Conservative councillor wades into cyclist hi-vis clothing discussion with "reprehensible" rant... says "Lycra louts" who ride in roads instead of cycle lanes "suffer the consequences"

biking59boomer wrote:

TBH I have some sympathy wtih those who say we should use cycle lanes. We fought long and hard for them and large amounts of public money have been spent on them. Lack of use is one of the arguments used to remove them as well as against future provison. We lierally need to use them or lose them. As for high viz kit and lights they doesn't protect you but they do give you a better chance of being seen before it's too late.

I don't.  Until I knew better, perhaps ... then it was safe - and in fact attractive and convenient - cycle routes *.  Not painted rubbish ** nominally backed by unenforced laws.  With legal exemptions...

* For today's motorists e.g. tomorrow's occasional cyclists.  Sharing with motor vehicles where their numbers and speeds have been reduced, fully separated from them where not, also separated from pedestrians.

** Because all sensible people accept we can't "cause congestion" or "steal parking spaces" or "cause disruption" because works - or do anything to reduce the motoring capacity, because otherwise how will people drive?  (Self-fulfilling "no change, ever"). 

We didn't fight long and hard for the rubbish that gets labelled cycle lanes in most places, and the money spent on them is usually an accounting error in comparison to the money spent on roads for motorists.

I think people who ride bikes in the dark without lights are idiots, but hiviz doesn't help you out.

biking59boomer wrote:

TBH I have some sympathy wtih those who say we should use cycle lanes. We fought long and hard for them and large amounts of public money have been spent on them. Lack of use is one of the arguments used to remove them as well as against future provison. We lierally need to use them or lose them. As for high viz kit and lights they doesn't protect you but they do give you a better chance of being seen before it's too late.

What a load of tripe.

The only reason why cycle lanes are even thought about is due to dangerous drivers and then we typically end up getting a poorly thought out, unconnected bit of paint on a road that then gets parked on and is unusable. Never mind the fact that road debris all ends up at the side of the road and causes additional hazards to cyclists.

It's typical motornormativity whereby drivers who haven't even touched a bike since they were a kid, believe that they know better than actual cyclists and are extremely vocal in espousing their uninformed opinions just so that they can try to blame the road congestion on someone other than themselves.

Can we ban vehicles from roads that don't get much use? Is that what drivers are doing, lots of tiny needless journeys in order to justify keeping the roads?

If only they weren't all so terrible.

Southampton City Council spent millions and closed roads for months putting in new cycle infrastructure on Bevois Hill and it's just so bad that it's unusable. What was the point

They widened the pavement and added some white paint and blue signs.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/MN9WSRLbrQzgdBuy5?g_st=ac

In Surrey they don't even widen the pavement. They put a few metal studs in the middle of it at regular intervals for a few hundred yards and call it a cycle lane (which then simply stops where it is most needed). A primary school kid could come up with better.

That result looks firmly car - biased. Do they really need / want such a wide road in a built up area?