the weather isn’t that bad most of the time because I live here myself and am well aware of when I get rained on and when I don’t (duh!).
A recent example of an unncessary car journey – someone I know was house-hunting. The house to be looked at was less than 100 yards from the estate agency. It was visible from the agency doorway, just across the main road. Estate agent insisted on driving, my friend declined the offer of a lift and walked there in about 2 minutes and then waited outside for 5 minutes or so for the estate agent to find a parking place further up the road and walk back again.
If something is excessively subsidised people will choose to use it when it would be more efficient not to. Its not evil behaviour, its just human nature to respond to incentives. Not all subsidies are unjustifiable, of course not, but some of them have negative effects. The way we currently subsidise private motorised transport is one of them.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
You really are clutching at straws now. You are suggesting a large proportion of Londoners are disabled to a point where they can’t walk a couple of miles? Really?— FluffyKittenofTindalos
I can walk for 20 miles if I have to or want to but during the course of an average day there may be several reasons why I would rather take the bus or drive half a mile rather than cycle or walk. And that choice is quite frankly. none of your business.
Why you seem to think that you can sit on your high horse with your rucksack and sweaty back deciding whether or not the modes of journey of complete strangers is appropriate …. wow, just wow.
L.Willo wrote:
Sure. So long as I can come to the street outside your home and fly up and down it with a fucking helicopter at roof level whenever I want to.
It takes a special kind of arrogance to think public space is everyones right to do with as they wish. It’s not, these are choices that any community can change democratically if they want to, and there are more cities rolling back universal car access every year.
L.Willo wrote:
You really are clutching at straws now. You are suggesting a large proportion of Londoners are disabled to a point where they can’t walk a couple of miles? Really?— L.Willo
I can walk for 20 miles if I have to or want to but during the course of an average day there may be several reasons why I would rather take the bus or drive half a mile rather than cycle or walk. And that choice is quite frankly. none of your business.
Why you seem to think that you can sit on your high horse with your rucksack and sweaty back deciding whether or not the modes of journey of complete strangers is appropriate …. wow, just wow.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
Whereas you espousing ‘if it feels good, do it’ as a national travel strategy makes perfect sense.
L.Willo wrote:
That makes a lot of sense to me. It has (from my selfish perspective) benefits to me as someone that enjoys cycling, and benefits to everyone else (energy efficiency blah, etc).
Ush wrote:
That makes a lot of sense to me. It has (from my selfish perspective) benefits to me as someone that enjoys cycling, and benefits to everyone else (energy efficiency blah, etc).— L.Willo
Except when it becomes a pattern of indoctrinating people to make bus journeys which could be walked in ten minutes.
L.Willo wrote:
Modal share of cycling is about 2%. No reason at all that most cities and towns in the UK can’t match the 20% that Cambridge already has (and Cambridge isn’t that cycle friendly).— L.Willo Cambridge is small and flat. Copenhagen ditto. Amsterdam ditto. If you seriously think that a city like Sheffield will hit anything like 20% …. Cycling isnt the solution to congestion. The solution is to allow people to use their time productively while travelling. This is the future, whether we like it or not: http://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/24/tesla-model-s-driver-asleep-autopilot/ …. or facebook, playstation, netflix, kindle …— bikebot
No, that isn’t the solution to congestion. That’s the solution to being unproductive while commuting. Driverless cars using the same model of car use today will result in the same levels of congestion… which aren’t improving. And who’s to say that if we can all put our feet up and flick about on facebook while being driven to work at 4mph by Google, people won’t abandon standing on the tube or train en masse and join the congestion festival?
Plus, society faces other problems (pollution [electric/hybrid cars might not emit many pollutants themselves, but how is their electricty currently generated?], overweight-related health issues and costs…) that cycling might help with but driverless cars won’t.
davel wrote:
Sufficiently advanced driverless cars can actually help alleviate congestion where they replace a human driven car of the same size by eliminating or at least reducing the concertina effect
This game demonstrates it rather nicely
https://madewithmonsterlove.itch.io/error-prone
bogbrush wrote:
Shit, damn autocorrect. I meant to say, “Great stuff guys!”
bogbrush wrote:
Yeah I buy that – that’s pretty neat.
The roads would still be clogged with cars, though, no? (which is sort of the definition of congestion)
davel wrote:
Congestion is a problem if you are bored and frustrated because you still need to concentrate on driving while going nowhere. When cars become fully automated, airconditioned, climate controlled, mobile offices / entertainment spaces, a bit like having your own private luxury train carriage, a lot of stress around congestion will disappear.
Secondly, when we reach a situation where the vast majority of cars are operated by CPU able to share data with all the other CPUs on the road, average journey times will collapse and accident rates decline making automated vehicles an even more attractive option.
e.g. My retired mother has recently given up driving because she finds it too stressful. She now gets around using a combination of walking, public transport and taxis. A fully automated Tesla would definitely get her back on the road. A bike? Forget it. My wife will cycle on holiday but in London for work? Hell will freeze over before she gives up her car. Other options are not practical. She will be one of the first in the queue for a fully automated electric vehicle.
The truth is cyclists cycle because they enjoy cycling. For many others, cycling is boring and unpleasant and will never be a first, second or third choice. This illusion that there are hordes out there just itching to commute by bicycle, if only this, if only that, if only …. is mostly that, just an illusion IMO. Cycling is already one of, if not the safest and most convenient modes of transport for short journeys. If you want to cycle there is very little apart from excuses stopping you from doing so.
L.Willo wrote:
Indeed. There just isn’t the will for it.
L.Willo wrote:
No, that isn’t the solution to congestion. That’s the solution to being unproductive while commuting. Driverless cars using the same model of car use today will result in the same levels of congestion… which aren’t improving. And who’s to say that if we can all put our feet up and flick about on facebook while being driven to work at 4mph by Google, people won’t abandon standing on the tube or train en masse and join the congestion festival?
— L.Willo Congestion is a problem if you are bored and frustrated because you still need to concentrate on driving while going nowhere. When cars become fully automated, airconditioned, climate controlled, mobile offices / entertainment spaces, a bit like having your own private luxury train carriage, a lot of stress around congestion will disappear. Secondly, when we reach a situation where the vast majority of cars are operated by CPU able to share data with all the other CPUs on the road, average journey times will collapse and accident rates decline making automated vehicles an even more attractive option. e.g. My retired mother has recently given up driving because she finds it too stressful. She now gets around using a combination of walking, public transport and taxis. A fully automated Tesla would definitely get her back on the road. A bike? Forget it. My wife will cycle on holiday but in London for work? Hell will freeze over before she gives up her car. Other options are not practical. She will be one of the first in the queue for a fully automated electric vehicle. The truth is cyclists cycle because they enjoy cycling. For many others, cycling is boring and unpleasant and will never be a first, second or third choice. This illusion that there are hordes out there just itching to commute by bicycle, if only this, if only that, if only …. is mostly that, just an illusion IMO. Cycling is already one of, if not the safest and most convenient modes of transport for short journeys. If you want to cycle there is very little apart from excuses stopping you from doing so.— davel
That’s unsustainable though, isn’t it? The level of selfishness and laziness around short-term travel options and over-reliance on cars needs to be ‘nudged’ (what happened to that, Dave?) out of the public.
At the moment, regarding alternatives, there’s barely any carrot (Londoners are spoilt for choice compared to the rest of the country for alternatives to the car) so it seems too soon to start with the stick, which is why a congestion charge could only be a realistic option in London.
davel wrote:
What is unsustainable is thinking that you can bully people into using specific transport modes. It won’t work. All you will do is price the less well-off from the roads onto already overburdened public transport. The vast majority of people who are not already cycling or considering cycling will not cycle even if you give them a bike for free.
The idea is as sustainable as trying to get 20% of people to swim for half an hour once a week. A wonderful activity. Keeps you fit and relatively difficult to injure yourself. However if you detest swimming, you are not going to swim, short of being significantly bribed to do so are you?
What is sustainable is to try to ensure that the modes of transport that people are going to use are as energy efficient and unpolluting as possible.
Self driving electric cars will be a huge step forward. Better joined up public transport ditto. Together these will do more to improve the quality of life in our cities than trying to push sand uphill with a fork i.e. persuading millions to cycle as a first choice of local transport.
I don’t see it.
L.Willo wrote:
Reality isn’t bullying though.
If there isn’t room, and sufficient clean energy resources available, for everyone to drive, then there isn’t room. That’s just reality, and its not bullying to expect people to face facts.
What _is_ bullying is insisting those with money should be able to ignore the reality and drive anyway, and oblige the less wealthy (whose areas they tend to drive through), to pay the price in terms of health-consequences and restrictions on freedom of movement.
By all means drive, but then pay the full cost of doing so.
Incidentally, people who live near attractive bodies of water (a nice beach or a lake, say) tend to swim more than those who don’t. Choices aren’t made in a vaccuum, people make choices in the context of a particular environment.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Or we focus our human ingenuity developing more efficient solutions to allow us to do what we want to do …. rather than dreaming up schemes to force people to do what they dont want to do?
Fully automated motorised vehicles, centrally controlled by AI systems to maximise the use of the road network. Seamlessly integrated electric powered public transport. Safer nuclear power and renewable energy plants to provide clean energy to power all of this tech.
Sounds good to me. Also sounds much better for the environment than pious campaigning for schemes that will never work but leave the failed campaigners with a nice warm feeling of holier-than-thou ….
Hometime. By bike. Because I want to.
L.Willo wrote:
What evidence do you have for that?
Don’t start with some anecdote about some shared used sustrans path that even a mountain goat would struggle with.
Show us data on cities which have built high quality, safe, fast and convenient infrastructure, which haven’t then seen a modal shift.
L.Willo wrote:
The problem with them compared to public transport is simply the space consideration issue. They are also never going to be as energy-efficient as light-electric for mass transportation.
Ush wrote:
The problem with them compared to public transport is simply the space consideration issue. They are also never going to be as energy-efficient as light-electric for mass transportation.— L.Willo
And cost.
But apart from space, cost, energy use and the massive impact they have on the public realm for everyone else, they’re probably fine.
L.Willo wrote:
Modal share of cycling is about 2%. No reason at all that most cities and towns in the UK can’t match the 20% that Cambridge already has (and Cambridge isn’t that cycle friendly).— L.Willo Cambridge is small and flat. Copenhagen ditto. Amsterdam ditto. If you seriously think that a city like Sheffield will hit anything like 20% …. Cycling isnt the solution to congestion. The solution is to allow people to use their time productively while travelling. This is the future, whether we like it or not: http://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/24/tesla-model-s-driver-asleep-autopilot/ …. or facebook, playstation, netflix, kindle …— bikebot
Maastricht.
And of course you missed the point about electric bikes didn’t you? Actually no, you didn’t miss it, I think you’re just a contrarian twat.
Cities clogged with self driving cars, until the roads are so congested they just live in them. I think 2000AD got there about 35 years ago. As a prediction of urban transport, it’s utter bollocks, and not what much of the autoindustry itself is betting on.
bikebot wrote:
:rollinglaugh:
Seriously?
In my office in Blackfriars, people commute from Ealing, Bexley, Sutton, Wimbledon, Blackheath, Muswell Hill, St Albans, Watford, Eltham and Snaresbrook. One person cycles, me. One uses a motorcycle. One drives to work in a Prius. Everyone else uses public transport.
…. and you believe comparing this not unusual solution to a city like Maastrict which is the size of a poxy village compared to Greater London is reasonable?
Behave.
L.Willo wrote:
Modal share of cycling is about 2%. No reason at all that most cities and towns in the UK can’t match the 20% that Cambridge already has (and Cambridge isn’t that cycle friendly).— L.Willo Cambridge is small and flat. Copenhagen ditto. Amsterdam ditto. If you seriously think that a city like Sheffield will hit anything like 20% …. Cycling isnt the solution to congestion. The solution is to allow people to use their time productively while travelling. This is the future, whether we like it or not: http://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/24/tesla-model-s-driver-asleep-autopilot/ …. or facebook, playstation, netflix, kindle …— bikebot
Maastricht.
— L.Willo :rollinglaugh: Seriously? In my office in Blackfriars, people commute from Ealing, Bexley, Sutton, Wimbledon, Blackheath, Muswell Hill, St Albans, Watford, Eltham and Snaresbrook. One person cycles, me. One uses a motorcycle. One drives to work in a Prius. Everyone else uses public transport. …. and you believe comparing this not unusual solution to a city like Maastrict which is the size of a poxy village compared to Greater London is reasonable? Behave.— bikebot
Ok, since Bogota and Seville didn’t make an impression, how about Osaka, Japan. Metro area: 19 million. Fairly hilly outskirts. Cycling modal share has been estimated at 25%.
Carton wrote:
Don’t expect an answer, he skips the difficult ones, or talks about something unrelated. Osaka will have special weather|culture|training|geography (delete as applicable).
Any country or city that cycles is a special case. Any country or city that doesn’t is just a normal human reaction. Normal people don’t like bikes, 98% of people immediately frown when they sit on a bike. That’s why cycling only has a modal share of 2% in the UK, no other factors involved.
Carton wrote:
:rollinglaugh: Seriously? In my office in Blackfriars, people commute from Ealing, Bexley, Sutton, Wimbledon, Blackheath, Muswell Hill, St Albans, Watford, Eltham and Snaresbrook. One person cycles, me. One uses a motorcycle. One drives to work in a Prius. Everyone else uses public transport. …. and you believe comparing this not unusual solution to a city like Maastrict which is the size of a poxy village compared to Greater London is reasonable? Behave.— L.Willo
Ok, since Bogota and Seville didn’t make an impression, how about Osaka, Japan. Metro area: 19 million. Fairly hilly outskirts. Cycling modal share has been estimated at 25%.— bikebot
Anywhere that you would want to get to in Osaka is flat, as you say only the outskirts have some moderate hills.
Sustainability problems are wicked and the solutions are not often transferable. Poverty is poverty but the solution to child poverty in Nairobi will not have anything to do with the solution of child poverty in Nottingham. Transport issues are no different. What works in one place is no guarantee that it will work elsewhere.
When designing a sustainable transport solution you need to think about the topography and cultural expectations of the people in a specific location and not lazily assume that a solution that worked in a village with 40 people in the middle of nowhere will work in a megapolis with 13 million people and an area of 700 square miles.
Design should be participatory. You start with the real people that you are designing for, find out their needs and desires and then implement solutions that they are likely to adopt. For Londoners, given their relatively long commutes, the awful weather, the need to be presentable, the narrow streets and the hilly topography, that means better cleaner more efficient public transport. The money “invested” in CSHs are a complete waste, IMO. It should have been spent on cleaner buses and more crossrail type projects.
Pompously deciding in advance that the answer everywhere is more cycling and then berating people from your high horse, wearing your sweaty rucksack, for “not getting the message” might feel good but does nothing to tackle the genuinely important sustainability issues of our great city.
L.Willo wrote:
That’s your opinion. I think It’s misguided. Borrowing technological solutions to common problems is how farming and later civilization developed.
By the way, only the (pop. 2.5M) center of Osaka seems fairly flat. I’ve only been as far as Kyoto, which is in the same metro area and farily hilly but not unbearably so. So it turns out I was understating things when I say Osaka is hilly. It’s downright mountainous. A quick glance in Strava in Kobe or Higashiosaka throws out a segments upon segments that read 1.9km at 11% or 1.5km at 10% quite near the center of those towns. The road from the airport to Kobe (pop. 1.5M) includes a 11.3km section at 7.5%. Now, that’s probably not the busiest bike-commuting street within that metro area, but it is within a metro area that is twice as populous and twice as dense as Greater London. So you can get a sense of how much hillier whatever your definition of London could possibly be than Osaka. That you wouldn’t want to cycle as much in “hilly” London doesn’t mean many people can be persuaded to do so, without bullying. Particularly as e-bikes become a thing.
Yeah, public transport is generally awesome in Japan. But bikes help out. Streets are even narrower, it’s far hillier, and the weather isn’t much nicer. And Japanese people are generally immaculately presented. Yet modal shares are far higher across the board. So there’s some room to grow, IMHO, “topography” notwithstanding.
Carton wrote:
Funny that you should mention farming, especially as techniques that may work very well in one location won’t work at all in other locations with different climate, soil type and pests.
To take an extreme example, do you seriously think you can take a transport solution from Stockholm to San Diego and expect it to work any time soon? Of course not, a different country, different expectations, a different historical relationship to the car, different attitudes to public transport, differing climate, levels of crime, topography etc etc etc … never mind cycling.
This kind of behaviourist thinking, if we the people in charge do thing A then people will do thing B … is so out of date and thoroughly discredited. The truth is that it is impossible to change culture, only possible to influence culture and that huge cultural changes require millions to be spent and can take generations before you see results.
Think of examples like smoking, drink driving, litter, not wearing a seatbelt … campaigns have run for decades, the argument for not doing any of the above has been won comprehensively, in some cases people can go to prison or pay hefty fines for non-compliance and yet people still do all of the above.
The problem with sustainable transport in cities is that we do not have the luxury of generations to wait for cultural change. Air pollution in London is reaching dangerous levels virtually every day. The congestion charge has not reduced car journeys, it has pushed them to the outskirts where there is now an epidemic of childhood respiratory problems.
I have two young children and a third child on the way. I am taking my family (regretfully) out of London to move to West Sussex primarily because of the pollution issue. That means that I won’t be cycling any more to work. Maybe a Boris Bike from Victoria to Blackfriars after a long frustrating train ride without a seat, until I eventually give up and buy a low emissions, congestion charge-free Prius or similar and drive ….
To channel Bill Clinton, it’s the emissions stupid! I really don’t care if there is gridlock everywhere and people stuck in their alu boxes taking two hours to do a journey that would take 20 mins on a bike … that is their problem, unless they are belching toxic fumes into the atmosphere while they do so. Then that becomes my problem.
The solution to that problem isn’t to try to force people to do what they blatantly don’t want to do i.e. get out of their cars and onto bicycles. The solution is to make it easier for people to do what they want to do while minimising damage to the environment.
This is why this cycling, cycling, cycling agenda in London (the only place I am talking about as it is where I live) is so misplaced and ridiculous. These cycling initiatives are not persuading people to abandon their cars in favour of cycling. People are abandoning public transport in favour of cycling. That is a good thing in terms of increased fitness etc … but people abandoning buses, tubes and national rail because they are cramped, uncomfortable, unreliable, inconvenient and far too fucking expensive does not take a single vehicle off the road. It does sweet fuck all about emissions.
So celebrating because 20 people per minute are using cycle lanes when car ownership has increased by 600,000 in a year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35312562 is pissing in the wind.
Why anyone would look at current stats: Cycling 2% modal share, 1% of all distances travelled, the average distance cycled by cyclists a paltry 58 miles in one year, 65% have not ridden a bike in the last year … and think that getting more people cycling is going to provide an answer to urban pollution is beyond me?
A 500% increase would be a massive achievement and not even put a dent in the problem of emissions.
I ordered a bag from an online UK retailer, an expensive one for my wife’s birthday. The bag travelled from the atelier to a depot in Paris. Then on to Brussels by road. Before boarding a plane to Gatwick. Then on to Heathrow by road. Then to Docklands before being put on a van to deliver to my office where it was gift wrapped and placed in my pannier for the cycle home.
Meanwhile, holier-than-thou Earth Mother above thinks she is saving the planet because she walks/cycles two miles to the shops and carries her goods home in a sweaty rucksack … ignoring all the vehicle emissions that put the product in the shops. Unless she is the motoring equivalent of a vegan … refuses to buy or own anything that required fossil fuels in its manufacture or transportation … her decision to walk / cycle for transport is an insignificant speck compared to the damage she does to the environment by existing and being a consumer in an industrially developed society creating emissions with every purchase and every message posted to road.cc.
Yes, it pisses me off that the thing that will actually make the most difference, huge financial incentives for businesses and individuals using the cleanest possible transport solutions and huge financial penalties for people still using out of date fuel combustion technology, is written off by environmental campaigners because they simply don’t like the idea of car usage and over-romanticise the benefits of cycling. It is bullshit. Cycling is a speck that has little relevance as a sustainable urban transport method for the very young and the over 50s and has zero relevance in terms of the transport of goods and maintenance of essential services that keep a city and its economy operational.
Investment in cleaner, efficient, comfortable, safe public transport that people will actually want to use is what is required and for those who need to / choose to drive, huge tax breaks for businesses and individuals to make the case for not choosing diesel or high fuel emissions cars a no-brainer.
L.Willo wrote:
I’ve worked in both those cities and quite a few more. Cities are much more alike than they are different.
But a moment ago you were happy to wait for a driverless car revolution. Something that will take at least two or three decades to both mature the technology and sell through.
It’s transport stupid. Car dominated cities don’t work.
Who exactly are you being a twat towards?
“how do the shops get supplied” is Daily Mail level stupid. Why should we invest in clean buses, because “how will the shops get supplied”.
The answer is the same way they do in the Netherlands, by a lorry. It’s about modal share and rebalancing a car dominated transport system towards a greater share of public transport and active travel. Nothing excludes the use of motor vehicles where they are necessary.
Well there’s another big fallacy right there. Suggesting that it’s an either/or issues. Cycling infrastructure costs pennies, for TfL it’s still barely one percent of the budget. You could drop all of it into the bus network, traisn or trams it wouldn’t make a fraction of the difference.
Furthermore it’s mostly a capital cost. Once built the infrastructure costs almost nothing to maintain. Trains and buses have massive recurring costs.
You keep spending on cycling and you keep spending on public transport. Because they’re both part of the solution.
I think I can say with some confidence that you are the only cyclists in the entire country that is arguring to remove money from the miniscule cycling budget, and reallocate it to subsidise and encourage private car purchases. I’ve placed emphasis on part of your statement. Have a collective slap from everyone else that cycles.
L.Willo wrote:
Well, that’s 2 minutes of my life etc etc. The game’s up, people. Bikes are second fiddle to motors on the road, to peds everywhere else, and they’re shit as transport. Pack up, strap your bike to your car, and go home.
I’ll leave it to the others who can still be arsed to toy with you to reply to that epistle to… fuck knows. It takes someone spectacularly silly/trolly who seems to hate cycling and belittles most aspects of it and yet bothers to register and converse on a site dedicated to road cycling.
L.Willo wrote:
Taking people off public transport and putting them on bikes makes the tube less uncomfortable and overcrowded in of itself.
I loved riding round Elephent & Castle before the re-design, but seeing kids on the new bike route rocked. And I know I wouldn’t have brought a bike post-uni if I hadn’t cycled to school alone, on a well-designed bike path that segrigated me from a fast A-road from 10 onwards
Olionabike wrote:
This is exactly the sort of romanticised bollocks I am talking about. Ah .. look at the little angels cycling learning how to travel sustainability … feels good doesn’t it? Yes it does. But ..
The reality is that it is a speck with zero benefit to the urban environment at the same time that 600,000 new cars are joining the road network every year. Car production is at a 7 year high, bus journeys are falling …
But hey fuck that … 10 more people more minute on a bike during rush hour … woo hoo .. sustainable transport in the UK is really on the move ….
In ten years time we will still be in the same place … dogmatic fools trying to bully the reluctant into cycling rather than bribing them with huge tax breaks to make sure that their next vehicle is an electric one … a solution that might actually … you know, work!
L.Willo wrote:
Here’s a picture of London’s motor traffic.
Here’s an artists impression of what that would look like with electric vehicles.
Much better.
Meanwhile, car use in central London is falling year on year, and bicycle use is rising rapidly. But hey, fuck that, someone wants us to help pay for his new car with huge tax breaks, so he can live in the suburbs and drive it to Blackfrairs.
Basically, we’ve found this guy.
bikebot]
Absolutely! In Picture B there are no diesel particulates being belched into the air, ditto NO2, ditto CO2, … fabulous!
That is a genuine leap forward for the air quality of everyone living and working in the city. Those drivers can sit there in there self driving, entertainment spaces / mobile offices going nowhere fast, watching the cyclists and pedestrians whizz by …. and maybe in a years time, 2 years, 5 years, the penny might drop that there are other, better, more efficient transport modes worth trying for shorter journeys ….. but at least for now, the damage being done to air quality in the city is insignificant.
It is the EMISSIONS stupid! … and expecting to tackle that knotty problem by getting people out of cars onto bikes is arrogant eco-imperialist codswallop and it does not work. Listening to people like you makes me want to go joy riding in a diesel SUV just for spite.
Let’s have this discussion next year, when oooh …. an extra 10 people per minute are using cycle lanes … woo hoo … while elsewhere another 600,000 particulate belching contraptions have been added to the road ….
You are looking the wrong way.
L.Willo]
We don’t have a serious low carbon electricity generation system, nor any sensible means of arriving at one quickly, so the CO2 is still going out. Agreed you’ve improved the air quality in the city – not done much for congestion, obesity, or the quality of life of whoever ends up saddled with the generation capacity. But hey, that won’t be London, so who cares?
L.Willo wrote:
Only an idiot would look at that picture and think the only problem is emissions. The world is urbanising, and population densities are rising in almost every city. That isn’t a trend compatible with mass car use. As before, cities are more alike than they are different, that’s why everyone is rolling back the 1950’s future.
Good. Best piss off to Australia and sit in their traffic. You’ll love it, you can spend the entire day in your entertainment space. It’s just like the Jetsons.
Deal. And then the year after that, and the year after that, and onwards until you eventually notice the effects of compound growth. That’s unless any politicians are foolish enough to put the brakes on because they’ve drunk the driverless electric car coolaid.
while elsewhere another 600,000 particulate belching contraptions have been added to the road ….— L.Willo
Well there’s anothe trick you’ve discovered. Keep talking about London, and then using national statistics.
Prviate car use is falling in London. Private car ownership is falling in London. It’s almost as though London is the only part of the country with some semblance of the right approach. Which is the one part you’re criticising.
L.Willo wrote:
Where has anyone said anything about bullying more people into cycling? The point being consistently made is that 2% or thereabouts modal share is low compared to similar cities and countries, and that surveys consistently show that more people would cycle if they deemed it safer. Do you want to argue that point? Do you want fewer people to cycle?
The argument then is that better infrastructure and safer roads are worth campaigning for. Do you want to argue that point? Do you want roads to be less safe for cyclists?
Nobody is saying that they want everyone to cycle. Quite a few people are saying that people drive ridiculously short journeys and there’s not much wrong with that sort of behaviour being influenced out, in favour of more pleasant living environments. Do you want to argue that point? Do you think that the personal choice to drive half a mile from house to shop or through residential areas should be a significant factor in modern urban planning?
Nobody is arguing against us being addicted to cars and that people like buying and using them. Make that point as many times as you like.
You do love a false dichotomy and straw man but they’re really fucking tedious.
And you’re doing all this on a cycling site.
You seem to have a Daily Mail level of disdain for all things cycling, apart from you being on a bike. Do you hate yourself for enjoying riding a bike? Does posting on here and the flaming you get serve as your flagellation routine?
davel wrote:
You seem to have a Daily Mail level of disdain for all things cycling, apart from you being on a bike. Do you hate yourself for enjoying riding a bike? Does posting on here and the flaming you get serve as your flagellation routine?— davel
I’ve wondered about this. There are transport evangelists on this site, who cycle to work and think more cycling is A Good Thing, and there are the people who are just into the sport and wouldn’t dream of cycling to work or to the shops…
I don’t understand L Willo: they claim to cycle to work but don’t appear to give a toss about improving the environment for cycling or spending money on it.
I don’t think that they’re a troll, they appear to believe what they say. But I’m not sure why they bother posting on a site like this, on every article about cycling spending or cycling safety or cycling infrastructure, just to argue about why it’s all rubbish.
brooksby wrote:
Most people are somewhere in the middle, I’ve been at various positions in that spectrum. Even amongst the sterotypical MAMIL, it’s quite rare to find people that don’t get its place as just transport. The funny thing about those middle aged men, is that an awful lot of them have children.
The one thing I’d always want to tell readers of this site, is that if you haven’t got one simple practical bike in your n+1 stable of carbon fibre, you really should have. Read John Stevenson’s recent bike build, and rediscover just how damn convenient and useful an everyday bike is.
Some people just need to be different. He won’t be special if other people start cycling, or horror of horrors, “ordinary” people.
They might even be ordinary enough to be able to cycle six miles (just thrity minutes at a very Dutch 12 mph) without needing a shower afterwards.
L.Willo wrote:
I used farming as an example explicitly because it’s a great example of how technology affects change in seemingly differing but fundamentally similar spaces. Mass farming methods are pretty much in use world wide. Funnily enough, Stockholm and San Diego were both recently at the forefront of cycling. Stockolm is tabling a reverse congestion charge for cycling, San Diego is proposing a San Diego – Tijuana bike lane. Cultural shifts do take time, of course, but so does the development of any other transport solution. Copenhagen increased it’s modal share by about 25% in 25 years. That seems like a huge improvement to me.
But this has gone around and around. If local air pollution is your only concern, then go ahead and advocate your scheme. A bike news site might not be your clearest audience, but it’s a wide tent. Pushing everyone to an all electric car system will cost dozens of billions, but it would surely help on that one issue.
But if you think obesity, the rising costs of health care, sedentarism, congestion and, climate change (as oldstrath said, your scheme is just shifting the CO2 emissions geographically) are also among the many pressing issues that need to be resolved by using a limited pool of resources as efficiently as possible; then you might want to give your position a rethink. Maybe a multi-front approach that takes walking, mass transport and cycling into account, however stupid you think it is to try to convince Londoners to cycle for transport, may contribute. It may even do so, much more efficiently.
Again, few here are against electric cars, or mass transport, or walking. We’d like to see cycling as part of that mix, as some (most) of us think it’s a particularly beneficial part of the equation. I think most of us also understand that to an extent we may be overrating the benefits of our favorite way to get around. But it would also seem that almost every serious transport study finds cycling to be a useful part of any transport strategy. Again, for most people on most commutes, it won’t surely won’t be your ideal solution if you’re planning on commuting into London from Worthing.
So I hope you at least understand why I think your approach is untried, problematic, inefficient, either prohibitively expensive or politically untenable, or both, and ultimately limited in both scope and reach. But I am completely supportive of strengthening emissions standards in motor vehicles as a part of any comprehensive transport strategy.
L.Willo wrote:
Guess we have to keep repeating this for you.
Amazing isn’t it. You’re office isn’t representative of the whole of England. In much the same way that the people who cycle today are in no way representative of a cycling country.
vonhelmet wrote:
There are lots of people who don’t live that far from their work.
Many of those that live further away have made a conscious decision to relocate because they can afford to. It’s why the prices for large detached houses in rural Shropshire (and many other areas) have increased disproportionately while the less well-heeled live in terraced housing or apartments on urban brownfield sites.
Where there’s a will, there’s
Where there’s a will, there’s a way, it’s as simple as that.
Secure storage, showers, changing rooms all help but they’re not essential if you have the will.
Perception is everything and that is where the first segment of half decent infrastructure in London is the potential beginning of a game changer because it is challenging the “you have to be mad to cycle” in London. On the section between Tower Hill and Westminster, you’d have to be mad not to cycle as it is that straightforward and so much more pleasant/efficient/cost effective vs any other means and therein lies the key change. The goal has to be to introduce changes to facilitate the ease of cycling so that “you’d be mad not to cycle” as opposed to the prevailing status quo.
The problem is that we have a new Mayor who talks the talk but doesn’t cycle. We shall see
I had a long “discussion “
I had a long “discussion ” with my wife after a new cycle path was built alongside a main road on my way to work and I admitted I used it one way (uphill) but not the other.
She didn’t get at all that going quite steeply downhill on the cycle path, having to basically stop at every side road and slow at every driveway was A Bad Thing so I exercised my right to ride on the road, where I could keep up a decent speed and where anyone joining from the side had to (at least in theory) give way to me.
“But they’ve built a cycle path, so why not use it?”
Hand covers face… Long sigh…
(And, I do get more hassle on that road from drivers who are clearly thinking the same thing. My point is, that badly thought out infrastructure can be as bad as – or sometimes worse than – no ‘cycling infrastructure ‘ at all).
One of my wife’s employees
One of my wife’s employees drives less than 1/4 mile to work – and she wonders why she is overweight (surely she could walk it if she didn’t want to cycle?). Never under-estimate people’s stupidity!
If I cycle all the way to work it’s 21 miles. We don’t have a shower at work – wet wipes are fine for me! Merino wool vests are great at soaking up the sweat.
No one cares what is
No one cares what is sustainable, because everyone is alright, Jack.
Oh, we’ve got some new ones.
Oh goodie, we’ve got some new ones.
You mean like the stack of surveys, in which people have repeatedly said that safety is the number one reason why they won’t cycle? Or the consutlation responses, including employers who lined up asking for the infrastructure to be built, because their employees were asking for it? Do you have the slighest ability to listen to other people yourself?
Blackfriars before and after, wherever did they find the space.
Well as you’ve just told us that Osaka is flat except the outskirts, which major towns and cities in England are built on hills? What hills does central London have?
Ever been to Amsterdamn or Copenhagen? Both get more rain than London, both get worse winters, and there’s a reason why the Dutch are known for their windmills…
EW route cost around £50m if I remember right. That might get you a 100m or so of tunnel, or a small piece of one station.
For heavens sake, in amongst all your training and superior knowledge of roadcraft, did no one ever tell you to buy some damn panniers?
And yes, cycing is part of the solution everywhere where the current modal share is below the latent demand, and it’s not that difficult to find out what the latent demand is when you pay attention to research data and surveys rather then telling anecdotes about people in your office.
You have noticed how rapidly cycling is rising in central London? Or does it just massively piss you off that ordinary people are doing your special thing.
He’s got a point. I haven’t
He’s got a point. I haven’t cycled to work for a while partly because I’m slightly worried about my hair.
Specifically, I’m slightly worride that my hair will end up under a quarry truck driven like it’s racing by an overworked driver high on RedBull checking the time on his phone.
Carton, thank you for your
Carton, thank you for your response. You have made some very good points and I will respond but having a busy weekend now. Cheers.