Hundreds sign petition slamming decision to “sacrifice 26 irreplaceable trees” to make way for “dangerous, little used” cycle lane that “adds to pollution” – but council says more trees will be planted in their place

For a moment reversing sense and taking their comment as honest / not just "I don't like this so I'll just say stuff that backs my view" (very common for all of us).

Since we're in the UK and this is not some part of Cambridge, or one of a handful of locations in London: it would be quite reasonable to assume the number of motor vehicles passing per day are greater than those for cyclists.  Perhaps considerably so.

However that's not a surprise, if the road has no / inadequate cycle paths currently.  It wouldn't be so even if it already had because driving and parking is so well entrenched and supported.  And there are scarcely any "cycle networks" (suitable for mass cycling) worth the name in the land.

Then there's the well-noted "not seeing the cyclists" effect, plus the fact that say 5 motor vehicles waiting at a junction suggests "reasonable traffic" but 5 cyclists occupy a fraction of the space and look like "a couple" or "only a few".  And again in the UK it's normally not the case that those motor vehicles are carrying several people each.

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2018/02/08/a-waste-of-space/

Quote:

I’ve literally seen three people on cycle paths since they were made.

Yup, all the others had to take evasive action!

One of the most infuriating sights on the road is a unidirectional cycle lane on one side and nothing on the other. Presumably if these planners designed buildings there would only be escalators heading upwards and no way of coming down beyond jumping out of the window.

Answering the second part - "How do we get there from here" is a question, indeed! With so many false starts in the UK over the last century (really) you do wonder.

Of course we actually had mass cycling (in numbers that would be the envy of the Dutch) - by about 100 years ago! The first effort to create specific cycle infra in the UK was to get cyclists out of the way of motor vehicles!

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/carltonreid/lets-rescue-britains-fo...

Dutch? Partly "to make a small fortune, start with a large one". Cycling declined some time after it started dropping in the UK and there were some specific features there ("cycle infra" for mopeds) which maybe were involved. A complicated story involving a fuel crisis as you mention, outrage at the growing motoring death toll (and specifically children - the then transport minister lost a child):

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2021/11/17/how-did-the-dutch-get-thei...

I know less about Denmark / Copenhagen but some of the themes seem similar to NL.

The hopeful one - Seville, a place which genuinely had very little cycling until recently, and now has mass cycling thanks to infra. Politics and a few visionaries seem to be the story - there was a local cycling pressure group but they had very limited traction until the political wind changed (some horse trading needed - a bit like Scotland, the Greens and the Bute House agreement? ). So this one is a little more "top down"?

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2024/02/07/the-seville-cycling-revolu...

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/10/13/best-practices-how-seville-became...

Well remember the fuel crisis, 1973.  It was an absolute culture shock, like the 2000 fuel protests only more prolonged. The country literally didn't know what hit it. After that we had the oil price hikes which sent petrol prices soaring. Unlike the Dutch we didn't learn from it and look at the mess we're in now. Gridlocked, polluted, petrol prices fueling the cost of living crisis, and if rumours are true they'll be even higher when the Chancellor ends the freeze on fuel duty as well as more trouble in the middle east sending prices up.

The bad news from history is it seems to take a lot of "push" to get people to rethink driving habits. And this also involves authorities - we're talking about changing organisations / organisational cultures, not just individuals.

The positive side is that in many examples people "adapt" and after the fact - when they think about it at all - feel that providing for more active travel and "taming the car" has been a positive change.

The other hopeful thing is that most people walk at some point.  Being super-powered walking cycling has the potential to enhance that.  Also cyclists - while they are not pedestrians - are closer to pedestrians in some respects.  When interacting you're looking at another person, not a metal box, so communication is easier.  Both modes are quite manoeverable and speeds are closer than either is to the potential speed of a car. Both modes are vulnerable in collisions (cyclist colliding with pedestrian - both are likely to be hurt) which gives incentive for "good behaviour".

The infra - cycling infra can actually help "shield" people further from motor vehicles.  And like walking cycling is quiet and the infra much more space-efficient than that for motor vehicles.

Finally - because it's "low cost, low impact" cycling can grow to some extent (or at least survive...) in the absense of much support - as it has in the UK.

Some folks - particularly some of the odder (vehicular cycling) advocates and those of a more "just don't build new stuff" environmental bent - like to point at Japan. I don't think this is a model we can easily - or most would want - to follow.

For one I think unusually it really does depend on a very different culture and history. For another it relies on the existence of a different style of urban development - essentially we'd have to rebuild all our houses to be much closer together and then traffic calming would then emerge out of pedestrians, bikes and cars all trying to squeeze through very narrow spaces.

However since the details don't seem to be well-known:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jlwQ2Y4By0U

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VFCz7G_jXeI

On your first point - there are things that people don't complain (much) about in the UK - and these are the "nice to haves". Recreational trails. A couple of conditions needed: like any "shared space" this is density-dependant.
So there shouldn't be many cyclists. And either almost no pedestrians or it's pedestrian-dominated, physically blocking cycling. And there are few people "being antisocial" - so cyclists wait / slow, a reasonable assumption if this is recreational.

Bar the odd "they almost pushed me in the canal" and "far too fast" complaint ... then it "works".

Of course this is OK because it doesn't "take any road space" and in no way affects drivers. Plus usually these are at least part-funded and built by charities so find favour with authorities!

Although... the real safe option is for cars to be reversed into their driveways.

I seem to recall reading somewhere about not reversing on to main roads, but things were different then.

I find it bad enough driving forwards out of our driveway. Because of the walls on either side you can't see what's on the footpath until you've driven some distance onto it. Reversing out would be lethal.

“If you're reversing out across [the cycle lane] with a bike aiming at you at 30, it doesn’t matter how many times you look, there are going to be collisions.”

Ah, so it's the cyclists' fault, but of course.

How do these drivers contend with pedestrians "aimed at them"? Let me guess, they rely on the pedestrians being responsible for not "getting themselves" run over.

Trickier question; how do these drivers negotiate reversing into the road itself? The chavvier ones probably execute a 3-point turn on the mud bank that used to be a grass verge (if they haven't parked their other cars there already). But the others? I dare say the vehicles are travelling faster than the "30" they believe cyclists are doing on the cycle path.

Here's my hunch - they make it their business to stop an look properly, because now it's in their own selfish interest.

I've never understood people reversing off drives into traffic. Much safer to reverse onto the drive and drive forwards into the road.

It's pretty straightforward (if you'll excuse the pun) - it's a normal human psychological tendency to present bias. When they park, what's more valuable is the convenience right now - they're not really considering what happens when they next leave. And when they leave, they just have to reverse out, and don't relate that to the original decision to park forward.

mdavidford wrote:

It's pretty straightforward (if you'll excuse the pun) - it's a normal human psychological tendency to present bias. When they park, what's more valuable is the convenience right now - they're not really considering what happens when they next leave. And when they leave, they just have to reverse out, and don't relate that to the original decision to park forward.

And they are already comfortable with endangring pedestrians as they reverse out. Presumably hitting them doesn't scratch the paint, so not worth worrying about.

But unless the council does something very crazy, the reversing drivers will have to reverse over the footpath before they reach the cycle-path, so they'll have better visibility by then. If it will be unsafe when there's a bike lane, it's unsafe now and they shouldn't be doing it. At the very least, get one of those convex mirrors.

Ah but those pedestrians are not "aiming at them" at 30, or hiding around the parked vehicles...

The standard of driving being what it is, I'd say that many drivers feel more confident reversing out of a drive than into one?

RussellG wrote:

I've never understood people reversing off drives into traffic. Much safer to reverse onto the drive and drive forwards into the road.

For a few years now, it's been standard practice for forces personnel to ALWAYS reverse into a parking space and drive out of it.

I live on a street in Wales with a 20mph limit. Of course nobody but me and the odd bus driver adheres to it. I couldn't imagine the risks involved in reversing out of my drive.

SaneRebel wrote:

Looks like residents need to re-read Highway Code:

Re-read?  Giving them undue credit surely?

Ah, but that would be change - why are you forcing that on people who don't want it?  We all want the change to happen before we move to some place, so we can just choose those places which are "well connected" (easy to drive and park) AND "nice places" (they left a few trees - and maybe there's already a cycle "facility" for the kids as a bonus).