Matt seaton on BBC News and Sophie Raworth

SteveR_100Milers

Cycling England (what about Scotland and Wales?? :shock: ) piece on lunchtime news, with interview with Matt Seaton. The "news" is that the lovely Ms Raworth cycles to work, and understands that the biggest fear of non cyclists is the perceived danger. You can keep Vicky Pendleton...

It would be interesting to know just how many people would cycle for leisure and commute if there were separated lanes (that motor vehicles could not encroach upon) that were part of the road network.

dammit_peter

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

It would be interesting to know just how many people would cycle for leisure and commute if there were separated lanes (that motor vehicles could not encroach upon) that were part of the road network.

Why stop there? Let's also find out how many of those people would also like a cure for cancer or the moon on a stick.

For those of you who don't know who Sophie Raworth is, she's the posh, slightly prim one with the ample chest.

SteveR_100Milers

dammit_peter wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

It would be interesting to know just how many people would cycle for leisure and commute if there were separated lanes (that motor vehicles could not encroach upon) that were part of the road network.

Why stop there? Let's also find out how many of those people would also like a cure for cancer or the moon on a stick.

For those of you who don't know who Sophie Raworth is, she's the posh, slightly prim one with the ample chest.

There are plenty of separate cycle lanes in France that I have seen...its a question of priority. Just compare our rail network to any other western european country, or our aerospace or auto industry to get an idea of how farsighted sometimes we british are.

dammit_peter

Ask a hundred non-cyclists who want to ride a bike if they would like more cycle lanes, and the vast majority would say yes. It's a no-brainer. Which is why, contrary to what you stated, your original thought wasn't that "interesting".

Whether additional cycle lanes are the best way to deliver increased road safety is another matter.

And I prefer Pendleton.

SteveR_100Milers

dammit_peter wrote:

Ask a hundred non-cyclists who want to ride a bike if they would like more cycle lanes, and the vast majority would say yes. It's a no-brainer. Which is why, contrary to what you stated, your original thought wasn't that "interesting".

Whether additional cycle lanes are the best way to deliver increased road safety is another matter.

And I prefer Pendleton.

I doubt she'd prefer you but hey we were all born equal...

Shame you didnt actually read and understand the OP properly: I asked of those who DID NOT ride a bike WOULD, and not those who want to but won't. In the ambition of converting more people from 4 wheels to two this is subtle but important difference.
There are a lot more reasons why people dont ride a bike simply because they don't feel safe on a road. Weather for example. So if its so bleedin' obvious then quanitify your answer to my question with factual rather than a cheap shot. This is Campaign, not soapbox.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

The main reason why more people don't ride bikes is because they are too bloody lazy.
Just look at how fat this country is getting.

BigWomble

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

dammit_peter wrote:

Ask a hundred non-cyclists who want to ride a bike if they would like more cycle lanes, and the vast majority would say yes. It's a no-brainer. Which is why, contrary to what you stated, your original thought wasn't that "interesting".

Whether additional cycle lanes are the best way to deliver increased road safety is another matter.

And I prefer Pendleton.

I doubt she'd prefer you but hey we were all born equal...

Shame you didnt actually read and understand the OP properly: I asked of those who DID NOT ride a bike WOULD, and not those who want to but won't. In the ambition of converting more people from 4 wheels to two this is subtle but important difference.
There are a lot more reasons why people dont ride a bike simply because they don't feel safe on a road. Weather for example. So if its so bleedin' obvious then quanitify your answer to my question with factual rather than a cheap shot. This is Campaign, not soapbox.

Cynic's view... if more cycle paths and cycle lanes are provided, some people may decide to cycle who don't at the moment. They will buy a £50 mountain bike from a cheap shop. They will wobble about on it a bit, until they find that cycle paths and cycle lanes aren't really a solution to anything. The hills are nasty. It rains a bit. Then they will put the mountain bike at the back of the shed, and leave it there to slowly rust. Meanwhile, the regular cyclists who ARE putting the miles in will end up stuck with these (almost invariably) useless facilities, and get flak from car drivers if they don't use them.

If it ever becomes the case that the government becomes serious about more cyclists, then the following is the way to go...

Cycle training. I've had a go at just about every form of transportation invented. Cycling is way more skillfull than riding a motorbike. Yet, cycle training is neither compulsory (probably a good thing) and nor is it offered. When was the last time that your local council advertised cycle training for adults? Mine hasn't (BANES).

Safer bicycles. The modern 'safety bicycle' replaced the 'penny farthing', because it was safer. We need to devise safer bicycles. Recumbent bicycles are the best way to go, I think (although not ever likely to be £50 a go). The big problem with recumbents is that they are very expensive. And it's circular - more mountain bikes are sold, so they are mass produced, so they are cheaper, so more are sold. The government needs to sort out its strategy and just go for it.

Invent the technology to deal with hills, weather, etc. There are many different approaches, none of which is mature.

Lower the speed limit. 15/20mph is perfectly adequate around town, and in fact may be faster than going at 30/35 mph. At 15/20mph, give-way junctions are easier to get out of, and signalised junctions can be removed. At 15/20mph, cyclists can hold the centre of the traffic lane at all times. No motorcyclist has to negotiate a right turn, as cyclists do. This is one of the big problems for beginners. A 15/20mph speed limit means that cars will have to be redesigned. At the moment, they isolate the occupants from the outside world so much that 30mph in a car feels dog slow. The gearing is also wrong.

Provide secure bicycle parking. Having bought their new recumbent bicycle, the owner will be very upset if it is stolen. More so than if it was a £50 mountain bike. The template is the secure store in Leicester, which has been there for donkey's years. There is no excuse for the failure of successive governments to provide secure bicycle parking.

NFMC

I'd make cycling proficiency a compulsory for all driving tests.

You should only be allowed to drive if you know the rules of the road from the point of view of a cyclist.

This would give drivers more awareness of how and when to look out for cyclists and would also give a bit of experience of riding to non-cyclists.

Completely impractical, of course, but that's what I'd do.

nickwill

NFMC wrote:

I'd make cycling proficiency a compulsory for all driving tests.

You should only be allowed to drive if you know the rules of the road from the point of view of a cyclist.

This would give drivers more awareness of how and when to look out for cyclists and would also give a bit of experience of riding to non-cyclists.

Completely impractical, of course, but that's what I'd do.

I'd go further than that, and suggest that someone has to cycle regularly for a year and keep a log of their cycling, before they are allowed to learn to drive. There is a whole generation of teenagers starting to learn to drive with no road experience at all.( I include my own children in this.)

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Nickwill wrote:

NFMC wrote:

I'd make cycling proficiency a compulsory for all driving tests.

You should only be allowed to drive if you know the rules of the road from the point of view of a cyclist.

This would give drivers more awareness of how and when to look out for cyclists and would also give a bit of experience of riding to non-cyclists.

Completely impractical, of course, but that's what I'd do.

I'd go further than that, and suggest that someone has to cycle regularly for a year and keep a log of their cycling, before they are allowed to learn to drive. There is a whole generation of teenagers starting to learn to drive with no road experience at all.( I include my own children in this.)

Do What!?!
Keep a log for a year, just because parents like yourself haven't bothered to get their kids out on bikes?

Compulsory cycle training in schools, that's what we need.

TomF

The main reason why more people don't ride bikes is because they are too bloody lazy.
Just look at how fat this country is getting.

Agreed. just got back from Beijing. Too many cars on the roads for sure, but also plenty of bikes. I saw one (yes, serioulsly, one) fat person in the two weeks I was there.

Interestingly all children that i swa there (other than babies) were not pushed around in prams or carried by their parents, but expected to walk.

Tom

SteveR_100Milers

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

The main reason why more people don't ride bikes is because they are too bloody lazy.
Just look at how fat this country is getting.

Exactly, but no-one in the media or the government ever presents it in this way, the argument always used is that the roads are too dangerous, which IMO/IME is tosh. Its simplay about lazyman economics, and the car is just too damn cheap/easy. Even if we were to spend the £80 million or so asked for on new cycle lanes, I doubt it would have as big an impact that is being claimed on the numbers of cyclist, nor the total distance cycled in the UK each year.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

The main reason why more people don't ride bikes is because they are too bloody lazy.
Just look at how fat this country is getting.

Exactly, but no-one in the media or the government ever presents it in this way, the argument always used is that the roads are too dangerous, which IMO/IME is tosh. Its simplay about lazyman economics, and the car is just too damn cheap/easy. Even if we were to spend the £80 million or so asked for on new cycle lanes, I doubt it would have as big an impact that is being claimed on the numbers of cyclist, nor the total distance cycled in the UK each year.

Yep, politicians aren't going to tell the truth because they would upset people and lose votes. Telling people they are lazy is hardly gripping news either.

dammit_peter

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

dammit_peter wrote:

Ask a hundred non-cyclists who want to ride a bike if they would like more cycle lanes, and the vast majority would say yes. It's a no-brainer. Which is why, contrary to what you stated, your original thought wasn't that "interesting".

Whether additional cycle lanes are the best way to deliver increased road safety is another matter.

And I prefer Pendleton.

I doubt she'd prefer you but hey we were all born equal...

Shame you didnt actually read and understand the OP properly: I asked of those who DID NOT ride a bike WOULD, and not those who want to but won't. In the ambition of converting more people from 4 wheels to two this is subtle but important difference.
There are a lot more reasons why people dont ride a bike simply because they don't feel safe on a road. Weather for example. So if its so bleedin' obvious then quanitify your answer to my question with factual rather than a cheap shot. This is Campaign, not soapbox.

It's a shame you're a ringpiece of the highest order. You didn't make a distinction between those who want to ride but don't, and others who have no interest at all in cycling. I did, because nothing on earth will persuade the latter to ride, so why bother considering building cycle lanes for them?

I note with interest you haven't bothered to quantify anything. Or do you consider that to be another cheap shot?

dammit_peter

BigWomble wrote:

Recumbent bicycles are the best way to go

Your five minutes are up. Stop typing and get back in the straitjacket.

petejuk

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

The main reason why more people don't ride bikes is because they are too bloody lazy.
Just look at how fat this country is getting.

BigWomble wrote:

They will buy a £50 mountain bike from a cheap shop. They will wobble about on it a bit, until they find that cycle paths and cycle lanes aren't really a solution to anything.

Absolutely spot on.
When the lazy people described start feeling a touch of guilt or self loathing and actually want to start doing something about it, they go out and purchase a 50 pound full suspension monstrosity bike with superfat knobblies. Its no wonder they wobble around a bit and give up. I think its appalling that some of these things with 2 wheels can be called a bike and be sold as such. There should be more advice available about these bikes. Perhaps they should have some sort of advice attached like; 'warning, this item may look like a bike but will seriously disappoint if you wish it to perform like one.'

always_tyred

dammit_peter wrote:

BigWomble wrote:

Recumbent bicycles are the best way to go

Perhaps one for another thread, but it might be enlightening to hear why recumbents might be safer than a normal bike. I suspect the responses will be entertaining.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Always Tyred wrote:

Perhaps one for another thread, but it might be enlightening to hear why recumbents might be safer than a normal bike. I suspect the responses will be entertaining.

I always thought that they would be more dangerous due their inherently reduced visibility, but in practice it seems that they stand out more because they are so unusual.
Of course, if we all rode recumbents this effect would diminish.
Always fancied one.

karl j

petejuk wrote:

...
I think its appalling that some of these things with 2 wheels can be called a bike and be sold as such. There should be more advice available about these bikes. Perhaps they should have some sort of advice attached like; 'warning, this item may look like a bike but will seriously disappoint if you wish it to perform like one.'

maybe i'm a bit late replying to this post but this is absolutely right, i was looking some in good ole Tesco's the other day and they looked like nothing more than a pile of old junk. Admittedly its shiny junk (which is why they sell i guess) but junk nonetheless.

In reply to the OP, yes, i think if we had well thought out and well built cycle facilities (ie. Dutch style) then more people would take up cycling as an alternative method of transport. I doubt it'd affect numbers at the more sporty end of the spectrum though