"Decision makers need to get out cars and experience cycling": Reaction to school 'bike train'; Gridlock returns after LTN ripped out; Strava art; Remco races gravel; Commute truths; Bloody cyclists; Funding cuts protest ride + more on the live blog

It's the Netherlands so they're used to dealing with dray-nag problems.

You were only supposed to knock the bloody cyclist over.

IanMK wrote:

That HGV hasn't even paid Boat Tax.

jh2727 wrote:

Bloody harbours, always coming up on the inside of HGV drivers' blind spots.

Perhaps it has a statue in the back

The sea came in while the driver was momentarily distracted.

jh2727 wrote:

Bloody harbours, always coming up on the inside of HGV drivers' blind spots.

Clearly the harbour's fault; no hi viz, no lights, no helmet.

mdavidford wrote:

Is the mistake a Yorkshireman doing anything as demonstrative as a thumbs up?

No, it's because he isn't banging on about 'ow bloody great Yorkshire is...

Indeed. What's more, he seems to be almost...smiling..?

He's got his hand out of his pocket?

You mean this isn't the Golden Age of Cycling?  I thought it didn't feel right...

Velophaart_95 wrote:

Sadly, it seems as if active travel is a battle that can't be won. Car use is far too ingrained in your average person's mind, that it will need something drastic for it to change.

During the first lockdown we kept hearing about how it was a chance for change; well guess what? Nothing has changed, in fact, it's likely worse. 

On yesterday's story about the woman driving into the Insulate Britain campaigners in her Range Rover (I think it was) all the comments were backing her, hardly anyone pointed out that you aren't allowed to bulldoze things out of your way in your 2 ton+ tractor.  Especially when those things are human beings. 

I did think that if she'd lept out of her car brandishing a kitchen knife or a cricket bat to threaten the protestors the reaction might have been different. Wielding a car as a deadly weapon seems okay.

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

Velophaart_95 wrote:

Sadly, it seems as if active travel is a battle that can't be won. Car use is far too ingrained in your average person's mind, that it will need something drastic for it to change.

During the first lockdown we kept hearing about how it was a chance for change; well guess what? Nothing has changed, in fact, it's likely worse. 

 

On yesterday's story about the woman driving into the Insulate Britain campaigners in her Range Rover (I think it was) all the comments were backing her, hardly anyone pointed out that you aren't allowed to bulldoze things out of your way in your 2 ton+ tractor.  Especially when those things are human beings. 

And of course nothing is said about those who get out of their cars and physically drag the IB protesters out of the way - Common Assault surely? But forget that, they're only assaulting bleedin' leftie tree-huggers innit.

It does seem that the police were not exactly engaging with all those people going Full Vigilante so they could take their kids to school...

Velophaart_95 wrote:

Sadly, it seems as if active travel is a battle that can't be won. Car use is far too ingrained in your average person's mind, that it will need something drastic for it to change.

During the first lockdown we kept hearing about how it was a chance for change; well guess what? Nothing has changed, in fact, it's likely worse. 

I've seen various suggestions that we've reached Peak Car. Difficult to say if that's the case. I don't think there will be a meaningful reduction in car use without better public transport and cycling infrastructure..

Other countries have shown that bold initiatives are possible - e.g. in Austria you can now get a climate ticket for a year of public transport for the whole country for €1,095.

Tom_77 wrote:

Velophaart_95 wrote:

Sadly, it seems as if active travel is a battle that can't be won. [ ... ] Nothing has changed, in fact, it's likely worse. 

I've seen various suggestions that we've reached Peak Car. Difficult to say if that's the case. I don't think there will be a meaningful reduction in car use without better public transport and cycling infrastructure..

I've commented elsewhere that for authorities to take positive action there has to be money to be gained. Unfortunately it seems that one of the "goods" of active travel is it's less expensive in both energy/resource and money terms. So it succeeding would be in contravention of some laws of economic entropy: a) things become more expensive (in terms of resource usage) over time and b) you can only get "cheaper" in one place by expending more money (resources) overall.

Despite claims on this forum I suspect none of us are in charge - indeed no-one is. But before everyone on the planet has to face the consequences of the industrial world's practices - which would come down to "there will be fewer people using fewer resources" - my betting's on something that no-one thought about appearing to change the problem landscape. Bit like how the car  EDIT internal combustion engine made the "horse emissions crisis" irrelevant.

chrisonatrike wrote:

my betting's on something that no-one thought about appearing to change the problem landscape.

Interesting idea from Austria. I think Austria may be one of the countries at COP26 arguing against financial support for developing countries. I have wondered about this as well. Would this money be better spent on changing behaviour in our own country by, for example, subsidising (and improving) public transport.

We all know that if the cost of rail between London and Glasgow was cheaper than flying very few would fly. What is the impact on Carbon reduction and what would it cost?

Velophaart_95 wrote:

Sadly, it seems as if active travel is a battle that can't be won. Car use is far too ingrained in your average person's mind, that it will need something drastic for it to change.

During the first lockdown we kept hearing about how it was a chance for change; well guess what? Nothing has changed, in fact, it's likely worse. 

20 years ago no one would have believed you could ban smoking in pubs, as smoking was too ingrained in social situations.

The political will is lacking, even though the health benefits will likely be similar to the smoking ban. (particulates, NOX, CO reduction + excercise increase) Also will benefit the economy with less cash syphoned off to oil prducing states, less hours lost to congestion.

Indeed, the number of cars is growing faster than the road's ability to keep up with them.  This is a prime example https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/family-6-forced-pay-255-25240183

Five cars in one house, and any time I have visited friends or family that live in newer housing estates most of the houses have at least 3 cars, with at least one parked out on the road/pavement and 2 on the driveways

The tabloid sites had a story yesterday where some woman was complaining because her council had put residents' parking on the street she lives on.  The household is her, her husband, two grown up daughters and one set of grandparents.

They have five cars, and can't fit them all on their off-road parking, and they're racking up "huge" parking fines "just for parking on our street".

She claims that the council never consulted with her about the RPZ (seems unlikely?) and also that when she asked the council for a residents' permit so they can park on the road she was told her household isn't eligible because they have off-road parking.

Five cars <shakes head>

EDIT - should have followed your link; this is the same story <slaps wrist>

brooksby wrote:

EDIT - should have followed your link; this is the same story <slaps wrist>

brooksby wrote:

Five cars <shakes head>

EDIT - should have followed your link; this is the same story <slaps wrist>

That's TEN cars you've now parked on this thread!